Speed?

[Guest]

Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!

In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?

I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access queries
mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can dual
boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.

I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
this be slowing things down, this much?

 

[Richard Urban]

Personally, I have the impression that everything is faster with Vista. I am
NOT a gamer. Especially, multi-tasking is faster, I think, because of the
better memory management.

I am using an AMD Athlon 3200 Barton CPU with 2 gig of PC3200 clock 2 RAM.
The O/S is loaded to a SATA drive.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[mikeyhsd]

did you cleanup you install when it was done and you had loaded up all your programs.
only thing I find that is slower than XP 64 bit is defrag.



(e-mail address removed)



Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!

In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?

I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access queries
mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can dual
boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.

I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
this be slowing things down, this much?

 

[NewFox]

Vista is slower...

 

[John Barnett MVP]

I have to agree that, for me, Vista is slower than XP.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

 

[CoastalData]

I find that Vista is much more "responsive" -- I run an AMD 3200 with 1 GB
ram (Ok, so UPS is bringing me 2 more GBs today!) and a combination of fast,
but un-exotic ATA and SATA drives.

Additionally, I also work on Access databases, with a local front end and a
networked backend, and when I first tried this under Vista I became very
worried that this just wasn't going to fly! It was deathly slow.

But, the problem was with the network. Full Duplex doesn't seem to work?
Lock the system down to Full Duplex, 100MBit and you couldn't stand to open
the database or try to work with it, it took forever to do anything. Set the
network back to auto detect media type, and it's back to near-normal... I
suspect that "near-normal" may be half duplex, but it's usable.

There are also some other discussions on the internet about problems with
WiFi connections causing limitations on the LAN connections, so if you have
wireless on the affected station, you may want to do some Googling on the
subject.

--Jon

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

RTM does not have a lot of debugging code. Most of that was removed between
RC1 and RC2. The video drivers are still beta and that does impact
performance. There are other driver possibilities that may be responsible.
The hard drive controller driver is one I would look at.

 

[Robert Moir]

Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!

In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to
speed or lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do
faster than XP for the normal user (except deplete their checking
account)?

Hang?
Frustrate you?
Make you wonder what they're smoking in Redmond these days?

And that's just 3 areas that will work faster in Vista than in any other
version of Windows, except possibly Windows ME.

 

[Robert Moir]

I have found that by disabling SuperFetch, Windows Search Service and
ReadyBoost increased performance 200%.

In fact at a TS2 event, the instructor's pc locked up, I told him to
disable Windows Search and it freed up.

That's good to know but by the time you've disabled all that lot, and if
you've seen fancy graphics before in your lifetime and therefore aren't
overly entranced by Aero then you've got to really start questioning the
value of Vista...

 

[Hurricane Andrew]

Folding@Home runs a tad bit quicker on Vista than on XP. Also, since I
upgraded from a 128MB Radeon 9550 to a 256MB AIW 2006, I'd say Vista and XP
are neck and neck as far as everyday tasks go.

 

[Ben Enfield]

I had the same question until I recently reformatted a computer that had
been running Vista RTM for a 40 days and installed XP. Here are the
specific things I noticed:

When running Lightroom, Vista is much better at looking at many files.
When multitasking with one heavy program (like lightroom w/ 7000 photos)
changing between the heavy program and others, like IE, is much quicker in
Vista.
When running setups (Office, Lightroom, SAP2000, ETABS) the computer is much
more responsive when running other programs.
Vista speeds up a lot after running it for a few days.

This is probibly due to better memory management and management of the Core
2 duo. Note that I had 1 gig of ram, a 128 meg graphics card and a 4 gig SD
card in ReadyBoost.

Ben