Vista - How fast is it really?

[Guest]

Don't get me wrong, I like Vista. But only for its new UI. The new UI runs
perfect on my zd8000. I wish XP could have a little touch up, because
everything else Vista sucks, and sucks bad.

Performance increase with Vista over XP, PAH!! I'm dying with laughter. My
XP installation houses alot of applications and startup programs and probably
takes about 1 minute to boot. Vista takes longer. On a clean install, Vista
runs smooth. But start adding your applications and it starts to cripple. For
instance (and I know, they are beta/XP drivers) I installed ATI's Beta
Catalyst drivers basically because Microsoft's version were unstable,
constantly changing my resolution back and forth for no reason. The
installation took about 10 minutes, 10 MINUTES LOL, why so long? In XP I can
install the ATI driver in about 2 minutes. Also there’s a lot of HD activity,
what is it doing?

Second driver needed is my ZS Audigy2 Notebook sound card. After installing
the driver and software (which again takes 10-15 minutes) Vista slows to a
crawl. Startup takes forever and just to cap it off, I do not have the
ability to use Line-In or other inputs on the card. Only CD and Master Volume
(even with the beta Vista driver available from Creative) are available.
Maybe it's my card, maybe PCI cards work great, but I need it fully
functioning and since we are at RC1 I'm getting worried that I will not be
able to use my sound card to its full potential (I record and edit music).

Thirdly and finally for this little rant of mine, the time it takes to
install anything takes 10x as longer as in XP. Office, Nero, Games, I could
go on. It takes ages. Why? The HD is blasting away but the progress just goes
nowhere. And after a reboot, startup takes ages. Sometimes as long as 5
minutes before the HD slows down. The sidebar get hit the most, the bar shows
but no gadgets appear for a while.

It's a shame really. I love the new UI as I have said, I like the way the
start menu works, I like the taskbar, but performance and compatibility wise
it like buying a X86 PC in 1993 running Windows 3.1 waiting 10 minutes for it
to boot.

Any comments to my despair are welcome.

Cheers Jamie

 

[John Barnett MVP]

uninstalling applications also take an age in Vista. Yesterday i uninstalled
Expression Web Beta and it took 20 minutes. Office 2007 beta was the same.

I have to agree that peformance isn't all that good either, although with my
applications Xp takes around 2 minutes to boot, while Vista takes around 90
seconds.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.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..



--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.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..

 

[Robert Moir]

It's a shame really. I love the new UI as I have said, I like the way
the start menu works, I like the taskbar, but performance and
compatibility wise it like buying a X86 PC in 1993 running Windows
3.1 waiting 10 minutes for it to boot.

Any comments to my despair are welcome.

I think you've got a fairly fundamental configuration or driver issue in
there somewhere. I'm not seeing anything like the experience you report
and I'm running RC1 on an Apple MacBook - about as far from the "Windows
Compatible" ideal you can get.

The system could be faster in some areas. I've seen some odd performance
quirks in things like networking for sure, and some things still seem to
confuse it - that's always true of a beta though isn't it - but it's
perfectly usable and responsive.


--

 

[Steven]

And maybe RC1 isn't the final version?

uninstalling applications also take an age in Vista. Yesterday i
uninstalled Expression Web Beta and it took 20 minutes. Office 2007 beta
was the same.

I have to agree that peformance isn't all that good either, although with
my applications Xp takes around 2 minutes to boot, while Vista takes
around 90 seconds.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.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..



--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.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..

 

[Catweazle]

I have to agree with that, I had to uninstall the ATI Catalyst beta drivers
because they were not working correctly. I thought it was going to take
until new years for them to finish uninstalling. I blamed ATI at the time
but it sounds like maybe Vista is to blame now.

 

[Norman]

Two reasons for the slow boots after startup, at least IMO.

1. A lot of your tray apps are designed for winxp. Once Vista is available,
those startup apps will most likely be updated to be more compatible with
that OS, and take better advantage of the updates for speed.
2. It's beta software. It JUST reached RC1 a few weeks ago. Driver issues
are the bailwick of the manufacturers. If the driver isn't ready,
orunavailable, it's up to the OEM to develop it. If I remember right, in the
XP release, there was hardware that just wouldn't work anymore, because new
drivers were never developed.

My personal startup from login is about 1-1.5 minutes. Granted, I don't have
that many apps installed yet, but I try to keep my startup clean. I hope you
are able to get better results with your drivers. If not, you may just be
one of those that need to stay at XP or buy new hardware.

Norm.

 

[mikeyhsd]

I have found that after fully configuring vista and loading up all the garbage, deleteing the pattern files in prefetch makes a MAJOR speed improvement.
opening Explorer, going to Windows\prefetch then click on file types and the ones with the most entries can be deleted.
reboot afterward , maybe twice .
windws beginning populating the prefetch folder again immediuately.
but all the old garbage is gone.

running on Xp Pro X64 so cannot give you the file types for vista, but on XP its .pf



(e-mail address removed)



Don't get me wrong, I like Vista. But only for its new UI. The new UI runs
perfect on my zd8000. I wish XP could have a little touch up, because
everything else Vista sucks, and sucks bad.

Performance increase with Vista over XP, PAH!! I'm dying with laughter. My
XP installation houses alot of applications and startup programs and probably
takes about 1 minute to boot. Vista takes longer. On a clean install, Vista
runs smooth. But start adding your applications and it starts to cripple. For
instance (and I know, they are beta/XP drivers) I installed ATI's Beta
Catalyst drivers basically because Microsoft's version were unstable,
constantly changing my resolution back and forth for no reason. The
installation took about 10 minutes, 10 MINUTES LOL, why so long? In XP I can
install the ATI driver in about 2 minutes. Also there’s a lot of HD activity,
what is it doing?

Second driver needed is my ZS Audigy2 Notebook sound card. After installing
the driver and software (which again takes 10-15 minutes) Vista slows to a
crawl. Startup takes forever and just to cap it off, I do not have the
ability to use Line-In or other inputs on the card. Only CD and Master Volume
(even with the beta Vista driver available from Creative) are available.
Maybe it's my card, maybe PCI cards work great, but I need it fully
functioning and since we are at RC1 I'm getting worried that I will not be
able to use my sound card to its full potential (I record and edit music).

Thirdly and finally for this little rant of mine, the time it takes to
install anything takes 10x as longer as in XP. Office, Nero, Games, I could
go on. It takes ages. Why? The HD is blasting away but the progress just goes
nowhere. And after a reboot, startup takes ages. Sometimes as long as 5
minutes before the HD slows down. The sidebar get hit the most, the bar shows
but no gadgets appear for a while.

It's a shame really. I love the new UI as I have said, I like the way the
start menu works, I like the taskbar, but performance and compatibility wise
it like buying a X86 PC in 1993 running Windows 3.1 waiting 10 minutes for it
to boot.

Any comments to my despair are welcome.

Cheers Jamie

 

[Mario Rosario]

Don't get me wrong, I like Vista. But only for its new UI. The new UI runs
perfect on my zd8000. I wish XP could have a little touch up, because
everything else Vista sucks, and sucks bad.

Performance increase with Vista over XP, PAH!! I'm dying with laughter. My
XP installation houses alot of applications and startup programs and
probably
takes about 1 minute to boot. Vista takes longer. On a clean install,
Vista
runs smooth. But start adding your applications and it starts to cripple.
For
instance (and I know, they are beta/XP drivers) I installed ATI's Beta
Catalyst drivers basically because Microsoft's version were unstable,
constantly changing my resolution back and forth for no reason. The
installation took about 10 minutes, 10 MINUTES LOL, why so long? In XP I
can
install the ATI driver in about 2 minutes. Also there’s a lot of HD
activity,
what is it doing?

Vista Ultimate does require the latest and greatest hardware to handle.
Unfortunately not many of us have the luxury of upgrading every year to the
latest and bestest (best, haha) hardware.

If you look at the memory usage, Vista Ultimate uses about 500 megabytes of
memory just for the distribution. In contrast XP Pro uses about 100
megabytes, thus it weight in 5 times more. After installing Vista Ultimate,
the disk space weight in at 11 gigabytes, I repeat 11 gigabytes. I forget
how much XP is, definitly less than 4 gigabytes.

You've got a 100 lb gorilla in your hands, that may explain why Microsoft
planned lightweight editions such as Vista Basic.

I have problems with ATI drivers with Windows XP, I have a ATI X1600 and the
ATI HDTV card and it suck. I think it is ATI that needs to work on their
software.

 

[Guest]

And maybe RC1 isn't the final version?

I'm aware of that. Be it's darn close to it wouldn't you say?

Jamie

 

[Guest]

Two reasons for the slow boots after startup, at least IMO.

1. A lot of your tray apps are designed for winxp. Once Vista is available,
those startup apps will most likely be updated to be more compatible with
that OS, and take better advantage of the updates for speed.

That maybe the case. But I haven't installed aload of XP applications. Just
Nero, Office 2003, Office 2007 Beta, ATI Beta Drivers and Creative Sound
Driversoh and CA's antivirus scanner (which doesn't cripple the system).

2. It's beta software. It JUST reached RC1 a few weeks ago. Driver issues
are the bailwick of the manufacturers. If the driver isn't ready,
orunavailable, it's up to the OEM to develop it. If I remember right, in the
XP release, there was hardware that just wouldn't work anymore, because new
drivers were never developed.

Again as mentioned above to Steve, I'm aware of its status. But at RC1
level, nothing radical is going to change.

My personal startup from login is about 1-1.5 minutes. Granted, I don't have
that many apps installed yet, but I try to keep my startup clean. I hope you
are able to get better results with your drivers. If not, you may just be
one of those that need to stay at XP or buy new hardware.

Bit difficult when you have a laptop. Vista isn't worth spending
thousands on a "Vista Preimum PC"

Jamie

 

[Guest]

I have found that after fully configuring vista and loading up all the garbage, deleteing the pattern files in prefetch makes a MAJOR speed improvement.
opening Explorer, going to Windows\prefetch then click on file types and the ones with the most entries can be deleted.
reboot afterward , maybe twice .
windws beginning populating the prefetch folder again immediuately.
but all the old garbage is gone.

running on Xp Pro X64 so cannot give you the file types for vista, but on XP its .pf

Don't old prefetching files disappear when they get old? (I know that's the
case in XP. 128 files Max, oldest/unused get removed automatically). I'll
have to read up on Vista's prefetching methods.

Jamie

 

[Guest]

I have to agree with that, I had to uninstall the ATI Catalyst beta drivers
because they were not working correctly. I thought it was going to take
until new years for them to finish uninstalling. I blamed ATI at the time
but it sounds like maybe Vista is to blame now.

 

[John Barnes]

You are lucky to get the programs uninstalled. Any program I installed
using compatibility mode won't uninstall.

 

[Michael Palumbo]

Don't old prefetching files disappear when they get old? (I know that's
the
case in XP. 128 files Max, oldest/unused get removed automatically). I'll
have to read up on Vista's prefetching methods.

Jamie

Deleting the prefetch files to speed up XP is a proven MYTH. (Google it,
you'll find many sites telling you to delete the files, and just as many
telling you that you're not helping anything by doing so, and the ones that
say, "Don't do it" usually have benchmark data to prove why you should just
leave it alone.)

All deleting the files does is slow the system down for a short time until
it can recreate the prefetch files you just deleted.

Old prefetch files that have gone unused for a time do get deleted by the
system, the prefetch files speed up your system (duh) and having unused
prefetch files in the folder doesn't slow down the system since XP simply
looks for a matching pf file in the MFT for the application being loaded, it
doesn't search the folder file-by-file, as so many seem to believe. (Even
if it did, this wouldn't slow your system down unless you had thousands of
pf files in there, and that simply would never happen.)

Mic

 

[mikeyhsd]

have NEVER assn the system auto remove and old prefetch files.

have seen some with dates over months old.

only recourse has been to manually delete them.



(e-mail address removed)

I have found that after fully configuring vista and loading up all the garbage, deleteing the pattern files in prefetch makes a MAJOR speed improvement.
opening Explorer, going to Windows\prefetch then click on file types and the ones with the most entries can be deleted.
reboot afterward , maybe twice .
windws beginning populating the prefetch folder again immediuately.
but all the old garbage is gone.

running on Xp Pro X64 so cannot give you the file types for vista, but on XP its .pf

Don't old prefetching files disappear when they get old? (I know that's the
case in XP. 128 files Max, oldest/unused get removed automatically). I'll
have to read up on Vista's prefetching methods.

Jamie

 

[mikeyhsd]

if you have never tried it, then you have NO firtst hand experience. I have tried it and can say beyond a doubt that it does make a difference.

most of the people who pop us and say do not do it and it does not work are microsoft kissup who beilieve ms can do no wrong.



(e-mail address removed)

Don't old prefetching files disappear when they get old? (I know that's
the
case in XP. 128 files Max, oldest/unused get removed automatically). I'll
have to read up on Vista's prefetching methods.

Jamie

Deleting the prefetch files to speed up XP is a proven MYTH. (Google it,
you'll find many sites telling you to delete the files, and just as many
telling you that you're not helping anything by doing so, and the ones that
say, "Don't do it" usually have benchmark data to prove why you should just
leave it alone.)

All deleting the files does is slow the system down for a short time until
it can recreate the prefetch files you just deleted.

Old prefetch files that have gone unused for a time do get deleted by the
system, the prefetch files speed up your system (duh) and having unused
prefetch files in the folder doesn't slow down the system since XP simply
looks for a matching pf file in the MFT for the application being loaded, it
doesn't search the folder file-by-file, as so many seem to believe. (Even
if it did, this wouldn't slow your system down unless you had thousands of
pf files in there, and that simply would never happen.)

Mic

 

[Michael Palumbo]

if you have never tried it, then you have NO firtst hand experience. I have
tried it and can say beyond a doubt that it >does make a difference.

most of the people who pop us and say do not do it and it does not work are
microsoft kissup who beilieve ms can >do no wrong.

I KNEW someone was going to say that, and from someone that insists on using
HTML in newsgroups, no less . . .

I HAVE tried it and found NO improvement on any system(s) I've tried it on.
The only thing I recorded was slightly slower boot, and some often used
applications would take longer to start the first couple of times. Once the
pf files were recreated things went back to normal (slightly faster loads).

Are you simply going by your perceived observation or have you actually
benchmarked the load times for your applications? And not just once or
twice, you should do it several times, both before and after deleting the pf
files.

I've had people tell me their systems seem faster after (insert event here)
and it was all in their head, it just 'seemed' faster because they expected
it to be faster. To paraphrase a quote from a movie that I thought sucked;
"Show me the benchmarks!"

I've done it, and even though we're talking mere parts of a second, deleting
the pf files showed me a slower system, certainly not, "a MAJOR speed
improvement"

Even if this wonderful little myth worked in XP (again, I'm going by my own
observations and measurements, not 'just' what I've read, that it DOESN'T)
this wouldn't mean that it would also work in Vista.

If Microsoft FUBARed pre-fetching in XP, it doesn't stand to reason that it
wouldn't work properly, or better, in Vista. So telling someone they can
speed up their Vista system by deleting the pf files in Vista is a little
premature.

Mic

 

[mikeyhsd]

prefetch is a POOR attempt to fix a poorly written bloated os.

attmpts should been made to imporove the tools used to build it instead.

it has never worked correctly, leaving behind garbage for months.
it never removes entries for programs that are uninstalled.

even now they are using USB memory sticks to try and improve system speed.
another major failure.
way to many brands do not work.



send me a certified cashiers check for the cost of my system and will post in style fo YOUR choice instead of MINE.




(e-mail address removed)

if you have never tried it, then you have NO firtst hand experience. I have
tried it and can say beyond a doubt that it >does make a difference.

most of the people who pop us and say do not do it and it does not work are
microsoft kissup who beilieve ms can >do no wrong.

I KNEW someone was going to say that, and from someone that insists on using
HTML in newsgroups, no less . . .

I HAVE tried it and found NO improvement on any system(s) I've tried it on.
The only thing I recorded was slightly slower boot, and some often used
applications would take longer to start the first couple of times. Once the
pf files were recreated things went back to normal (slightly faster loads).

Are you simply going by your perceived observation or have you actually
benchmarked the load times for your applications? And not just once or
twice, you should do it several times, both before and after deleting the pf
files.

I've had people tell me their systems seem faster after (insert event here)
and it was all in their head, it just 'seemed' faster because they expected
it to be faster. To paraphrase a quote from a movie that I thought sucked;
"Show me the benchmarks!"

I've done it, and even though we're talking mere parts of a second, deleting
the pf files showed me a slower system, certainly not, "a MAJOR speed
improvement"

Even if this wonderful little myth worked in XP (again, I'm going by my own
observations and measurements, not 'just' what I've read, that it DOESN'T)
this wouldn't mean that it would also work in Vista.

If Microsoft FUBARed pre-fetching in XP, it doesn't stand to reason that it
wouldn't work properly, or better, in Vista. So telling someone they can
speed up their Vista system by deleting the pf files in Vista is a little
premature.

Mic

 

[Michael Palumbo]

prefetch is a POOR attempt to fix a poorly written bloated os.

attmpts should been made to imporove the tools used to build it instead.

it has never worked correctly, leaving behind garbage for months.
it never removes entries for programs that are uninstalled.

even now they are using USB memory sticks to try and improve system speed.
another major failure.
way to many brands do not work.



send me a certified cashiers check for the cost of my system and will post
in style fo YOUR choice instead of >MINE.



(e-mail address removed)

Ah, I see, just another Microsoft basher for the fun of bashing Microsoft.

Why is it that every time Microsoft tries (good or bad) to improve the user
experience someone has to bash the idea?

Pre-fetching is simply a way to load programs faster, if we were discussing
this same feature in Linux or on a Mac you would be asking why Microsoft
isn't using it too.

If there have been entries in your prefetch directory that are months old,
then there's either something broken (most likely due to your insistence on
deleting all the files in the directory) with the pre-fetch, or you simply
don't run enough different programs very often to have those files purged.
If there aren't enough new pf files created to push the old ones out, they’ll
just sit there (it keeps up to 128 pf files, so if you regularly only run a
total of 30 programs, and the 31st has been uninstalled, it won't push that
file out, plus it will never be updated since it's not possible to run an
uninstalled program.)

And how is using a USB stick to improve system speed a 'failure?' Sure,
it's a silly way to do it, but let's say you have a system that can only
install 2GB of RAM on the board and you have the option to stick a fast
flash-drive in your USB port to gain more RAM? Maybe not as fast as a true
RAM stick or two, but still, more, but slower, RAM is still faster than
paging to a hard drive. I'll never use it, I don't run enough large, or
multiple programs to fill up the RAM I have so I see no need on my system,
but it's nice to know I could stick a USB flash drive in my system if I need
a little boost in speed, or working RAM, for whatever reason

Oh, and as to the sticks that don't work for this boost, it depends on the
speed. If the flash-ram is no faster than paging to a hard drive for
whatever reason then there is no point to using that FR, right? Remember,
very cheap flash-ram usually means very-slow flash-ram. Fine for portable
storage, but lousy to use as extra RAM.

To conclude, I only brought up the HTML posting because it has been well
established in Usenet, and has spilled over to private newsgroups like
these, that posting in HTML is considered rude and unnecessary. While most
modern news-readers can handle it, some still can't, plus it's easier on the
eyes when posts are in plain text, editing for reply is easier and again,
it's just the excepted standard for newsgroup posting.

I'm sure one day, when those of us that have been using Usenet and
newsgroups for the past 20+ years finally give up on it, HTML will be just
fine, just like top-posting is becoming more and more ignored for its lack
of newsgroup etiquette, but in the here-and-now HTML posting simply shows
either that you're not nearly as computer savvy as you purport to be, or
you're simply so self-involved that you can't give up that silly, scrolling
email address on your posts to use what most consider standard, polite
posting etiquette.

I never thought I'd have to <PLONK> anyone in a private newsgroup, but
anything and everything is possible.

Mic

 

[Kevin Kewell]

Jamie,

Touch up XP! Get a new look by downloading the Royale and Nile themes from
Microsoft. Install the Royale theme but get rid of its miserable wallpaper
by installing Nile Theme to use Nile Theme wallpaper, then put the polish on
all this by using Nile screensaver. Then in Display Properties /appearance/
advanced, reduce active window down to 21 and you get what XP should have
looked like in the first place. That'll keep you happy until Vista SP1?

Kevin K