DISAPPOINTING PERFORMANCE - BACK TO XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter William
  • Start date Start date
W

William

I bought a new Dell laptop when Vista first came out and after struggling with
this very slick operating system, I am ready to throw in the towel and install
XP. My main complaint is poor performance. I've stripped away most of the slick
features that ate into the performance of my machine and still I am unsatisfied.
Needless to say, I have made all the modifications I could find in the various
newsgroups and Internet websites which promised a Vista performance boost, but I
am still disappointed. Am I missing something here or is flash all that most
people appreciate?
-Bill
 
I bought a new Dell laptop when Vista first came out and after struggling with
this very slick operating system, I am ready to throw in the towel and install
XP. My main complaint is poor performance. I've stripped away most of the slick
features that ate into the performance of my machine and still I am unsatisfied.
Needless to say, I have made all the modifications I could find in the various
newsgroups and Internet websites which promised a Vista performance boost, but I
am still disappointed. Am I missing something here or is flash all that most
people appreciate?
-Bill
Click to expand...
Add more memory, most systems come with 512 or even 1 meg of memory.
Going to 2 meg of memory will make a HUGE difference!
Also stop shouting, all caps is considered shouting.
Thanks
 
Add more memory, most systems come with 512 or even 1 meg of memory.
Going to 2 meg of memory will make a HUGE difference!
Also stop shouting, all caps is considered shouting.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Like I said, "I have made all the modifications...", and my laptop already had
2GB of RAM. I guess it depends on what one does with the computer and what kind
of performance one is used to. -Bill
PS. The "shouting" was done on purpose, to make a point and not to be rude.
Scolding a newsgroup user IS rude!
 
William, I doubt we'll ever see the words "fast" and "Vista" used in the
same breath. I wonder if I'll live long enough to see ANY OS come out
of Redmond that runs faster than it's predessors. Boy, can u just
IMAGINE how fast DOS 6.22 would be on a modern PC?? We could bring up
Lotus 1-2-3 in .0001 seconds! LOL.

I like the look of Vista, but I too am disappointed with it's various
"warts". Like 'search' for example. It does not work as advertised, as
I've mentioned on MPWVG. I certainly would never consider replacing an
XP installation with Vista. That would be lunacy, IMHO.

Dave
 
William - I have installed several versions of Vista (Home Premium and
Ultimate) and am very sastisifed.

The statement "...My main complaint is poor performance..." is very general
and cannot be address logically - please do not expect readers to "read
between the lines" - are you referring to slow boot, shutdown, apllication
installation and/or running, sound and/or video performance and so forth.
 
Vista runs faster in ALL aspects on my machine then XP ever did. Mostly
because of improved memory management, and off loading the desktop to the
GPU.

Kurt
 
Kurt said:
Vista runs faster in ALL aspects on my machine then XP ever did.
Mostly because of improved memory management, and off loading the
desktop to the GPU.

Kurt
Click to expand...
that's the FIRST comment of that nature I have run across regarding
Vista vs XP. Amazing!!!

Dave
 
Let me make it clear for those who do not want to accept the generalization
"poor performance". In your multiple choice question below, I must respond with,
all of the above.

I compare a fully loaded Vista/Dell Core2 Duo laptop to a XP/Dell P3/3.6Ghz
desktop to a W2k/Dell P3/1Ghz desktop. I use all three computers on a regular
basis, which are connected to the same network and running most of the same or
similar software and database. The XP runs most everything in the blink of an
eye, the W2K somewhat slower but still amazingly fast for a machine that is 7
years old (perhaps a blink and a half). The Vista on the other hand, although
fun to use, awesome features and graphics, Aero, Transparency etc. but
performance wise, it's a dog. I find myself twiddling my thumbs waiting for
things to happen. Depending on the application I am running, it can run from
simply a bit on the sluggish side to downright annoying.

You may want to say this is not a very scientific or accurate assessment or
study of Vista as an operating system, but it is MY impression of Vista after
using it for six months. Add to the performance issues are the many bugs that
are inherent in a new O/S, I am surprised that Microsoft is able to sell this
product all together. How on earth the new computer user is managing with Vista
is beyond my understanding. I think Dell has already recognized this as their
entire business line of computers is available with either XP or Vista
installed. And as a matter of fact, Dell recommends Microsoft XP in their XPS
720's as performance is paramount in those high end gaming models. I think Dell
is the only computer company to continue offering XP in their computers.

There are a lot of other issues with Vista that are well beyond the scope of
this posting. I am disappointed, that's all. -Bill
 
Hah hah hah, yeah, Dave. Kurt must be on the Microsoft payroll or he was running
XP on an Apple.
-Bill
 
I have heard of it several times, it is not common but it does happen
and is possible.
Those that feel (not referring to you) claims such as this are lies
need to be prepared to prove it, which of course the can't.
 
Vista runs faster in ALL aspects on my machine then XP ever did. Mostly
because of improved memory management, and off loading the desktop to the
GPU.
Click to expand...

Having tested Vista Business on 14 different platforms here, mostly high
end Xeon CPU systems, I can state that XP runs much faster for all
applications and games then Vista on the same box. Apps and games ever
run faster on 2003 Server than under Vista.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Depends what you mean by "faster". I've notice my games (HL2, Doom 3 ect...)
are maybe 5 fps SLOWER, BUT, the levels load faster, and there is less
stuttering in the game. It 's MUCH smoother. In my book, that IS faster. I
was even able to boost the res I ran Doom 3 in (could only stand 800 x 600
in XP) to my native desktop res of 1152x864, and it still seems smoother
then it was at 800 x 600 on XP.

Also I often work with 200 meg Photoshop files, and all the operations
(load, saving, undo, brushwork, is noticeably faster, as well as the
ray-tracing I do in Truespace 7.5.

My NVidia 6600GT video card, while somewhat old, still does DX9 and OGL
really well. It was REAL slow when Vista first came out, because NVidias
drivers at the time had no OGL hardware acceleration. But that unhappy state
lasted about a week (for me), until they got a better set of drivers out.

I do have 2gigs of ram, so I'm sure that makes a difference, but I also had
the same 2 gigs with XP.

Kurt
 
Depends what you mean by "faster". I've notice my games (HL2, Doom 3 ect...)
are maybe 5 fps SLOWER, BUT, the levels load faster, and there is less
stuttering in the game. It 's MUCH smoother. In my book, that IS faster. I
was even able to boost the res I ran Doom 3 in (could only stand 800 x 600
in XP) to my native desktop res of 1152x864, and it still seems smoother
then it was at 800 x 600 on XP.

Also I often work with 200 meg Photoshop files, and all the operations
(load, saving, undo, brushwork, is noticeably faster, as well as the
ray-tracing I do in Truespace 7.5.

My NVidia 6600GT video card, while somewhat old, still does DX9 and OGL
really well. It was REAL slow when Vista first came out, because NVidias
drivers at the time had no OGL hardware acceleration. But that unhappy state
lasted about a week (for me), until they got a better set of drivers out.

I do have 2gigs of ram, so I'm sure that makes a difference, but I also had
the same 2 gigs with XP.
Click to expand...

In general, everything is slower, on the same hardware that XP was
running on.

I've tried GuildWars and a couple others, almost unplayable on Vista,
smooth as glass on XP/2003...

Office, Photoshop, VS.Net, etc... all faster on XP/2003 than on Vista,
even with 4GB RAM.

In testing, the fastest machine gets strong 5.x scores on all except
video, getting a 1.0 to 1.3, I can only suspect that the 128MB Video
card is the thing that brings Vista down - funny thing is that the card
performs blindingly fast under XP/2003...

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Yeah, that video score is REAL low. My 6600gt is scored at 4.8 for gaming,
and 4.9 for desktop. Are your drivers OK and up to date? The 6600gt only has
128 megs as well. But Vista grabs another 240 megs of system memory for the
video, for a total of 368 megs, so that would explain the lack of texture
thrashing I'm experiencing. XP doesn't allot any onboard memory to augment
your video cards memory. My cards an AGP 8x , BTW.

Kurt
 
you aren't alone the problem is that you got had by dell, i've notice that
when i bought mine that dell was giving a underpowered computer so i went
with another computer instead, it was underpowered also but much better
price and all i needed to do for me to have decent computer was more ram i
went from 2 512mb to 2 1gb and since then it's really nice but still kept
the feature that ate up the performance away off. it;s the manufactor fault
and it's not only dell, others are doing it, cuz they want to get rid of
there old pc so they put few upgrades and sell them as if they were capable
of running vista with ease.

sorry for reposting this but i found out i was clicking the wrong button i
was sending my reply to the actually person but i wanted the group to see
it, that's why it's here again.
 
Whatever updates were sent down from MS in the past few weeks seemed to
cause the slows to disappear from my high end HP laptop.

It no longer takes 2 minutes to empty the recycle bin! Yahooooo!
 
Gotta say I agree Kurt. I think what bothers most XP users is that MS came
out with a newer system to replace an OS(XP) that has been the best so
far....BRV
 
seems like you need to keep updating lol.....
how big files in recycle bin big? or real small?
 
Those that like Windows XP have nothing to worry about since it will
probably be supported for several more years.
 
Back
Top