Why is my xp loads faster than vista,???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I am riunning XP on a low performance machine, and Vista on a brand new, far
superior maching, so, why is Vista so damn slow at doing EVERYTHING!!! and
would there be any problems with converting my new machine, to plain old,
reasonably reliable XP
 
need for speed said:
I am riunning XP on a low performance machine, and Vista on a brand new, far
superior maching, so, why is Vista so damn slow at doing EVERYTHING!!! and
would there be any problems with converting my new machine, to plain old,
reasonably reliable XP
Click to expand...
Sorry, these are my specs, not sure if its all you need>>
Processor-Intel Core 2 6400 @2.13GHz
RAM-1022mb
HD-296GB
nvidia GeForce 7300 GS
 
Was Vista on your new PC when you bought it? From a major manufacturer?
Chances are it's full of junkware. Uninstall what you can, disable the
Windows Search service, and finally get Autoruns.zip from Microsoft to make
sure your startup is clean.

I've found that raw Vista is actually pretty fast, but my HP laptop came
with so much crap I had to completely wipe it and install from scratch (and
not from HP's backup disc).

Dana Cline - MCE MVP
 
Dana Cline - MVP said:
Was Vista on your new PC when you bought it? From a major manufacturer?
Chances are it's full of junkware. Uninstall what you can, disable the
Windows Search service, and finally get Autoruns.zip from Microsoft to
make sure your startup is clean.

I've found that raw Vista is actually pretty fast, but my HP laptop came
with so much crap I had to completely wipe it and install from scratch
(and not from HP's backup disc).

Dana Cline - MCE MVP
Click to expand...


Pre-installed is usually slow due to junk. Raw is fairly impressive, to me
it was roughly on par with XP. Cleaned and tweaked a little and it performs
better than XP did for me.
 
Mine certainly seems fast, but as I've never loaded XP on this hardware,
it's kind of hard to judge. It's certainly faster than XP on any of my older
PCs <g>.

Dana Cline - MCE MVP
 
Dana Cline - MVP said:
Mine certainly seems fast, but as I've never loaded XP on this hardware,
it's kind of hard to judge. It's certainly faster than XP on any of my
older PCs <g>.

Dana Cline - MCE MVP

Lord Takyon said:
Pre-installed is usually slow due to junk. Raw is fairly impressive, to
me it was roughly on par with XP. Cleaned and tweaked a little and it
performs better than XP did for me.
Click to expand...


I have used both on this hardware, Vista is certainly an improvement.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Dana,

Maybe you can point us to Autoruns.zip.

Also ...
I have a brand new computer (purchased yesterday). I was so shocked by the
extremely slow performance that I tried (yesterday) to remove all I could,
uninstall anything that didn't look critical and turned off everything I
could in the "Turn Windows features on or off".

Nothing has helped. I've been through many Windows upgrades and I know that
each requires a bit of getting used to. I'm not anti-change -- but this is
really ridiculous.

I tried to copy a DVD (1.2 GB) to my harddrive, had so many problems (last
night) that I left it on all night. This morning, the "remaining" time was
"66 days". I kid you not. This is not "slow" this is "broken".

Any thoughts?
kevin
 
Both Gateway and Best Buy are blaming Mfst for the slow download speed, and
video rebuffering they claim is caused by Vista!

Dana Cline - MVP said:
Mine certainly seems fast, but as I've never loaded XP on this hardware,
it's kind of hard to judge. It's certainly faster than XP on any of my older
PCs <g>.

Dana Cline - MCE MVP
Click to expand...
 
Hopefully they'll get it figured out. The
microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing newsgroup may have more
info on this too...

Dana Cline - MCE MVP

TomL said:
Both Gateway and Best Buy are blaming Mfst for the slow download speed,
and
video rebuffering they claim is caused by Vista!
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top