G
Gary MS News
n00k said:
Yep same here pics load up in less the 2sec on Vista Home Prem 64
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Yep same here pics load up in less the 2sec on Vista Home Prem 64
D
Diamontina Cocktail
Jon said:It's slow out of the box, but then so is XP. If you want it to run
lightning fast then you need to tweak it.
Got any tweak suggestions?
A
Art
G
Guest
I have found that running with Virtual Memory disabled dramatically improves
performance. Apps open nearly instantaneously. With 2 GB of physical memory
most programs don't notice the abscence of VM. Now VMWare server is another
story...
performance. Apps open nearly instantaneously. With 2 GB of physical memory
most programs don't notice the abscence of VM. Now VMWare server is another
story...
G
Guest
I've found the opposite.
HP dv6000t
2.00GHz Core 2 Duo t7200
2gigs RAM
Nvidia GeForce Go 7200, 256mb
Vista Ultimate *Retail*
Boot from cold to login is just under a minute, 58 seconds or so, while
login to using programs is less than 10 seconds. Every time, including
auto-loading IM programs and Sidebar. I didn't time it when under XP Media
Center, but it is enough of an improvement to be noticable.
Perhaps the difference lies in a clean install minus all the OEM bloatware,
original drivers, and proprietary apps (HP download/support manager? No
thanks.)? Vista certainly has its new OS issues (like my brick once known as
a "printer"), but speed and stability haven't been an issue.
HP dv6000t
2.00GHz Core 2 Duo t7200
2gigs RAM
Nvidia GeForce Go 7200, 256mb
Vista Ultimate *Retail*
Boot from cold to login is just under a minute, 58 seconds or so, while
login to using programs is less than 10 seconds. Every time, including
auto-loading IM programs and Sidebar. I didn't time it when under XP Media
Center, but it is enough of an improvement to be noticable.
Perhaps the difference lies in a clean install minus all the OEM bloatware,
original drivers, and proprietary apps (HP download/support manager? No
thanks.)? Vista certainly has its new OS issues (like my brick once known as
a "printer"), but speed and stability haven't been an issue.
G
Guest
I can. I had XP SP2 and now I have Vista Ultimate (clean Install) on the same
machine (3.4 GHz P4 HT CPU, 4GB ram, NVidia 7800GT with 256MB Ram plus some
more (500 something) shared with system). Also I consider my self picky, and
I really work hard to keep my computer in shape. i didn't touch any of the
Vista settings until now, they are out of the box defaults.
For Boot times, Vista is slightly faster than XP with almost same set of
applications installed. But I can also say XP is way faster than Vista when
there are no applications installed. My Vista boots in 2 minutes now, Xp was
around 3. Vista responds within 1 minutes of logging in, for Xp that time was
2 minutes. REcovering from Hibernate is fater in Vista. And there is the
"Sleep" mode.
For Application load times, response times etc, Vista is blazing fast. My
*perceived* performance is: Vista is at least twice as fast as XP when it
comes to applications. I didn't take any measurements with applications
because their versions are mostly different now.
As a side note, all the problems -including some performance issues- I had
with Vista so far are because of drivers and applications themselves. Vista
is great, but rest of the software industry is not really ready for it. It is
getting better...
machine (3.4 GHz P4 HT CPU, 4GB ram, NVidia 7800GT with 256MB Ram plus some
more (500 something) shared with system). Also I consider my self picky, and
I really work hard to keep my computer in shape. i didn't touch any of the
Vista settings until now, they are out of the box defaults.
For Boot times, Vista is slightly faster than XP with almost same set of
applications installed. But I can also say XP is way faster than Vista when
there are no applications installed. My Vista boots in 2 minutes now, Xp was
around 3. Vista responds within 1 minutes of logging in, for Xp that time was
2 minutes. REcovering from Hibernate is fater in Vista. And there is the
"Sleep" mode.
For Application load times, response times etc, Vista is blazing fast. My
*perceived* performance is: Vista is at least twice as fast as XP when it
comes to applications. I didn't take any measurements with applications
because their versions are mostly different now.
As a side note, all the problems -including some performance issues- I had
with Vista so far are because of drivers and applications themselves. Vista
is great, but rest of the software industry is not really ready for it. It is
getting better...
G
Guest
I honestly have to say that I am DISGUSTED by the performance at start up,
logging into a new user account, and opening (My) Computer. I have reviewed
all of the performance diagnostics I could think of and found serious
problems. I have in one case waited for startup 9 min. 47 sec. according to
the warnings it logged. I have continous crashes on explorer.exe, internet
explorer.exe logged as well. This is on a default fresh install with no
software installed!!!!
I have disabled many unnecessary services, startup programs, removed
networking overhead, disabled drivers, updated drivers... and nothing helps.
I am about to pull my hair out!
I thought it may have something to do with connecting to an Active Directory
Domain, but even when I log in on a local account with no network connected,
it is still horrible.
Microsoft, PLEASE HELP.
-- Norm
logging into a new user account, and opening (My) Computer. I have reviewed
all of the performance diagnostics I could think of and found serious
problems. I have in one case waited for startup 9 min. 47 sec. according to
the warnings it logged. I have continous crashes on explorer.exe, internet
explorer.exe logged as well. This is on a default fresh install with no
software installed!!!!
I have disabled many unnecessary services, startup programs, removed
networking overhead, disabled drivers, updated drivers... and nothing helps.
I am about to pull my hair out!
I thought it may have something to do with connecting to an Active Directory
Domain, but even when I log in on a local account with no network connected,
it is still horrible.
Microsoft, PLEASE HELP.
-- Norm
G
Guest
I have 2 machines running Vista Basic. One on a laptop and one on a AMD 64
2.34 GHz HP Desktop with 1 Gig, plus using Readyboost on a 2 Gig USB stick.
I have to agree sometimes Vista is just plain slow. I've noticed videos that
were flawless in XP are somewhat jerky on the desktop, and I'm not running
Aero obviously.
That being said, I have also noticed that it is true the longer it runs the
better it gets. I've reset the desktop 3 times in hopes of making things
faster, tweaking settings, applications etc. but have not seen any
improvement. I've let the laptop sit with Vista on it for about a month.
The laptop, which hosts an Intel Centrino Duo runs beautifully. I would say
it's as fast, if not faster, than it was under XP. That machine does have
1.5 Gig and is not utilizing readyboost.
I would say the moral of the story is let it run for a few weeks.
Everything I've read on the system says it's going to run slower it's first
few days and faster later, unlike XP did. As for Aero, I still can't justify
to myself bigger hardware for eye candy. It's an OS. I'll save the eye
candy for my games, photos, and vacation videos.
2.34 GHz HP Desktop with 1 Gig, plus using Readyboost on a 2 Gig USB stick.
I have to agree sometimes Vista is just plain slow. I've noticed videos that
were flawless in XP are somewhat jerky on the desktop, and I'm not running
Aero obviously.
That being said, I have also noticed that it is true the longer it runs the
better it gets. I've reset the desktop 3 times in hopes of making things
faster, tweaking settings, applications etc. but have not seen any
improvement. I've let the laptop sit with Vista on it for about a month.
The laptop, which hosts an Intel Centrino Duo runs beautifully. I would say
it's as fast, if not faster, than it was under XP. That machine does have
1.5 Gig and is not utilizing readyboost.
I would say the moral of the story is let it run for a few weeks.
Everything I've read on the system says it's going to run slower it's first
few days and faster later, unlike XP did. As for Aero, I still can't justify
to myself bigger hardware for eye candy. It's an OS. I'll save the eye
candy for my games, photos, and vacation videos.
G
Guest
Hello,
I have DSL and have run my Vista Ultimate through a program that shows how
fast your computer is running and on High Performance I get a T1 rating, and
I don't think with DSL there is anything faster than that, at least I didn't
see anything faster. But it is best to keep it on Balanced or you will ruin
your battery, and on power saver I have a 5 hour battery life.
Sincerely,
Nanette
I have DSL and have run my Vista Ultimate through a program that shows how
fast your computer is running and on High Performance I get a T1 rating, and
I don't think with DSL there is anything faster than that, at least I didn't
see anything faster. But it is best to keep it on Balanced or you will ruin
your battery, and on power saver I have a 5 hour battery life.
Sincerely,
Nanette
O
oscar
It's over a year since these posts appeared. I'm coming late to this thread:
March 3, 2008. But in case anyway looks at this as I have this morning, I'd
like to put in my 2 cents worth.
I've found Vista to be pretty fast compared to my XP. Here's the comparisons
between the two laptops:
HP dv1000 laptop (made in 2005) with XP. I have 2 GB RAM. Most of my apps
such as Word and WinDVD will open in a flash. Before, I had 512MB Ram, and it
would take about 6-12 seconds for most apps to open. Axis and Allies seems to
run a bit faster, too. The HP wakes up or shuts down within 2 to 3 minutes.
Sony Vaio VGN 120E with Vista purchased new July 2007. It has 2 GB Ram. Most
apps such as Word and WinDVD take 4-6 seconds to open. The more I use the
apps the quicker the apps open; 2-4 seconds. The Sony Vaio wakes up or shuts
down within 2-3 minutes.
On both machines, I have uninstalled all of the bloatware, tweaked the
StartUp and have kept the desktop fairly uncluttered. Also, I only have
programs installed that I actually use on a daily or weekly basis. I also
clean up the machines at least once every two months with CCleaner or
equivalents.
Conclusion: Both machines seem to work equally as fast, but the Sony with
the Vista OS has more work to do, so I'd have to judge that Vista is doing
its job. Vista can be just as fast as XP, but it's not dazzling fast. If you
are still working with XP, I'd stay with XP until Vista smokes XP away which
may take a couple more years. As for me, I'm working with both Vista and XP,
and I applaud the efforts that Microsoft is making with Vista. Vista has some
really powerful features and should not be dimsissed outright.
oscar
March 3, 2008. But in case anyway looks at this as I have this morning, I'd
like to put in my 2 cents worth.
I've found Vista to be pretty fast compared to my XP. Here's the comparisons
between the two laptops:
HP dv1000 laptop (made in 2005) with XP. I have 2 GB RAM. Most of my apps
such as Word and WinDVD will open in a flash. Before, I had 512MB Ram, and it
would take about 6-12 seconds for most apps to open. Axis and Allies seems to
run a bit faster, too. The HP wakes up or shuts down within 2 to 3 minutes.
Sony Vaio VGN 120E with Vista purchased new July 2007. It has 2 GB Ram. Most
apps such as Word and WinDVD take 4-6 seconds to open. The more I use the
apps the quicker the apps open; 2-4 seconds. The Sony Vaio wakes up or shuts
down within 2-3 minutes.
On both machines, I have uninstalled all of the bloatware, tweaked the
StartUp and have kept the desktop fairly uncluttered. Also, I only have
programs installed that I actually use on a daily or weekly basis. I also
clean up the machines at least once every two months with CCleaner or
equivalents.
Conclusion: Both machines seem to work equally as fast, but the Sony with
the Vista OS has more work to do, so I'd have to judge that Vista is doing
its job. Vista can be just as fast as XP, but it's not dazzling fast. If you
are still working with XP, I'd stay with XP until Vista smokes XP away which
may take a couple more years. As for me, I'm working with both Vista and XP,
and I applaud the efforts that Microsoft is making with Vista. Vista has some
really powerful features and should not be dimsissed outright.
oscar
O
Owner
Every iteration of Windows has been slower then the previous with its larger
code base and enhanced capabilities.
code base and enhanced capabilities.