Disappointed in Vista..

I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand new
also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just have to
say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer for it was a
brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce w/256mb Vid(retail
version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then with XP and shut down which
really doesn't matter is also much longer, not big things I know but running
apps is also much much slower, I've tweaked Vista everyway I know and
researched and it's just a slow OS. Very disappointing, if I had to compare
it to something I would say it's like dial up vs Cable, definitely a step
backwards, computers are faster then they have ever been and Operating
Systems should have followed suite.. One real indicator that people are
disappointed in Vista is XP is STILL being offered in new computers,
something you have never seen before, once Windows, Win 95, Win 98 and XP
came out the earlier OS's stopped being offered a month or two after the new
one was released but here we are 9 months later and XP is still an option,
may I add a option I am going for with the order of 2 new Notebooks today
from Dell. I HOPE MS has some answers when it releases it's first Service
Pack but to be honest I truly feel it won't..

Vista Business & Ultimate work fine on my PC - I built the computer in
February and its only XP that's caused me problems since then.

Intel Core 2 Duo e6600
2GB Corsair Dominator @ 1066MHz Ram
2 x 320GB Barracuda HDDs in RAID 0
2x XFX 8800GTX Graphics Cards
850W PSU
....and plenty of fans

"Paul T" <> wrote in message
news:021E9962-2F30-4158-B38E-...
>I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand new
>also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just have to
>say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer for it was a
>brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce w/256mb Vid(retail
>version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then with XP and shut down which
>really doesn't matter is also much longer, not big things I know but
>running apps is also much much slower, I've tweaked Vista everyway I know
>and researched and it's just a slow OS. Very disappointing, if I had to
>compare it to something I would say it's like dial up vs Cable, definitely
>a step backwards, computers are faster then they have ever been and
>Operating Systems should have followed suite.. One real indicator that
>people are disappointed in Vista is XP is STILL being offered in new
>computers, something you have never seen before, once Windows, Win 95, Win
>98 and XP came out the earlier OS's stopped being offered a month or two
>after the new one was released but here we are 9 months later and XP is
>still an option, may I add a option I am going for with the order of 2 new
>Notebooks today from Dell. I HOPE MS has some answers when it releases
>it's first Service Pack but to be honest I truly feel it won't..

Open Device Manager (its in the Control Panel) and then
right-click on your hard drive (under Disk Drives). Click
on "Policies" and make sure there are check marks next to
"Optimize for Performance", "Enable write caching on
the disk", and "Enable advanced performance", then click OK.

Next, perform a Disk Cleanup:

Click on the blue Vista start button and then on the Computer
entry in the Start Menu. Right-click on your hard drive and
select Properties > Disk Cleanup > Files from all users.....
More Options > Clean Up (System Restore and Shadow Copies).

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul T" <> wrote in message
news:021E9962-2F30-4158-B38E-...
I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand new
also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just have to
say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer for it was a
brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce w/256mb Vid(retail
version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then with XP and shut down which
really doesn't matter is also much longer, not big things I know but running
apps is also much much slower, I've tweaked Vista everyway I know and
researched and it's just a slow OS. Very disappointing, if I had to compare
it to something I would say it's like dial up vs Cable, definitely a step
backwards, computers are faster then they have ever been and Operating
Systems should have followed suite.. One real indicator that people are
disappointed in Vista is XP is STILL being offered in new computers,
something you have never seen before, once Windows, Win 95, Win 98 and XP
came out the earlier OS's stopped being offered a month or two after the new
one was released but here we are 9 months later and XP is still an option,
may I add a option I am going for with the order of 2 new Notebooks today
from Dell. I HOPE MS has some answers when it releases it's first Service
Pack but to be honest I truly feel it won't..

in my opinion vista works better when it is not under a dual boot
configuration. i beta tested in under a dual boot configuration and the boot
up times kept getting longer and longer, all the way up to 15 to 20 seconds.
even the xp boot up times increased by a lot. when i did a non dual boot
configuration the boot up times were just fine. my zd8000 ran vista a lot
better tthan it did with XP though. its just to bad that nothing is
compatible with vista yet.

i agree there still are computers still availible with XP on them, but most
of the ones that i see for sale have vista on them. i noticed that all of
the PCs from the " HP home and home office store" have vista on them now a
days. those were availible with vista as soon as that OS came out. you can
not go back to XP with any of those computers. yet with all of the computers
at the "HP small and medium business" still have the option of coming with
windows XP on them, but at the same time you can get vista on them if you
wish. in my opnion vista was just released to early and needs a lot more
work...

"Paul T" <> wrote in message
news:021E9962-2F30-4158-B38E-...
>I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand new
>also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just have to
>say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer for it was a
>brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce w/256mb Vid(retail
>version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then with XP and shut down which
>really doesn't matter is also much longer, not big things I know but
>running apps is also much much slower, I've tweaked Vista everyway I know
>and researched and it's just a slow OS. Very disappointing, if I had to
>compare it to something I would say it's like dial up vs Cable, definitely
>a step backwards, computers are faster then they have ever been and
>Operating Systems should have followed suite.. One real indicator that
>people are disappointed in Vista is XP is STILL being offered in new
>computers, something you have never seen before, once Windows, Win 95, Win
>98 and XP came out the earlier OS's stopped being offered a month or two
>after the new one was released but here we are 9 months later and XP is
>still an option, may I add a option I am going for with the order of 2 new
>Notebooks today from Dell. I HOPE MS has some answers when it releases
>it's first Service Pack but to be honest I truly feel it won't..

Paul T wrote:
> I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand
> new also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just
> have to say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer
> for it was a brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce
> w/256mb Vid(retail version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then
> with XP and shut down which really doesn't matter is also much longer,
> not big things I know but running apps is also much much slower, I've
> tweaked Vista everyway I know and researched and it's just a slow OS.
> Very disappointing, if I had to compare it to something I would say
> it's like dial up vs Cable, definitely a step backwards, computers
> are faster then they have ever been and Operating Systems should have
> followed suite.. One real indicator that people are disappointed in
> Vista is XP is STILL being offered in new computers, something you
> have never seen before, once Windows, Win 95, Win 98 and XP came out
> the earlier OS's stopped being offered a month or two after the new
> one was released but here we are 9 months later and XP is still an
> option, may I add a option I am going for with the order of 2 new
> Notebooks today from Dell. I HOPE MS has some answers when it
> releases it's first Service Pack but to be honest I truly feel it won't..
answers? ah, MS is too large and too much of a monopoly to feel
obligated to provide answers. What you see is what you get. They are
resting on their laurels.

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:FF0BB83B-7AB9-4980-9601-...
> Open Device Manager (its in the Control Panel) and then
> right-click on your hard drive (under Disk Drives). Click
> on "Policies" and make sure there are check marks next to
> "Optimize for Performance", "Enable write caching on
> the disk", and "Enable advanced performance", then click OK.
>
> Next, perform a Disk Cleanup:
>
> Click on the blue Vista start button and then on the Computer
> entry in the Start Menu. Right-click on your hard drive and
> select Properties > Disk Cleanup > Files from all users.....
> More Options > Clean Up (System Restore and Shadow Copies).
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried this but when I go back to check I find Vista has not saved my
requested changes...can you recommend anything to do?

Please explain when you say "nothing is compatible with Vista yet".

***NOTHING*** ???????????????????

You are obviously exaggerating a bit here.

--


Regards,

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


"Steven Wabik" <> wrote in message
news:%23uZYQ4U$...
> in my opinion vista works better when it is not under a dual boot
> configuration. i beta tested in under a dual boot configuration and the
> boot up times kept getting longer and longer, all the way up to 15 to 20
> seconds. even the xp boot up times increased by a lot. when i did a non
> dual boot configuration the boot up times were just fine. my zd8000 ran
> vista a lot better tthan it did with XP though. its just to bad that
> nothing is compatible with vista yet.
>
> i agree there still are computers still availible with XP on them, but
> most of the ones that i see for sale have vista on them. i noticed that
> all of the PCs from the " HP home and home office store" have vista on
> them now a days. those were availible with vista as soon as that OS came
> out. you can not go back to XP with any of those computers. yet with all
> of the computers at the "HP small and medium business" still have the
> option of coming with windows XP on them, but at the same time you can get
> vista on them if you wish. in my opnion vista was just released to early
> and needs a lot more work...
>
> "Paul T" <> wrote in message
> news:021E9962-2F30-4158-B38E-...
>>I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand new
>>also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just have to
>>say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer for it was a
>>brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce w/256mb Vid(retail
>>version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then with XP and shut down
>>which really doesn't matter is also much longer, not big things I know but
>>running apps is also much much slower, I've tweaked Vista everyway I know
>>and researched and it's just a slow OS. Very disappointing, if I had to
>>compare it to something I would say it's like dial up vs Cable,
>>definitely a step backwards, computers are faster then they have ever been
>>and Operating Systems should have followed suite.. One real indicator that
>>people are disappointed in Vista is XP is STILL being offered in new
>>computers, something you have never seen before, once Windows, Win 95, Win
>>98 and XP came out the earlier OS's stopped being offered a month or two
>>after the new one was released but here we are 9 months later and XP is
>>still an option, may I add a option I am going for with the order of 2 new
>>Notebooks today from Dell. I HOPE MS has some answers when it releases
>>it's first Service Pack but to be honest I truly feel it won't..
>
>

well, i was exaggerating i guess, but overall it is true. in my experinces
in vista, even some "vista capable" or "vista certified" software has issues
running under vista. some applications that i had that were made for XP or
older operating systems ran better even if they were not ran in
compatibility mode at times. but still most applications had issues in one
place or another. i usually have to report 5 or more error reports a day,
and that does not include duplicate reports for the same error happening for
the same thing happening again and again. this one "vista certified"
application that i had could not even start up in vista at all. it kept
having some configuration script error and crashing and not giving an error
report. but in windows XP it ran just fine. i would expect issues like
from the beta version but not from the final release.
"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:eag7kXW$...
> Please explain when you say "nothing is compatible with Vista yet".
>
> ***NOTHING*** ???????????????????
>
> You are obviously exaggerating a bit here.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
> "Steven Wabik" <> wrote in message
> news:%23uZYQ4U$...
>> in my opinion vista works better when it is not under a dual boot
>> configuration. i beta tested in under a dual boot configuration and the
>> boot up times kept getting longer and longer, all the way up to 15 to 20
>> seconds. even the xp boot up times increased by a lot. when i did a non
>> dual boot configuration the boot up times were just fine. my zd8000 ran
>> vista a lot better tthan it did with XP though. its just to bad that
>> nothing is compatible with vista yet.
>>
>> i agree there still are computers still availible with XP on them, but
>> most of the ones that i see for sale have vista on them. i noticed that
>> all of the PCs from the " HP home and home office store" have vista on
>> them now a days. those were availible with vista as soon as that OS came
>> out. you can not go back to XP with any of those computers. yet with all
>> of the computers at the "HP small and medium business" still have the
>> option of coming with windows XP on them, but at the same time you can
>> get vista on them if you wish. in my opnion vista was just released to
>> early and needs a lot more work...
>>
>> "Paul T" <> wrote in message
>> news:021E9962-2F30-4158-B38E-...
>>>I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand
>>>new also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just
>>>have to say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer for
>>>it was a brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce w/256mb
>>>Vid(retail version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then with XP and
>>>shut down which really doesn't matter is also much longer, not big things
>>>I know but running apps is also much much slower, I've tweaked Vista
>>>everyway I know and researched and it's just a slow OS. Very
>>>disappointing, if I had to compare it to something I would say it's like
>>>dial up vs Cable, definitely a step backwards, computers are faster then
>>>they have ever been and Operating Systems should have followed suite..
>>>One real indicator that people are disappointed in Vista is XP is STILL
>>>being offered in new computers, something you have never seen before,
>>>once Windows, Win 95, Win 98 and XP came out the earlier OS's stopped
>>>being offered a month or two after the new one was released but here we
>>>are 9 months later and XP is still an option, may I add a option I am
>>>going for with the order of 2 new Notebooks today from Dell. I HOPE MS
>>>has some answers when it releases it's first Service Pack but to be
>>>honest I truly feel it won't..
>>
>>
>

I have Vista Ultimate on a dual boot (separate HDDS) with XP on a single
core P4-2.6Ghz/2GB/512MB Video.
It really is interesting because the Vista HDD is SATA and the XP drive is
EIDE, but XP Pro runs the same programs a little faster and is 30 seconds
quicker booting.
I turn off all the eye candy. I have no sliding menus, shadows, AERO, etc.
and use classic menus.
While I haven't had any real issues with Vista and my hardware; I dislike
UAC and I dislike the rearranging of the system and calling it security.
Those that like the Fisher-Price front end and AOL back end (Oh please,
Please, PLEASE protect me from myself at all costs) swear by Vista.
I just swear AT IT every time I get an unnecessary prompt.
Putting the ignition switch in the trunk may make a car harder to steal
(better security), but it doesn't make it user friendly!
If you have made sure there are not un needed programs running at startup,
you may need to look at other settings and programs installed.
Non compatible software can cause it to be slow.

With Vista, MS has done what no other software maker has been able to do,
make me look at other OSs.
I'm learning & deploying other software because I think MS is headed in the
wrong direction and I don't want to go there!
--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!

Change Alpha to Numeric to reply
"Paul T" <> wrote in message
news:021E9962-2F30-4158-B38E-...
>I have had Vista now since February on my Dell Home PC which was brand new
>also in Feb, I'm running a dual boot with separate HDs and I just have to
>say Vista is just flat out SLOW.. No it's not the my computer for it was a
>brand new Dell E520 with 2gig of ram and nVidia GeForce w/256mb Vid(retail
>version). Booting up takes 3 times as long then with XP and shut down which
>really doesn't matter is also much longer, not big things I know but
>running apps is also much much slower, I've tweaked Vista everyway I know
>and researched and it's just a slow OS. Very disappointing, if I had to
>compare it to something I would say it's like dial up vs Cable, definitely
>a step backwards, computers are faster then they have ever been and
>Operating Systems should have followed suite.. One real indicator that
>people are disappointed in Vista is XP is STILL being offered in new
>computers, something you have never seen before, once Windows, Win 95, Win
>98 and XP came out the earlier OS's stopped being offered a month or two
>after the new one was released but here we are 9 months later and XP is
>still an option, may I add a option I am going for with the order of 2 new
>Notebooks today from Dell. I HOPE MS has some answers when it releases
>it's first Service Pack but to be honest I truly feel it won't..

Steven Wabik wrote:

> well, i was exaggerating i guess, but overall it is true.

It is? That is not what most Vista users experience.

in my experinces
> in vista, even some "vista capable" or "vista certified" software has issues
> running under vista.

Which ones and what are you seeing?

some applications that i had that were made for XP or
> older operating systems ran better even if they were not ran in
> compatibility mode at times. but still most applications had issues in one
> place or another.

You're running RTM of Vista Ultimate, correct? You need to be specific
about your issues with Vista. So far, you've not specifically named one
app or one issue you've supposedly had or are having.

i usually have to report 5 or more error reports a day,
> and that does not include duplicate reports for the same error happening for
> the same thing happening again and again. this one "vista certified"
> application that i had could not even start up in vista at all. it kept
> having some configuration script error and crashing and not giving an error
> report. but in windows XP it ran just fine. i would expect issues like
> from the beta version but not from the final release.

And that app was?
You need to be specific or else you're just sounding like a whining troll.
We can't help whining trolls...lol!
Frank