performance

Hello I have two computers with intel duo core 2 with 2gb ram.

One has XP prof the other vista ultimate.

I use a statistics software which does a series of calculations.

It takes about 40 seconds on the xp machine but about 90 on the vista
machine....


Why is that? How can I solve this problem?

XP is faster than Vista. It has always been the way when a new version of
Windows arrives. I remember people complaining bitterly that XP was much
slower than Windows 2000 and Windows 98 when it first arrived on the scene.

If this is a problem for you I suggest that you stick with XP or use a
higher spec PC for Vista.
--
Chris Blake


"exciter" wrote:

> Hello I have two computers with intel duo core 2 with 2gb ram.
>
> One has XP prof the other vista ultimate.
>
> I use a statistics software which does a series of calculations.
>
> It takes about 40 seconds on the xp machine but about 90 on the vista
> machine....
>
>
> Why is that? How can I solve this problem?
>
>
>

this should not be the case...
vista is much slower to issue my statsitics computation.
This cannot be due entirely to the op. system.
Or, maybe it is but then somewhere I am supposed to change a setting for how
a program works....

I remember an option that reads sth like: "Give priority to this progtam to
use system resources"..

What was that?
Can that solve my problem?





"Fearful1138" <> wrote in message
news:3C185EC2-2889-48EF-A21B-...
> XP is faster than Vista. It has always been the way when a new version of
> Windows arrives. I remember people complaining bitterly that XP was much
> slower than Windows 2000 and Windows 98 when it first arrived on the
> scene.
>
> If this is a problem for you I suggest that you stick with XP or use a
> higher spec PC for Vista.
> --
> Chris Blake
>
>
> "exciter" wrote:
>
>> Hello I have two computers with intel duo core 2 with 2gb ram.
>>
>> One has XP prof the other vista ultimate.
>>
>> I use a statistics software which does a series of calculations.
>>
>> It takes about 40 seconds on the xp machine but about 90 on the vista
>> machine....
>>
>>
>> Why is that? How can I solve this problem?
>>
>>
>>

"exciter" wrote in message news:...
> this should not be the case...
> vista is much slower to issue my statsitics computation.
> This cannot be due entirely to the op. system.
> Or, maybe it is but then somewhere I am supposed to change a setting for
> how a program works....
>
> I remember an option that reads sth like: "Give priority to this progtam
> to use system resources"..
>
> What was that?
> Can that solve my problem?
>
> "Fearful1138" wrote in message...
>> XP is faster than Vista. It has always been the way when a new version of
>> Windows arrives. I remember people complaining bitterly that XP was much
>> slower than Windows 2000 and Windows 98 when it first arrived on the
>> scene.
>>
>> If this is a problem for you I suggest that you stick with XP or use a
>> higher spec PC for Vista.
>>
>>
>> "exciter" wrote:
>>
>>> Hello I have two computers with intel duo core 2 with 2gb ram.
>>>
>>> One has XP prof the other vista ultimate.
>>>
>>> I use a statistics software which does a series of calculations.
>>>
>>> It takes about 40 seconds on the xp machine but about 90 on the vista
>>> machine....
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that? How can I solve this problem?
>>>

Every new Windows OS has been slower, at first. Vista is no exception. SP1
is about to reach Windows Update, and that should resolve a lot of issues.

However, Vista needs more RAM to work well. Ultimate on a Duo Core should
have 4gb. Vista Home Basic 'works' with a half-gig, but works better with
1g, and works best with 2g. Ultimate needs more, especially if you use Aero
Themes with full transparency.

2 gb is enough i think and it already works smoothly...
why one needs 4?

I can play games smoothly and etc....

It is only strange that my statsitics program is slow...

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:16:03 +0100, "exciter" <>
wrote:

> 2 gb is enough i think and it already works smoothly...


For *you*


> why one needs 4?


How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
applications find that somewhere around 2GB works well, but some
people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images or doing video editing, can see a performance
boost by adding much more.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

> How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> applications find that somewhere around 2GB works well, but some
> people, particularly those doing things like editing large
> photographic images or doing video editing, can see a performance
> boost by adding much more.

This is what I also think. But my point has nothing to do with ram as I
mentioned above....
Games which needs high performance works well, but only my statistics
program does not....

I am only asking a simple, specific question.
Why are we discussing this fastness anyway....

I am seeking an answer t my problem.
Why my statistics program works slower while it is supposed to work fast...

That may be a question that only the supplier of the program can provide a
real answer to.
Without knowing the specifics of the program, any answer given will just be
a guess.
Is the program Vista compatible?

--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!

Change Alpha to Numeric to reply
"exciter" <> wrote in message
news:7D60632D-E5FD-4172-A056-...
>> How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
>> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
>> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
>> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
>> applications find that somewhere around 2GB works well, but some
>> people, particularly those doing things like editing large
>> photographic images or doing video editing, can see a performance
>> boost by adding much more.
>
> This is what I also think. But my point has nothing to do with ram as I
> mentioned above....
> Games which needs high performance works well, but only my statistics
> program does not....
>
> I am only asking a simple, specific question.
> Why are we discussing this fastness anyway....
>
> I am seeking an answer t my problem.
> Why my statistics program works slower while it is supposed to work
> fast...
>

Yes it is compatiable.
Work fine but just slow at calculations.
And the calculations are not hard ones...
If compared to what the games are calculating.





"Not Me" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> That may be a question that only the supplier of the program can provide a
> real answer to.
> Without knowing the specifics of the program, any answer given will just
> be a guess.
> Is the program Vista compatible?
>
> --
> A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!
>
> Change Alpha to Numeric to reply
> "exciter" <> wrote in message
> news:7D60632D-E5FD-4172-A056-...
>>> How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
>>> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
>>> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
>>> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
>>> applications find that somewhere around 2GB works well, but some
>>> people, particularly those doing things like editing large
>>> photographic images or doing video editing, can see a performance
>>> boost by adding much more.
>>
>> This is what I also think. But my point has nothing to do with ram as I
>> mentioned above....
>> Games which needs high performance works well, but only my statistics
>> program does not....
>>
>> I am only asking a simple, specific question.
>> Why are we discussing this fastness anyway....
>>
>> I am seeking an answer t my problem.
>> Why my statistics program works slower while it is supposed to work
>> fast...
>>
>
>

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:00:25 +0100, "exciter" <>
wrote:

> > How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
> > one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> > RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> > what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> > applications find that somewhere around 2GB works well, but some
> > people, particularly those doing things like editing large
> > photographic images or doing video editing, can see a performance
> > boost by adding much more.
>
> This is what I also think. But my point has nothing to do with ram as I
> mentioned above....
> Games which needs high performance works well, but only my statistics
> program does not....
>
> I am only asking a simple, specific question.
> Why are we discussing this fastness anyway....



You asked "2 gb is enough i think and it already works smoothly...
why one needs 4?" I replied to that question alone.


> I am seeking an answer t my problem.
> Why my statistics program works slower while it is supposed to work fast...


I have no idea.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup