Vista stalls if i do anything!!!

I have just spent £300!!! on vista ultimate for the ultimate gameing
experience and i have had nothing but trouble with it! It takes on average
half an hour to boot up and when it finaly does if i click on any application
it freezes and takes about 5 to 10 minute to stop thinking again. i tried a
clean boot with msconfig it stoped it freezing but it still took half hour to
boot.

I have a AMD X2 6000 64bit Vista 64bit also
4g ram Brand new mother board and
ati x1950xtx gfx card
all of it should be vista ready why am i having so much trouble and i dont
have an xp disk to do a duel install with so im stuck now im using my sisters
pc to write this cos mine is so tempermental can anyone help ps im not to
technicaly wise so youll have to dumb it down for me so it's simple XD

Thanks Harry B

30 Minutes to boot ? - Something is seriously wrong. Are you using the
32-Bit version of Vista or 64-Bit ?

From your description it sounds like you may have a configuration issue
with your BIOS setup. Vista shouldn't take more than a minute or so to
completely boot up. For a boot cycle to take that long would indicate
service(s) are timing out. With the hardware you have the system should
be "Lightning Fast".

What type technology drives are you using ? ( SATA or a RAID array ).

It would also help to know which Security software programs ( if any )
you've installed on this new setup.

Just too many variables to give you a specific area to concentrate on.

"Harry B" <> wrote in message
news:8E6E4282-256E-4DE2-A9AE-...
>I have just spent £300!!! on vista ultimate for the ultimate gameing
> experience and i have had nothing but trouble with it! It takes on average
> half an hour to boot up and when it finaly does if i click on any
> application
> it freezes and takes about 5 to 10 minute to stop thinking again. i tried
> a
> clean boot with msconfig it stoped it freezing but it still took half hour
> to
> boot.
>
> I have a AMD X2 6000 64bit Vista 64bit also
> 4g ram Brand new mother board and
> ati x1950xtx gfx card
> all of it should be vista ready why am i having so much trouble and i dont
> have an xp disk to do a duel install with so im stuck now im using my
> sisters
> pc to write this cos mine is so tempermental can anyone help ps im not to
> technicaly wise so youll have to dumb it down for me so it's simple XD
>
> Thanks Harry B

hi i have the 64Bit version running i believe im using SATA and i have no
security programs running because it takes too long to do anything to
download any i have only downoaded and installed my ati gfx driver and that
was the proper vista version but it has always been slow before that i havent
loaded any divers for my motherboard or nothing because vista wont accept
them and that took about half an hour for it to finaly tell me that lol such
a pain why are pc's never simple

"R. McCarty" wrote:

> 30 Minutes to boot ? - Something is seriously wrong. Are you using the
> 32-Bit version of Vista or 64-Bit ?
>
> From your description it sounds like you may have a configuration issue
> with your BIOS setup. Vista shouldn't take more than a minute or so to
> completely boot up. For a boot cycle to take that long would indicate
> service(s) are timing out. With the hardware you have the system should
> be "Lightning Fast".
>
> What type technology drives are you using ? ( SATA or a RAID array ).
>
> It would also help to know which Security software programs ( if any )
> you've installed on this new setup.
>
> Just too many variables to give you a specific area to concentrate on.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:10:02 -0700, Harry B wrote:

> hi i have the 64Bit version running i believe im using SATA and i have no
> security programs running because it takes too long to do anything to
> download any i have only downoaded and installed my ati gfx driver and that
> was the proper vista version but it has always been slow before that i havent
> loaded any divers for my motherboard or nothing because vista wont accept
> them and that took about half an hour for it to finaly tell me that lol such
> a pain why are pc's never simple

Run the 32-bit version.

Unless you have a very specific *reason* to run 64-bit (of any OS): don't.
The only thing you can gain from a 64-bit OS at this point in time is a
headache.



--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

I am writing this on 64 bit, why is it a headach?

--
Ian

"Stephan Rose" <> wrote in message
news:06Gdnf-...
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:10:02 -0700, Harry B wrote:
>
>> hi i have the 64Bit version running i believe im using SATA and i have no
>> security programs running because it takes too long to do anything to
>> download any i have only downoaded and installed my ati gfx driver and
>> that
>> was the proper vista version but it has always been slow before that i
>> havent
>> loaded any divers for my motherboard or nothing because vista wont accept
>> them and that took about half an hour for it to finaly tell me that lol
>> such
>> a pain why are pc's never simple
>
> Run the 32-bit version.
>
> Unless you have a very specific *reason* to run 64-bit (of any OS): don't.
> The only thing you can gain from a 64-bit OS at this point in time is a
> headache.
>
>
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> ������出�日�ん�����
> ����忘れ�������ら
>

"Ian Betts" <> wrote in message
news:C75996D3-27F1-453C-9D5E-...
>I am writing this on 64 bit, why is it a headach?
>

Well, as Patrick Moore* said "We just don't know". However, we hope you know
where the medicine cabinet is, so that you can find the paracetamol.
Personally, I don't have a headache while using Vista 64, which is now
working really well.

*English Astronomer, who for 50 years has fronted a BBC Astronomy programme
called "The Sky At Night". He often used the phrase "Well... we just don't
know" when offering an explanation to some astronomical phenomenon. I (as an
ex teacher) found it a useful phrase, because it suggests that the whole
body of scientific knowledge is inadequate, rather than just me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore

John.

Not very helpfull realy lol it works in very small doses just if i say close
a windo it stalls if i open web page it stalls if i enter a web address it
stalls if i put a cd in the drive it stalls get the idea its realy annoying
because i have no alternative now because my xp disk has been lost or stolen

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:37:34 +0100, Ian Betts wrote:

> I am writing this on 64 bit, why is it a headach?
>

Because not everything is 64-bit compatible ranging from drivers to
software. It may be that everything you are using is, but apparently this
is not so in the original posters case.

Essentially, at least at the current point in time, the only real benefit
gained by a 64-bit os is the ability to address more than 4 gigs of RAM.

Exception of course if you have any specific software dependent or capable
of taking advantage of a 64-bit architecture in some way. Most consumer
software though rarely falls into this category.

So that gives you a bottom line where things may just work peachy
depending on your driver, system, and software needs...or you'll have a
boatload of trouble.

Matter of fact, running 32-bit software on a 64-bit system can actually
cause the 32-bit software to run slower due to data misalignment
(non-64 bit data not aligned on an even 64-bit boundary has to be aligned
by the CPU before it can be loaded into a CPU register).

So beyond the added address space, there is relatively little gained unless
you have a specific need for it right now.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

I was assuming that it is known that not all software is 64 compatible.



"Stephan Rose" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:37:34 +0100, Ian Betts wrote:
>
>> I am writing this on 64 bit, why is it a headach?
>>
>
> Because not everything is 64-bit compatible ranging from drivers to
> software. It may be that everything you are using is, but apparently this
> is not so in the original posters case.
>
> Essentially, at least at the current point in time, the only real benefit
> gained by a 64-bit os is the ability to address more than 4 gigs of RAM.
>
> Exception of course if you have any specific software dependent or capable
> of taking advantage of a 64-bit architecture in some way. Most consumer
> software though rarely falls into this category.
>
> So that gives you a bottom line where things may just work peachy
> depending on your driver, system, and software needs...or you'll have a
> boatload of trouble.
>
> Matter of fact, running 32-bit software on a 64-bit system can actually
> cause the 32-bit software to run slower due to data misalignment
> (non-64 bit data not aligned on an even 64-bit boundary has to be aligned
> by the CPU before it can be loaded into a CPU register).
>
> So beyond the added address space, there is relatively little gained
> unless
> you have a specific need for it right now.
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> ������出�日�ん�����
> ����忘れ�������ら
>

Not everyone knows that. Why should you assume that? Just because you know
it? Give me a break

"Ian" <> wrote in message
news:965AEDFF-B903-4F95-A68F-...
>I was assuming that it is known that not all software is 64 compatible.
>
>
>
> "Stephan Rose" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:37:34 +0100, Ian Betts wrote:
>>
>>> I am writing this on 64 bit, why is it a headach?
>>>
>>
>> Because not everything is 64-bit compatible ranging from drivers to
>> software. It may be that everything you are using is, but apparently this
>> is not so in the original posters case.
>>
>> Essentially, at least at the current point in time, the only real benefit
>> gained by a 64-bit os is the ability to address more than 4 gigs of RAM.
>>
>> Exception of course if you have any specific software dependent or
>> capable
>> of taking advantage of a 64-bit architecture in some way. Most consumer
>> software though rarely falls into this category.
>>
>> So that gives you a bottom line where things may just work peachy
>> depending on your driver, system, and software needs...or you'll have a
>> boatload of trouble.
>>
>> Matter of fact, running 32-bit software on a 64-bit system can actually
>> cause the 32-bit software to run slower due to data misalignment
>> (non-64 bit data not aligned on an even 64-bit boundary has to be aligned
>> by the CPU before it can be loaded into a CPU register).
>>
>> So beyond the added address space, there is relatively little gained
>> unless
>> you have a specific need for it right now.
>>
>> --
>> Stephan
>> 2003 Yamaha R6
>>
>> ????????????????
>> ??????????????
>>
>