why slower?

Hello,

I have a xp core duo 2 machine at my work with 500mb ram (desktop) and vista
ultimate core 2 duo at home with 1gb ram (laptop).
I use a statistics package for my calculations.
While the comp at my work does the calculations in say 10 seconds, my home
comp does it in 20 seconds.
Where might be the problem?
Why my desktop is faster than my laptop?

thanks in advance for answers.

That's the price for falling for the Vista rip-off. I have a 2ghz
machine with 750mb memory using XP and it runs faster than my new
machine with a 3ghz dual core processor, 8gb of memory and Vista 64


--
Ormsby

Probably a difference in processor and hard drive speeds. You didn't give
much hardware info.

Mark

"minimus" <> wrote in message
news:g1m0ba$gj$...
> Hello,
>
> I have a xp core duo 2 machine at my work with 500mb ram (desktop) and
> vista ultimate core 2 duo at home with 1gb ram (laptop).
> I use a statistics package for my calculations.
> While the comp at my work does the calculations in say 10 seconds, my home
> comp does it in 20 seconds.
> Where might be the problem?
> Why my desktop is faster than my laptop?
>
> thanks in advance for answers.

In addition to what Mark wrote about processor and hard drive speeds,
one should consider the amount of available memory. Your XP with 500MB
RAM may have more available memory than your Vista with 1GB RAM.

I would recommend a minimum of 2GB RAM and a 256MB video RAM for Vista
Ultimate, which are both substantially greater than what Microsoft
recommends as the minimums. The difference is between simply allowing
it to run and getting decent performance.

Many of the people that complain about system performance under Vista
are simply underpowered. Yes, it is a fact that Vista requires more
hardware. I say to them, get over it. XP required more than 2000,
which required more than NT, which required more than 98 and so on.
Your cell phone probably has more compute power than NASA used to put
a man on the moon, but you still wouldn't try to put a man on the moon
with your cell phone.

IMHO, it is a sad thing that so many OEM's are still selling Vista
preloaded on machines that shouldn't have it. If you want happy
customers, then make sure what you're selling will have enough power
to perform. OEM's should quit doing that. Microsoft should increase
their minimum recommended configuration to a minimum standard of
performance, or an XP equivalency rating.

-solon fox


On May 29, 8:14*am, "Ramone" <hotmexi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Probably a difference in processor and hard drive speeds. You didn't give
> much hardware info.
>
> Mark
>
> "minimus" <t24...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g1m0ba$gj$...
>
>
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I have a xp core duo 2 machine at my work with 500mb ram (desktop) and
> > vista ultimate core 2 duo at home with 1gb ram *(laptop).
> > I use a statistics package for my calculations.
> > While the comp at my work does the calculations in say 10 seconds, my home
> > comp does it in 20 seconds.
> > Where might be the problem?
> > Why my desktop is faster than my laptop?
>
> > thanks in advance for answers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

To "Recover" or restore performance to Vista one consideration is
whether the user requires extensive search capability. If not then a
change to Windows Search will lower the overall system loading.
While indexing has value, it tends to become a persistent drag on
the performance of Vista and if the user doesn't need the capability
then allowing it to run may not be needed.

"solon fox" <> wrote in message
news:a1ae8509-200b-4725-b0ae-...
In addition to what Mark wrote about processor and hard drive speeds,
one should consider the amount of available memory. Your XP with 500MB
RAM may have more available memory than your Vista with 1GB RAM.

I would recommend a minimum of 2GB RAM and a 256MB video RAM for Vista
Ultimate, which are both substantially greater than what Microsoft
recommends as the minimums. The difference is between simply allowing
it to run and getting decent performance.

Many of the people that complain about system performance under Vista
are simply underpowered. Yes, it is a fact that Vista requires more
hardware. I say to them, get over it. XP required more than 2000,
which required more than NT, which required more than 98 and so on.
Your cell phone probably has more compute power than NASA used to put
a man on the moon, but you still wouldn't try to put a man on the moon
with your cell phone.

IMHO, it is a sad thing that so many OEM's are still selling Vista
preloaded on machines that shouldn't have it. If you want happy
customers, then make sure what you're selling will have enough power
to perform. OEM's should quit doing that. Microsoft should increase
their minimum recommended configuration to a minimum standard of
performance, or an XP equivalency rating.

-solon fox


On May 29, 8:14 am, "Ramone" <hotmexi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Probably a difference in processor and hard drive speeds. You didn't give
> much hardware info.
>
> Mark
>
> "minimus" <t24...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g1m0ba$gj$...
>
>
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I have a xp core duo 2 machine at my work with 500mb ram (desktop) and
> > vista ultimate core 2 duo at home with 1gb ram (laptop).
> > I use a statistics package for my calculations.
> > While the comp at my work does the calculations in say 10 seconds, my
> > home
> > comp does it in 20 seconds.
> > Where might be the problem?
> > Why my desktop is faster than my laptop?
>
> > thanks in advance for answers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In article <a1ae8509-200b-4725-b0ae->,
solon fox <> wrote:
>are simply underpowered. Yes, it is a fact that Vista requires more
>hardware. I say to them, get over it. XP required more than 2000,
>which required more than NT, which required more than 98 and so on.

Pfffftt.

Xp "required" ~50% more than 2000, and in fact runs perfectly well
on systems well under minimum spec. Vista requires 4x the hardware XP
does, and then runs only in a sort of approximated mode.*

And dont' hand me that nonsense about a new OS simply requires
new hardware. EVERY OTHER VENDOR IN THE WORLD writes their new release
to the current hardware, and as hardware improves their users take advantage
of the new feature set. Only MS writes operating systems that don't run
unless you have cutting-edge systems.


* XP: 233MHz cpu, 64MB ram, 1.5GB disc, Vista: 1GHz CPU (4X), 512MB RAM (8x),
40GB disc space + graphics requirements, 2000: 133MHz, 64MB, 640MB disc.

On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:10:16 +0000 (UTC), (the wharf
rat) wrote:

>In article <a1ae8509-200b-4725-b0ae->,
>solon fox <> wrote:
>>are simply underpowered. Yes, it is a fact that Vista requires more
>>hardware. I say to them, get over it. XP required more than 2000,
>>which required more than NT, which required more than 98 and so on.
>
> Pfffftt.
>
> Xp "required" ~50% more than 2000, and in fact runs perfectly well
>on systems well under minimum spec. Vista requires 4x the hardware XP
>does, and then runs only in a sort of approximated mode.*
>
> And dont' hand me that nonsense about a new OS simply requires
>new hardware. EVERY OTHER VENDOR IN THE WORLD writes their new release
>to the current hardware, and as hardware improves their users take advantage
>of the new feature set. Only MS writes operating systems that don't run
>unless you have cutting-edge systems.

Worse, the vendors often claim their hardware is ready by slapping on
a Vista Certified logo when it is shipped WITHOUT the necessary Vista
drivers having even been released yet. There ought to be a law...

Microsoft is one of the most hated corporations in the world. Geez, I
wonder why that is. Hmm...

When was the last time you saw the CEO of Procter and Gamble or IBM
get egged or have a pie thrown in their face? Never happens. Yet both
these things happened to the top two executive of Microsoft.

Still the mentally retarded fanboy crew sing Microsoft's praises.
Damn funny.

On May 29, 10:10*am, w...@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote:
> In article <a1ae8509-200b-4725-b0ae-33f1ac7e2...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> solon fox *<solon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >are simply underpowered. Yes, it is a fact that Vista requires more
> >hardware. I say to them, get over it. XP required more than 2000,
> >which required more than NT, which required more than 98 and so on.
>
> * * * * Pfffftt.
>
> * * * * Xp "required" ~50% more than 2000, and in fact runs perfectly well
> on systems well under minimum spec. *Vista requires 4x the hardware XP
> does, and then runs only in a sort of approximated mode.*
>
> * * * * And dont' hand me that nonsense about a new OS simply requires
> new hardware. *EVERY OTHER VENDOR IN THE WORLD writes their new release
> to the current hardware, and as hardware improves their users take advantage
> of the new feature set. *Only MS writes operating systems that don't run
> unless you have cutting-edge systems.
>
> * XP: 233MHz cpu, 64MB ram, 1.5GB disc, Vista: 1GHz CPU (4X), 512MB RAM (8x),
> 40GB disc space + graphics requirements, 2000: 133MHz, 64MB, 640MB disc.

What other vendor? Apple? Not true. Each release of Mac OS required
more than the last. A big difference is that Apple sells Apple
computers. Microsoft doesn't sell Microsoft computers. We could talk
about MVS, or Solaris, HP-UX, but it wouldn't matter. I think that
both Microsoft and PC makers need to change the way they sell and what
they market as a minimum configuration. A minimum recommended
configuration should provide better performance than the last
generation.

Its no secret that Microsoft is bloatware and they constantly throw
more stuff in; but, such is their market. One might even make
reasonable arguments in favor of Apple or Linux, but it doesn't really
matter either. Microsoft is ubiquitous. Apple might be popular in arts
and education, Linux has yet to penetrate the home market; but,
Microsoft is the de facto standard for business.

IMHO, Microsoft made a gargantuan mistake with the recommended config
and OEM's happily sold it to an unsuspecting public. Cie la vi!
Microsoft so dominates the market that it has barely even bruised
their egos. I think they hear the voices of disgust, but they aren't
likely to change their roadmap despite the heavy criticism. If I ran
Microsoft, I would demand an equivalency performance rating and
configuration recommendation. Consumers wouldn't be so upset, if Vista
were only installed on configurations that could truly handle it,
which would mean a longer life for XP. You see it on these boards
every day. In a couple of years, it won't matter.

-solon fox

In article <9adfd791-b926-402b-b57a->,
solon fox <> wrote:
>
>What other vendor?

Sun. IBM. HP. RedHat. QNX. SCO. Hell, even ID and Epic
write to current hardware.

>We could talk about MVS, or Solaris, HP-UX, but it wouldn't matter.

Why? Because it doesn't support your wrong-headed assertions?

Hi minimus,

There are several reasons why you are experiencing the difference in
performance between the 2 machines, and I shall list them below in no
specific order. These should give you some idea as to why there is a
difference in apparent performance.
Dwarf

1) You are using 2 operating systems, XP and Vista. The system requirements
for Vista are higher than that for XP.
2) Power configuration. A desktop machine is connected to the mains, so runs
at maximum performance. A laptop is more often than not run on battery power,
so the power settings are set to take account of this - everything is
underclocked. Lower frequencies means less power required, which in turn
gives greater battery life between recharges. Of course, if you run the
laptop with an adapter connected, you can change the configuration to give
you maximum performance as opposed to maximum power saving.
3) Memory. In most modern desktops memory can utilise dual channel mode,
thereby doubling the amount of data transferred to and from the memory with
each clock cycle. Very few, if any, laptops offer dual channel memory
capability.
4) The version of the software you are using.
5) The actual configuration of your machine. Software running in the
backround and, on the Vista machine, the 'Aero' settings.


"minimus" wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have a xp core duo 2 machine at my work with 500mb ram (desktop) and vista
> ultimate core 2 duo at home with 1gb ram (laptop).
> I use a statistics package for my calculations.
> While the comp at my work does the calculations in say 10 seconds, my home
> comp does it in 20 seconds.
> Where might be the problem?
> Why my desktop is faster than my laptop?
>
> thanks in advance for answers.
>
>