DISAPPOINTING PERFORMANCE - BACK TO XP

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by William, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. William

    William Guest

    I bought a new Dell laptop when Vista first came out and after struggling with
    this very slick operating system, I am ready to throw in the towel and install
    XP. My main complaint is poor performance. I've stripped away most of the slick
    features that ate into the performance of my machine and still I am unsatisfied.
    Needless to say, I have made all the modifications I could find in the various
    newsgroups and Internet websites which promised a Vista performance boost, but I
    am still disappointed. Am I missing something here or is flash all that most
    people appreciate?
    -Bill
     
    William, Aug 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. William

    f/fgeorge Guest

    Add more memory, most systems come with 512 or even 1 meg of memory.
    Going to 2 meg of memory will make a HUGE difference!
    Also stop shouting, all caps is considered shouting.
    Thanks
     
    f/fgeorge, Aug 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. William

    William Guest

    Like I said, "I have made all the modifications...", and my laptop already had
    2GB of RAM. I guess it depends on what one does with the computer and what kind
    of performance one is used to. -Bill
    PS. The "shouting" was done on purpose, to make a point and not to be rude.
    Scolding a newsgroup user IS rude!
     
    William, Aug 30, 2007
    #3
  4. William

    David Guest

    William, I doubt we'll ever see the words "fast" and "Vista" used in the
    same breath. I wonder if I'll live long enough to see ANY OS come out
    of Redmond that runs faster than it's predessors. Boy, can u just
    IMAGINE how fast DOS 6.22 would be on a modern PC?? We could bring up
    Lotus 1-2-3 in .0001 seconds! LOL.

    I like the look of Vista, but I too am disappointed with it's various
    "warts". Like 'search' for example. It does not work as advertised, as
    I've mentioned on MPWVG. I certainly would never consider replacing an
    XP installation with Vista. That would be lunacy, IMHO.

    Dave
     
    David, Aug 30, 2007
    #4
  5. William

    David Guest

    LOL. make that "predecessor"

    Dave
     
    David, Aug 30, 2007
    #5
  6. William

    AJR Guest

    William - I have installed several versions of Vista (Home Premium and
    Ultimate) and am very sastisifed.

    The statement "...My main complaint is poor performance..." is very general
    and cannot be address logically - please do not expect readers to "read
    between the lines" - are you referring to slow boot, shutdown, apllication
    installation and/or running, sound and/or video performance and so forth.
     
    AJR, Aug 30, 2007
    #6
  7. William

    Kurt Herman Guest

    Vista runs faster in ALL aspects on my machine then XP ever did. Mostly
    because of improved memory management, and off loading the desktop to the
    GPU.

    Kurt
     
    Kurt Herman, Aug 31, 2007
    #7
  8. William

    David Guest

    that's the FIRST comment of that nature I have run across regarding
    Vista vs XP. Amazing!!!

    Dave
     
    David, Aug 31, 2007
    #8
  9. William

    William Guest

    Let me make it clear for those who do not want to accept the generalization
    "poor performance". In your multiple choice question below, I must respond with,
    all of the above.

    I compare a fully loaded Vista/Dell Core2 Duo laptop to a XP/Dell P3/3.6Ghz
    desktop to a W2k/Dell P3/1Ghz desktop. I use all three computers on a regular
    basis, which are connected to the same network and running most of the same or
    similar software and database. The XP runs most everything in the blink of an
    eye, the W2K somewhat slower but still amazingly fast for a machine that is 7
    years old (perhaps a blink and a half). The Vista on the other hand, although
    fun to use, awesome features and graphics, Aero, Transparency etc. but
    performance wise, it's a dog. I find myself twiddling my thumbs waiting for
    things to happen. Depending on the application I am running, it can run from
    simply a bit on the sluggish side to downright annoying.

    You may want to say this is not a very scientific or accurate assessment or
    study of Vista as an operating system, but it is MY impression of Vista after
    using it for six months. Add to the performance issues are the many bugs that
    are inherent in a new O/S, I am surprised that Microsoft is able to sell this
    product all together. How on earth the new computer user is managing with Vista
    is beyond my understanding. I think Dell has already recognized this as their
    entire business line of computers is available with either XP or Vista
    installed. And as a matter of fact, Dell recommends Microsoft XP in their XPS
    720's as performance is paramount in those high end gaming models. I think Dell
    is the only computer company to continue offering XP in their computers.

    There are a lot of other issues with Vista that are well beyond the scope of
    this posting. I am disappointed, that's all. -Bill
     
    William, Aug 31, 2007
    #9
  10. William

    William Guest

    Hah hah hah, yeah, Dave. Kurt must be on the Microsoft payroll or he was running
    XP on an Apple.
    -Bill
     
    William, Aug 31, 2007
    #10
  11. I have heard of it several times, it is not common but it does happen
    and is possible.
    Those that feel (not referring to you) claims such as this are lies
    need to be prepared to prove it, which of course the can't.
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Aug 31, 2007
    #11
  12. William

    Leythos Guest

    Having tested Vista Business on 14 different platforms here, mostly high
    end Xeon CPU systems, I can state that XP runs much faster for all
    applications and games then Vista on the same box. Apps and games ever
    run faster on 2003 Server than under Vista.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
    Leythos, Aug 31, 2007
    #12
  13. William

    Kurt Herman Guest

    Depends what you mean by "faster". I've notice my games (HL2, Doom 3 ect...)
    are maybe 5 fps SLOWER, BUT, the levels load faster, and there is less
    stuttering in the game. It 's MUCH smoother. In my book, that IS faster. I
    was even able to boost the res I ran Doom 3 in (could only stand 800 x 600
    in XP) to my native desktop res of 1152x864, and it still seems smoother
    then it was at 800 x 600 on XP.

    Also I often work with 200 meg Photoshop files, and all the operations
    (load, saving, undo, brushwork, is noticeably faster, as well as the
    ray-tracing I do in Truespace 7.5.

    My NVidia 6600GT video card, while somewhat old, still does DX9 and OGL
    really well. It was REAL slow when Vista first came out, because NVidias
    drivers at the time had no OGL hardware acceleration. But that unhappy state
    lasted about a week (for me), until they got a better set of drivers out.

    I do have 2gigs of ram, so I'm sure that makes a difference, but I also had
    the same 2 gigs with XP.

    Kurt
     
    Kurt Herman, Aug 31, 2007
    #13
  14. William

    Leythos Guest

    In general, everything is slower, on the same hardware that XP was
    running on.

    I've tried GuildWars and a couple others, almost unplayable on Vista,
    smooth as glass on XP/2003...

    Office, Photoshop, VS.Net, etc... all faster on XP/2003 than on Vista,
    even with 4GB RAM.

    In testing, the fastest machine gets strong 5.x scores on all except
    video, getting a 1.0 to 1.3, I can only suspect that the 128MB Video
    card is the thing that brings Vista down - funny thing is that the card
    performs blindingly fast under XP/2003...

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
    Leythos, Aug 31, 2007
    #14
  15. William

    Kurt Herman Guest

    Yeah, that video score is REAL low. My 6600gt is scored at 4.8 for gaming,
    and 4.9 for desktop. Are your drivers OK and up to date? The 6600gt only has
    128 megs as well. But Vista grabs another 240 megs of system memory for the
    video, for a total of 368 megs, so that would explain the lack of texture
    thrashing I'm experiencing. XP doesn't allot any onboard memory to augment
    your video cards memory. My cards an AGP 8x , BTW.

    Kurt
     
    Kurt Herman, Aug 31, 2007
    #15
  16. you aren't alone the problem is that you got had by dell, i've notice that
    when i bought mine that dell was giving a underpowered computer so i went
    with another computer instead, it was underpowered also but much better
    price and all i needed to do for me to have decent computer was more ram i
    went from 2 512mb to 2 1gb and since then it's really nice but still kept
    the feature that ate up the performance away off. it;s the manufactor fault
    and it's not only dell, others are doing it, cuz they want to get rid of
    there old pc so they put few upgrades and sell them as if they were capable
    of running vista with ease.

    sorry for reposting this but i found out i was clicking the wrong button i
    was sending my reply to the actually person but i wanted the group to see
    it, that's why it's here again.
     
    jonathan perreault, Aug 31, 2007
    #16
  17. Whatever updates were sent down from MS in the past few weeks seemed to
    cause the slows to disappear from my high end HP laptop.

    It no longer takes 2 minutes to empty the recycle bin! Yahooooo!
     
    Reggie Dunbar, Aug 31, 2007
    #17
  18. William

    BRV Guest

    Gotta say I agree Kurt. I think what bothers most XP users is that MS came
    out with a newer system to replace an OS(XP) that has been the best so
    far....BRV
     
    BRV, Aug 31, 2007
    #18
  19. seems like you need to keep updating lol.....
    how big files in recycle bin big? or real small?
     
    jonathan perreault, Aug 31, 2007
    #19
  20. Those that like Windows XP have nothing to worry about since it will
    probably be supported for several more years.
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Aug 31, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.