Microsoft Vista Slow Performance

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by Xerocomm, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. Xerocomm

    Xerocomm Guest

    I am about to scream. I am using Microsoft Vista Ultimate Edition on a HP
    1.8Ghz Dual Core Turion 64 X2 Processor with 2GB RAM 80GB Hard Drive Laptop.
    I use simple applications like Quickbooks 2007, Outlook 2007, Word 2007 and
    Internet Explorer 7. The hard drive is always running and the laptop is the
    slowest I have ever used before. When I was using Windows XP Professional SP2
    all was well but when I went to Vista all my system performance came to a
    screeching halt. Any idea's on how to resolve or speed up my laptop?
    Xerocomm, Dec 13, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Xerocomm

    Pbb321 Guest

    Looks like you're like me. Just got this new HP laptop w/ Vista Ulitmat
    x64, 2GB ram, Core 2 Duo 2ghz, etc... and it runs like something fro
    the 90s. Well, what i've found to be helpful are several tweeks that ca
    be found anywhere. Just google increase vista performance and a whol
    slew of pages will come up

    What i've done so far is..

    Uninstall HP Crapwar

    Ready boost seems to work well for me, get a 2gb sd card and you'r

    Use Diskeeper 2008 - automatic defrag of all drives, increase
    performance significantl

    Disable unneeded services - admin tools, services, disable what yo
    don't need i.e. tablet pc services. Don't need it running if you don'
    have one

    Anti-virus and Anti-spyware that does not come from HP and does no
    slow down the system

    Finally, which you should only do if you know what you're doing is
    did a clean install of vista x64 on my laptop. When i say clean, I mea
    with none of the HP crapware installed. Google it and take a stab at i
    if you like. don't worry, its legal as you uninstalling the software i
    windows, you're just doing it during the system reboot

    After all of this, my laptop seems to be running just fine, like i

    Vista is a power hog, and as such, you need the power behind it
    Sometime soon, I'm going to upgrade my HDD to a 7200 RPM and max out m
    ram to 4GB and match with ready boost
    Pbb321, Dec 13, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Xerocomm

    trevor Guest

    Heres the solution i am going to use since i am in the same boat - just
    "downgraded" to a new machine with vista and it is the worst piece of junk

    step 1: throw this piece of junk in the trash.
    step 2: go to the apple store and buy a new computer.

    pbb321's solution is rididulous!!! no offence to pbb but having to go out
    and spend another thousand bucks on a brand new machine just to make the OS
    work is insane!!!!
    trevor, Dec 13, 2007
  4. Xerocomm

    Pbb321 Guest

    For starters, I didn't spend $1000 just to make it work, i spent $5 on
    the sd and just bought a new HDD for $45 (Ebay people) so, I don't know
    where you got that number from.

    Second, I have a mac and a pc, both running vista and leopard and I
    like them both equally. Just depends on what your doing. you can get a
    mac if you want, but both have their issues. I use my mac for video
    editing and my pc for everything else. Mac just doesn't support the
    software i need right now.

    Besides, you're complaining about my $1000, you're about to spend
    upwards of $2500, $1000 of that being for a 1in piece of plastic in the
    shape of a piece of fruit! From my experience, i don't think i'd ever
    buy a mac again when i can get double the performance for half the

    Btw, have you looked at the latest benchmarks? leopard runs faster on a
    Pbb321, Dec 13, 2007
  5. Xerocomm

    trevor Guest

    $1000 is a best guess at new HDD and ram upgrade (retail)

    I used to balk at the idea of buying a mac because the price was so steep.

    But after the last 3 months of wrestling with vista, i am ready to fork out
    the dough.

    i disabled all the hp crapware, turned off everything i could, but still the
    performance of my laptop is horrendous! I work mainly with flash/flex and
    photoshop. working with high res photos is unbearable, and the number of
    times that flash freezes up on me is unbelievable!!!

    i upgraded the ram and the difference in performance was negligible.

    my point is the fact that you have to max out your machine to get mediocre
    performance out of it is ridiculous.

    I was better off with my previous outdated machine with XP Pro

    I've been a developer for 10 years now and im not just blowing smoke here.
    my experience with vista has really put a sour taste in my mouth and spending
    $2500 to switch to apple doesnt seem like such a bad idea. the loss in
    productivity is far greater than the extra money that i have to fork out for
    an apple.

    I may be wrong, ive never been a huge apple fan, but at this point, I'm
    willing to try anything to free myself from working on vista...
    trevor, Dec 14, 2007
  6. Ok, i've dont quite a bit of research in this community. Here's the bottom

    Vista 32 bit systems has memory issues. 64 bit versions will fix that. IN
    this day and age, when you buy a new pc, it's wise to max out your memory and
    get a decent speed of a cpu. 1.8 ghz just aint gonna work. You need 2.4ghz
    or more to activate the 4mb l2cache. You also need 2 hd's. One hd dedicated
    to the paging file and the other for windows and your other needs. I've been
    using vista for 3 months now with a 2.4ghz dual core, 4gb 800mhz ram, 2 320gb
    sata II hd's.

    Sata II has the 16mb buffer, and faster transer rates than the 8mb sata's.
    Most laptop sata's come with a 5400 rm sata hd. Make sure you don't have an
    under performing hd first. Other than that, your cpu is too low to
    effectively run Vista, let alone ultimate, and your under powered in the
    other 2 areas, memory and hd.

    I hope it helps.
    Corporeal Patronus, Dec 14, 2007
  7. Xerocomm

    Pbb321 Guest

    I will admit, you have a good point. I'm a hardware/software enginee
    and I have to say vista is not feasable for people on a budget
    Although, i haven't paid retail for any computer components in years,
    feel that I shouldn't have to spend any more money than i already hav
    to get the performance that i need. (At the same time, i use
    supercomputer all day so.... I have high standards when i get home

    I love my mac and my pc, it just depends on what i'm doing. Hell,
    didn't mention it before, but i use the 64 ulitimate and dual boot XP 6
    just because some stuff just works better in xp (especially with SP3

    As far as my clean install, i actually got a copy of vista ultimate x6
    and transfered my activation to the clean install, the one that boots t
    the desktop and the recycle bin, thats all. it made a huge difference

    In the end i will admit, like Xerocomm said, if you really want vist
    to perform decently, be prepared to fork out some cash, or build you
    own pc

    For me, Apple has not had a good customer service year with the iphon
    and the ipod prices. I actually baught a Zune just because it wa
    upgradeable and had wireless sync and the ipods are notoriousl
    un-upgradeable. So, if i had to buy a new mac, i would wait until Q
    2008. Thats me though
    Pbb321, Dec 14, 2007
  8. Xerocomm

    David Guest

    In Dec 06 I bought a Gateway laptop with similar specs to yours, loaded with
    Windows XP, but with a free upgrade to Vista. Frankly, I was disappointed
    with how XP ran.

    Several months later, I installed the Vista Home Premium upgrade from
    Gateway, choosing the option for a clean install. Of course, there was a
    companion disc to upgrade the drivers. WOW, what a difference. Everything
    was much snappier even with Aero, the gadget bar, etc. Of course, this
    Vista installation did not include any crapware or third party software
    (except drivers) whatsoever.

    Have you tried really cleaning out all of the preloaded garbage?
    David, Dec 14, 2007
  9. Xerocomm

    David Guest

    Are you out of your mind, telling him that he needs a computer with those
    specs to run Vista? Maybe the AMD Turian isn't as good as an Intel Core 2
    Duo, I don't know, but as for the rest. Bunk.

    I have a laptop with a Intel Core 2 Duo (1.67), 2 GB RAM, and a 160 GB ATA-6
    HD and it runs Vista Home Premium (with Aero enabled) VERY well.

    I don't play games. Video editing is a bit slow, but I only do a little of

    I have spent a lot of time on the AMD boards - they are great places to
    learn - but I can tell that many of the folks there approach their computer
    like a hobby, insisting on the fastest of everything in their box. You
    sound like one of them. Most real world computer users don't need anything
    like you propose.

    David, Dec 14, 2007
  10. Look it's not a question of AMD vs Intel. Intel Dual core has far exceeded
    performance wise, for the time being.

    But a computer is a major investment. Why buy the low end models, just to
    upgrade sooner than later? If all you want to do is Email and Internet, then
    what you have is perfect for "you". You admit that video editing is slow.
    Not everyone is as patient as you are. Besides, he's running Vista ULTIMATE.
    Not Home. Ultimate uses way more resources, and services than Home.

    As for the Hobby approach.....

    Of course it's a hobby. Whether you are emailing, or surfing the net, its a
    hobby. No other way to look at it. However, just because you like driving
    your Prius, doesn't mean it's gonna outlast our Denali's. It fits you and
    your personality. And as long as your happy, that's all that really counts.
    Corporeal Patronus, Dec 14, 2007
  11. Xerocomm

    David Guest

    Wrong. For many, it is not a hobby. It is a tool. If it works, it works.
    His CPU and is memory is simply not too low for Vista Ultimate. Your advice
    simply is wrong.
    David, Dec 14, 2007
  12. Xerocomm

    Pbb321 Guest

    I never said his memory was too low.

    And how am i Wrong? Some people need more power than others. You may be
    able to use a 1.6GHz, but with the stuff i'm doing, i could make a
    sandwich and eat it in the time it gets done processing! His memory may
    not be too low, but it may not be adequate either.

    My advice originally was simple software based tweeks anyway.
    Bottomline, vista is a power hungry OS. some people want it to run
    differently than others, usually faster.

    Besides, you're not even Ultimate! How would you know!?
    Pbb321, Dec 14, 2007
  13. Xerocomm

    Wayne Moses Guest

    Reply to message from "David" <> (Thu, 13 Dec
    2007 21:04:36) about "Re: Microsoft Vista Slow Performance":

    D> Several months later, I installed the Vista Home Premium upgrade ...
    D> WOW, what a difference. Everything was much snappier even with Aero,
    D> the gadget bar, etc.

    Good to read that someone else had a similar experience to mine and has
    lived to tell the tail!

    Like you after I clean upgraded from XP Home Basic to Vista Home Premium,
    and with all things being equal, I experienced a small but noticeable *
    increase* in speed and smoothness.

    My beef - and it was expected - was in getting a few of my legacy hardware
    to work.

    My machine - Dell Inspiron E1505 w/ 2 Ghz. Intel Core duo, 2 GB Ram, and a
    60 GB 7200 rpm spin rate HDD. No ReadyBoost.

    Best Regards . <> Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:03:22 -0600

    === Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3
    Wayne Moses, Dec 14, 2007
  14. Xerocomm

    David Guest

    "Other than that, your cpu is too low to
    effectively run Vista, let alone ultimate, and your under powered in the
    other 2 areas, memory and hd."

    You said his CPU is too low too slow to run not only Vista Ultimate, but
    Vista period. You DO include his memory (2 GB) in your list of specs that
    are not adequate. And let's not mince words between "too low" and "not

    And he needs TWO hard drives? Give me a break!

    "but with the stuff i'm doing, i could make a
    sandwich and eat it in the time it gets done processing!"

    So maybe it is the software that you are using that *requires* the extra
    horsepower, and not the OS per se.
    David, Dec 14, 2007
  15. Xerocomm

    David Guest

    It was mostly good for me too.

    I had the Vista disc for a few months before I installed it because I wanted
    to wait to be sure that all of my software and hardware drivers were
    updated. It took a bit for Canon come out with Vista versions of the
    software for my printer. The worst was Palm. They didn't release a Vista
    compatible version of Palm Desktop until July, I think.

    Ultimately, the only software that I really like that didn't work on Vista
    was DVD Shrink, but that isn't being supported anymore. Using DVD Shrink
    totally locked up my computer. It *appears* that I stumbled onto a fix when
    I installed DVD Decrypter first, then DVD Shrink. Now Shrink works fine.
    Go figure.

    Not only is my computer snappier but I like the Aero appearance, Gadget Bar,
    preview windows, etc.

    I did not like the UAC feature and so I turned it off. I am the only user
    on this computer and am very careful about the sites that I visit and the
    software that I install.

    My primary ongoing issue is that when I try to open some hidden folders I am
    told that I can't. It seems that I don't have the proper privileges.
    Changing privileges is something that I don't completely understand and so I
    am uncomfortable fooling around with them.
    David, Dec 14, 2007
  16. Yes, his cpu is too slow to run ULTIMATE. Let alone HomePremium. Yes 2gb
    of memory is low because the video card eats up system memory to cache
    certain files. ie... if you video card has 256 mb of memory, it can eat up
    to 1gb of system memory, and sometimes more. It's been this way for a long
    time now. It did it in Xp, Me, Win2000, and so on. So when I say his
    memory is too low, you should take that into account for poor performance,
    and your slow video editing. That video card is a memory hog, and there's
    nothing you can do about it unless you upgrade to the 64 bit editions.

    As for the hd's. Microsoft recommends a 2nd hd for page filing. Or at the
    very least a partitioned part of your main hd. They do not recommend the
    paging file to be on the same drive as the operating system. I can tell you
    the 2nd hd boosted my performance in xp and vista.

    Do a search in the community under "memory" and you'll come across many
    examples of people frustrated why vista or xp for that matter, why the video
    card eats up their ram.

    A brilliant tech wrote up the video card vs memory ratios. I am gonna have
    to find it and link it here.

    Here's a quote from a user named mhonzell:

    -If I had a video card with 512Mb or 768Mb of memory on it, it'd take up even
    more space in the 3Gb-to-4Gb memory map.
    And if I were still using an AGP graphics card, there'd be another block of
    memory reserved for the AGP aperture, used when devices on other buses in the
    computer want to talk to a graphics card on the AGP bus. I've got a PCIe
    graphics card, though, which sits on the same bus as all of the other stuff
    and so doesn't need an aperture.
    (If you've got a computer with one of those cheap graphics adapters that
    uses system memory instead of having RAM of its own, it will of course eat
    some of your RAM no matter how much you've got installed.)
    Power users with a hankerin' for dual graphics cards may be experiencing
    something of a sinking feeling, at this juncture. Yes, the 256Mb reserved for
    my little old graphics card means exactly what you think it means: Those two
    768Mb graphics cards you can totally justify buying will eat one point five
    gigabytes of your 32-bit memory map all by themselves, cutting you down to a
    2.5Gb ceiling before you even take the other reservations into account.
    This also explains why 1Gb graphics cards haven't hit the consumer market
    Corporeal Patronus, Dec 14, 2007
  17. Xerocomm

    David Guest

    MY CPU, slower than his, runs Vista just fine, and my 2 GB of RAM is never
    more than 50% utilized. How do you explain that my computer runs Vista so

    Once again, if my computer is a bit slow to edit video, that doesn't say
    that it is too slow to run Vista. It is well known that video editing is
    very processor intensive. I also know that my video isn't up to snuff to
    play high-end shooter games but I don't play them. But if I did and they
    ran poorly, it doesn't mean that my computer is too slow to run Vista.
    David, Dec 14, 2007
  18. Xerocomm

    Wayne Moses Guest

    Reply to message from "David" <> (Fri, 14 Dec
    2007 09:36:55) about "Re: Microsoft Vista Slow Performance":

    D> My primary ongoing issue is that when I try to open some hidden folders
    D> I am told that I can't. It seems that I don't have the proper
    D> privileges.

    Same here. Doesn't happen too often though so I am not too bothered.

    Best Regards
    Wayne Moses <> Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:20:59 -0600

    === Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3
    Wayne Moses, Dec 15, 2007
  19. Xerocomm

    Pbb321 Guest

    If you're trying to open some system files, you will need to tak
    ownership of them to view them. Another helpful feature of vista tha
    protects people from themselves

    An Finally, Ok David, I'm not here to fight with you because I hav
    better things to do. Once again, YOU ARE RUNNING HOME PREMIUM! Ultimat
    is ALOT more demanding, trust me.

    Bottom line, any computer purchased within the last few year
    _*can_run_vista*,_but its not going to be a pretty experience. Thats wh
    there is so much bad publicity now with vista. People think they ca
    just upgrade and they don't have the power to do so and with retur
    policies they way they are now, people are just out $200-$400. Its up t
    them however to verify the system requirements before purchase. Hell
    there is a vista compatibility program on the microsoft website! You'r
    just in the minority of people who can stand your computer to be slow a
    times, the people I was talking to earlier can't

    No, your computer is not too slow to run vista, but the point of thi
    thread is how to INCREASE performance, not say how all of ou
    improvements are useless. You may be satisified, but the ones who aren'
    satisfied with the speed of their machine are here trying to get advice

    Corporeal Patronus's advice is for the ideal configuration, its no

    We're power users and you're not and you're just playing semantics
    Pbb321, Dec 15, 2007
  20. Xerocomm

    David Guest

    I won't argue with your comments about Ultimate, but near the top of the
    thread you said that his computer isn't powerful enough to run "Vista, let
    alone Vista Ultimate." The says that you think that his or a comparable
    computer isn't powerful enough to run other versions, which simply is NOT
    TRUE, as my personal experience attests. Who is the "we" in "we're power
    users?" There is no reason to think all or even most of the posters here
    are that. Many don't even post their hardware specs.

    I agree that people should do the research before upgrading their computer
    from XP to Vista. I did that.

    "No, your computer is not too slow to run Vista."

    You should have said that sooner. But, "not a pretty experience?" That is
    BS. How do I know, because of the computer that I am using at the moment.
    David, Dec 16, 2007
    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.