| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wii
Free ASP Hosts Moderator
Denmark
2632 Posts |
 Posted - 29 January 2008 : 05:12:31
|
I finally got the chance to test Vista.
I got an excellent laptop for test: Lenovo T61 with good specs. It was pre-installed with Vista and I thought, this is running much slower than it should for a new PC, so I installed XP on it instead, with all the updates and all the software necessary and now the laptop is much faster than it was before with Vista.
I really donīt understand why Microsoft would develop a operating system that takes so many resources out of even a brand new expensive laptop.
Any thoughts about this ? |
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 06:17:38
|
what do you mean by good specs ? (be wary of AMD procs and Nvidia chipsets, the drivers are shit(not Microsofts fault))
how much ram do you have ? anything < 2Gb will give you trouble
what Index score does Vista give your machine ?
I have Vista installed on 3 machines one of which is my laptop and have no problems with speed or performance on any of them. |
 |
|
|
Hamlin
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
2386 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 06:31:27
|
I have a lenovo machine with Vista. With their default install, which means loads of software I wont use, it did seem pretty slow. (Startup was pretty bad with it chugging away loading stuff)
After I did a fresh install I have not noticed any real issue with speed. |
|
|
|
wii
Free ASP Hosts Moderator
Denmark
2632 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 06:49:38
|
Good specs:
Centrino Core 2 Duo 2GHZ (T7300)
2 GB RAM
I havenīt tested the score, but in any case, thereīs no doubt it runs much faster with XP, you can really tell the difference when comparing side by side, which we have also done, since we have more than one Lenovo T61. |
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 08:18:54
|
For me, speed was only an issue playing certain games... I mean, "critical applications"
But then again I did a clean install so that might have a little to do with it.  |
|
|
|
Podge
Support Moderator
Ireland
3775 Posts |
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 09:13:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by wii
Good specs:
Centrino Core 2 Duo 2GHZ (T7300)
2 GB RAM
I havenīt tested the score, but in any case, thereīs no doubt it runs much faster with XP, you can really tell the difference when comparing side by side, which we have also done, since we have more than one Lenovo T61.
Of course it will run faster with XP on the same hardware, and by the same reasoning, windows 98 will run faster then XP on the same hardware, hardly a realistic comparison 
2GHz is mid range processor and would be the minimum I would recommend for a Vista box, as is 2 Gb of RAM |
|
|
|
wii
Free ASP Hosts Moderator
Denmark
2632 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 09:16:04
|
| I find it a problem that Vista requieres so many resources, that everyone will have buy expensive hardware to run it properly, I will continue with XP until itīs not supported anymore (june 2009). |
|
|
|
Panhandler
Average Member
USA
783 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 09:25:11
|
My Lenovo with factory XP and all the factory installed applications runs faster than Vista on a comparable machine.
Vista seems to be doing two things that take up more time:
1) Its trying to have a Mac like appearance.
2) Its constantly monitoring itself, requiring the user to verify each change that might affect the registry.
Upgrading to a new machine usually gives one new faster hardware.
Vista shouldn't appear to be slower. But given the same machine, it will be slower.
My advice is to not upgrade to Vista on an existing machine.
Get a machine with much higher performing hardware and Vista won't seem slower.
|
"5-in-1 Snitz Common Expansion Pack" - five popular mods packaged for easy install
". . .on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. . ."
HarborClassifieds
Support Snitz Forums
|
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 09:36:37
|
quote:
I find it a problem that Vista requieres so many resources, that everyone will have buy expensive hardware
what do you consider expensive ? you can buy a quad core CPU + motherboard + 4Gb of ram for Ģ250, hardly an expense when you consider my fist major PC purchase was a DX4-100 with 1Gb of RAM which cost me close to Ģ3000 when I bought it.
quote:
Vista seems to be doing two things that take up more time:
1) Its trying to have a Mac like appearance.
This should not take up any time by windows, Aero (Vista's super graphics) uses the graphics cards api directly so should not slow down windows if your graphics subsystem is up to scratch |
|
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 09:43:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by wii
I find it a problem that Vista requieres so many resources
I have a E6750 Core 2 Duo (2,66 Ghz) with 4 GB of RAM (800MHz DDR2), with Vista Home Premium on it ; it's absolutely _not_ slow or sluggish, normal memory use (including cache) at about 900 MB, normal CPU usage <2%. (When I had 'just' 2GB of memory, the memory use was about 500 to 600 MB ; with more memory, the cache is also increased).
Boot times have improved greatly ; a full reboot (logged in, click reboot, and being back logged in etc) takes me 59 secondes, of which 10 seconds are spent on the shutdown, and 20-25 are spent on the BIOS (RAID0 check, stuff like that).
There is however an 'issue' that when you start up Vista the first couple of times, the indexing service (indexing all your files), and the optimzation proces that determines what applications/drivers etc should be preloaded take up quite some processing. When that process is done, performance is simply good. |
portfolio - linkshrinker - oxle - twitter |
Edited by - MarcelG on 29 January 2008 09:44:23 |
|
|
|
JJenson
Advanced Member
USA
2121 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 10:29:41
|
I have a Dell Inspiron 1525 with a 2.13 Core 2 Duo Processor and 2 gb ram and it is not slow in any way. Compared to my desktop it is actually much faster. My laptop has better hardware but still much faster. Agreed with Marcel first couple times it was slow then after about a week it was screaming for me. can reboot in under a minute.
|
|
|
|
wii
Free ASP Hosts Moderator
Denmark
2632 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 10:33:13
|
Huw, itīs difficult to upgrade a laptop, well almost impossible, and I only use laptops nowadays.
The reason I posted this topic, is just to ask whether others have done the same, trying XP on a machine that built to Vista, and realizing that Vista is slower. |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 11:32:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by wii
Huw, itīs difficult to upgrade a laptop, well almost impossible, and I only use laptops nowadays.
The reason I posted this topic, is just to ask whether others have done the same, trying XP on a machine that built to Vista, and realizing that Vista is slower.
You should be able to upgrade the ram which will make a huge difference.
As noted here and in pretty much every discussion on the net, XP will always be faster then Vista on the same hardware for similar reasons to win98 being faster than XP, so it's a pointless question really as the answer will always be XP is faster than Vista, however speed is not why you should be upgrading, Vista is a whole new ballgame, it is as far removed from XP as XP was from it's predecessor.
|
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
|
|
davemaxwell
Access 2000 Support Moderator
USA
3020 Posts |
Posted - 29 January 2008 : 12:21:43
|
| Just found this on lifehacker: http://www.vlite.net/index.html but it looks like it's geared towards clean installs rather than prebuilts. |
Dave Maxwell
Barbershop Harmony Freak |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
