[eclipse]

i have a laptop dual core two gigs of ram and vista runs stinkin slow!

[rgreen4]

Then there's no reason at all to change.

[drachir]

You see, all you Vista fans, it's reactions like this last one from eclipse, that gives me certain doubts that Vista will not work well on my most powerful home PC. It is also a dual core with two gigs of RAM. And I continue to hear from many the same old tune. It's only the folks with the bleeding edge machines, or those that are content running Vista without the Aero interface enabled, that rave about Vista's superiority.

[rgreen4]

First keep in mind that any laptop will run slower than a desktop with the same clock speed. Heat is the enemy of the CPU, and if you look at the heat exchanger and fan on a dual core desktop, imagine trying to fit that into a laptop.

They can't, so to keep the head down, the processor is adjusted. In fact you will not that on Intel's the letter series is totally different than the desktop series. This has been true even on the P4 series. I have a desktop with a 3.2 Ghz P4 and a laptop with a 3.2 Ghz P4, and the desktop is much faster (both running XP).

The question here is what is the dual-core (click on Start -> Control Panel -> System and Maintenance -> System) found in the system information window.

The second question is what anti-malware programs are you running? If you are running one of the infamous security suites (Norton's or McAfee) they are notorious for slowing down systems.

[drachir]

Very good points, rgreen4. Additionally, laptops are infamous for having inferior graphics chipsets. That would really cause the machine to slow down with the graphics intensive Aero interface enabled. Unless you have a very good non-integrated graphics processor in your laptop, you should seriously consider running Vista with Aero disabled. Or, you can "downgrade" to Windows XP for improved performance!

[eclipse]

my dual core is an AMD Athlon 64X2 TK-53.

And i dont run any hog of an antivirus/antispyware program. AVG FREE, ZonaAlarm Firewall, SpyBot Search and Destroy. I "Downgraded" to XP (i can also boot vista if I REALLY want to) and it's nice and fast.

[rgreen4]

Now there I disagree with you. While it would depend on which dual core you have, my primary machine is built on a Gigabyte motherboard with the Intel E6750 processor (2.66Ghz) and it started with 2GB of ram (2 x 1 GB). It is also dual boot, with each OS installed on it's own drive (this keeps the second OS from corrupting the boot record of the first). All my data is kept separately on the network, so I can access it from any machine. While I normally have Vista on one drive, and XP on the second, (both with cloned backups) I also have Windows 2000 Pro on another drive I can install when I need to answer a question about it.

When I first built the machine there was a lot of talk about the fact that Vista was so much slower than XP, so I played with both on the same machine. Vista actually booted a few seconds faster than XP. On Vista this was from pressing the button, through entering password, to sidebar, and on XP it was from pressing the button, through entering the password (same password) to the desktop. To the Vista desktop only was a few seconds faster still, since it takes a few seconds to load the sidebar.

Neither ever booted in less than 50 seconds and neither ever took as long as 60. The tales of 3, 4. or 5 minute loads tell you that either something is wrong with the installation, or some program is being loaded at boot that causes it to boot slowly. (BTW, both versions run Avast! anti-virus and SuperAntiSpyware that load after the desktop and are not counted in the boot times). Prime offenders are the "security suites". My notebook does load slower because of all the special drivers that have to load that make it a notebook (Touchpad driver, special keys drivers, power management, etc.) and the fact that the hard drives are usually slower.

After running the machine for several months, Newegg had a sale on the 2GB memory kits that I have in my machine, so I bumped the memory to 4GB. Vista still loads a few seconds faster than XP, but I have not timed either. I only boot into XP to answer problems as a rule, as the vast majority of my programs are on the Vista drive. I did install Vista as an experiment on my HP zv5330us laptop with the 3.2 GHz P4, even though MS's Vista upgrade advisor recommended against it. It ran ok, but not blindingly fast, but then it's not even with XP as it has 1.25GB of memory. (originally came with 256K on the MB and a 256MB module since replaced with 1GB which gives the odd memory amount). I did not leave it on the laptop, because ATI does not have any drivers for the 64MB memory integrated memory chip, so it runs in 640x480 resolution which is terrible. I run XP on it in 1280x800 (it's a 15.4" widescreen display).

After my timing experiments, two other members with dual booting also ran tests with similar results.

Sometime the way a program loads and displays looks slow because of the program. For example solitaire on XP just pops on the screen. Solitaire deals the cards and has the sound effects. If you turn this off, it just pops on the screen also. Office 2000 runs the same speed, Office 2007 is a little slower because of the additional coding, but it also runs slower on XP.

This is not to change your mind, just to dispel the misinformation you have been give. I fell for this same mis-information when XP came out and stuck with Windows 2000 and Win98 for years longer than I should have. I went to XP in 2004 after removing an XP drive from my older desktop and installing Windows 2000 and running it for almost a year. One of the IT guys at work at the time (I'm now retired, and he moved away) looked at me one day when I asked him a question and just about called me a fool for doing that. (We ran Windows 2000 at work). He told me to put the XP drive back in, install my programs and run it. That drive is still in the machine today, I never went back.

[rgreen4]

As I said, if you prefer XP, no problem. It works.

[tomcam]

I almost think this article was written as a practical joke. It is wrong in so many ways, there is no way to respond.

[Pizzaboy192]

I agree with Rgreen. I Have done many expiraments with Vista just to test the reliablitliy of it. As I have said before, I can get Vista to run on almost any processor, my favorite being the Cyrix processor, running at only 233mhz, and on a Pentium motherboard. It may not run the same way as it does on my desktop, but it run none the less...

I have messed around with xp ever since it came out too. I installed XP on my 500 Mhz PIII when I first got it, but dual booted with 2000 only because I did not have a product key at the time. I have tried Vista on my laptop, a P4 Moblie 1.8 Ghz with (at the time) 300ish Mb ram, and a 60 GB IDE disk, and it booted faster than xp, and it had (get this) a LONGER battery life, because it is able to throttle the processor better than the XP "SpeedStep" can.

I hate to see anyone steered away from a nice operating system, because they dont know if it will work on their system. I hate to say it, but before buying my copy of Vista Ultimate, I got a "torrented" version to test, and make sure it would run. I Booted into Vitsa the first time, and within 15 minutes the xp partition was re-formatted, and was appeneded to my storage needs, 2 days later my Vista Ultimate disk arrived from Newegg.

I would not advise trying to put vista on something that isnt rated for vista, even thought it will work. It was the same way with xp, I attempted to put it on anything I could, just to say I could. I would never reccommend it now, but it was a fun challenge for me then.

I am Proud to say that Torents are a part of my past now, and with a nice income from building custom pc systems, it isnt really a problem. One thing that I found to help was, I would loan a "test" computer to each customer, using spare parts I had thrown together (it was a P4 2.8 GHZ Desktop Replacement, 1GB ram, and a 20 GB disk, with a 128 MB ATI card) and I had loaded XP and VISTA on it. I told my customers to try out each, and tell me which they liked better. After about a week, I usually got a call from them, saying to put vista on their system, not because they thought it was a terrible system, but because it was better for their needs. I had some families who decided to save money by going with xp, and I respected their decision, but after a week of them using Vista, the transition back to xp was a hard one. Usually I would install a Skin pack, and ViStart, so that it felt more "Vista" ish...

Now when it comes to a laptop running poorly, you can get a dual core laptop with vista, that has 2 gb ram, but that description is fairly vague. Newegg sells laptops with dual core processors, but they are a 1.1ghz system, with 400 mhz ram, and an Intel Graphics chipset. not ideal for vista at all. I am dissappointed that M$ will not let you just sell the laptop with xp, unless it is underpowered for vista, and i guess that the laptop manufacturer wanted to be "ahead" but after seeing that laptop on newegg for about a month, it was pulled for one with xp, and a "designed for xp" sticker on the system instead.

I would also just like to say that if Vista is not your cup of tea, then dont complain about it, until you try it, and REALLY try it! put it to the test, dont just judge it against one or two aspects, please. and if you still like xp, then dont bash it please, just say "i would prefer xp over vista" not "VISTA SUCKS"!

Thanks

Pizza-Out!

[GMan]

To rgreen4:



*Again, please go to the head of the class for your sober and insightful assessment!
*

In response to those who believe you need a seriously ramped-up, expensive machine to run Vista, I say "relax."

I run Vista Ultimate/SP1, with Aero, on my three year-old Sony Vaio PCG-GRT390ZP laptop sporting a 2.8h P4 w/ 2GB of RAM. I enjoy snappy performance and love the computing experience. Truth-be-told, I've taken advantage of the many free-articles about tuning Vista, turning off unnecessary services, etc., with real benefit. (This is not "rocket science.") My 2001-era desktop PC runs Vista Ultimate/SP1 with a 3.0 P4 w/ 2MB of RAM, performing slightly better.

Thanks again for your sagely voice-of-reason!

G-Man

[virtualpalaboi]

Win+R
I type "calc" for calculator, "notepad" for an obvious reason..etc..or I'll use Vista's search thing in the start menu.
Win+L to lock my computer for apparent reasons in school.

[TECHNISTRATIONS]

I agree Vista should be deep-sixed ASAP!!

Microsoft needs to cut the crap and let anyone order new systems with XP Pro installed - not on top of a Vista first install!

IE-7 is trash too. Since installing it on my XP-Pro Desktop I get daily crashes and hang-ups . IE- 6 was loads better.

Maybe with our new third world economy, perhaps Microsoft will stop costing all of us more time and money. We all have enough to stress about!

I used to love and respect Microsoft and enjoy computers, having been involved with them since vacuum tube days.

Microsoft Products ROI (return on investment) is more like LOI (loss on investment) - I for one am thinking either Apple or Linux and open system products.

How much worse off can things get! - WAKE-UP MICROSOFT - Listen to what the people want for a change!!!

[crazy4laptops]

Yista does not need to be deep-sixed... yet (until major security flaws become prevalent) then you switch to linux or unplug the computer from the internet.

Firefox 3 is way better than IE 8/7/6

i've started an official boycott of internet explorer, so far i have found no use for it outside of what firefox can do.
Start the open source web brower revolution- Download firefox today

[technicaljedi721]

This article is so full of untruths and spin its ridiculous. I go so far as to say ridonkulous. Where do I begin?

First, Seven is not being fast tracked. Its part of the orgiginal roadmap plan for Windows Blackcomb/Vienna. 3 years after Vista, the next Windows OS was scheduled for release.

Second, both OS-X and Linux variants aren't anywhere near ready to challenge Vista. Just this year alone, Apple has had to patch Leopard over 250 times! Both XP and Vista had the months of March and May with no patch updates needed. Also, according to the National Vulnerability Database run by the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team (C.E.R.T.), both Tiger and Leopard were the top to most vulnerable OSes in 1st quarter 2008. After OS-X, many of the Linux varaints took the 3rd, 4th, places. The bottom least most vulnerable was XP followed by Vista. Vista was the least most vulnerable. Thats actually scientific data. Not just some body's opinion. Many games and applications are still not written for both Mac and Linux, that they lack the software diversification of the Windows Platform.

Finally, Vista is close to breaking the 200,000,000 user mark. The pace is just slightly faster than XP. People are buying it and even giving the 64 bit versions a spin. To say Vista is a failure shows a complete ignorance of the facts. You guys want Vista to be a failure, but the consumers aren't convinced.

I think Microsoft will make good inroads with the I'm a PC counter marketing. Microsoft is working to improve Vista and users who do migrate find it very difficult to go back. Just like John Dvorak, you should just migrate over, learn how to use Vista, and just quit whining and spinning the ignorant nonsense.

[terrynconnct01]

What am I missing that the author has seen Vista being "junk"? I've used Vista since it's conception. I've run it side by side XP vs Vista and found that Vista is faster, more secure, and more reliable. Vista (and XP) is like your car, you have maintain Vista consistently (patches, utilities, etc).

I'll go after Windows 7 as well but for now, I'm very happy with Vista.

[PastorDonnie]

Why do you people like Steven write the garbage you as though you know everything? I am a seminarian and have Vista Business Ultimate on on my desktop and laptop-have experience none the garbage you spew for over a year, is it you may not know anything about using computers like you are using an Under wood typewriter with pica as the font?

[jakthebomb]

This is a very biased Story. I have been using vista sice march 2007. honistly if it was as bad as this artical says it is, i would not be using it right now. and by the way i am typing this with vista.

"Use it before you abuse it" Vista is 10X better than XP. as i say when was the last time i ever got a virus with vista? never! XP within 2 months.

Screw all of your Biased articals Straght to Hell.

I am not a microsoft fan boy as i have 4 MACs, 3 Ubuntu, and 2 Windows PCs. i just use what works.

[hardrocker89]

Well I don't know what your problem with vista is, but I think it's been a very cool operating system and in some instances beats out xp. And basically your saying that anyone that uses vista is dumb? Really dude you should maybe, perhaps, use it first?

[peeskieeskie]

Regardless of how many pieces of silver you receive, your miserable uniformed comments are not going to mean a hill of beans in the overall scheme of things. The people you are trying to influence are a lot more savey than you may think, and instead of the populace losing faith in M$, they realize they have been following a "Judas Goat" to the slaughter. I have two computers, on for me and one for the wife. One with Vista SP1 & IE8, one with XP SP3 & IE8. My Vissta OS is on a inexpensive eMachine I bought before Vista was out, but it had an express upgrade to Vista Home Premium. The whole reason I bought the eMachine was to try Vista incase it didn't work. It has been my machine and OS if choice and runs circles around my high end machine with OEM XP and all of the auto updates, patches and service packs. Don't get me wrong, it works great and my wife loves it, but it just can't compare to Vista. I sometimes wonder who does more damage and dis-service to the public, Malware purveyers or $hhouse rumor mongurs? If everyone had of listened to the likes of you, Windows 95 would still be in the box on the shelves.