 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Vista / Performance and Maintainance / December 2006Speed?
Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)? I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access queries mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can dual boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS. I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could this be slowing things down, this much? Personally, I have the impression that everything is faster with Vista. I am NOT a gamer. Especially, multi-tasking is faster, I think, because of the better memory management. I am using an AMD Athlon 3200 Barton CPU with 2 gig of PC3200 clock 2 RAM. The O/S is loaded to a SATA drive.  SignatureRegards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! > Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could > this be slowing things down, this much? did you cleanup you install when it was done and you had loaded up all your programs. only thing I find that is slower than XP 64 bit is defrag. mikeyhsd@sport.rr.com Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)? I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access queries mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can dual boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS. I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could this be slowing things down, this much? I did a clean install. In fact I bought a new Raptor drive just for Vista. Vista and Office are the only things on the drive. I should have mentioned originally, that I am using the 64bit version of Vista. Perhaps the 32bit version is quicker. I also am not into gaming that much. My system is used almost exclusively for Access database work. What I based my opinion on was the other threads in this group and my own experience. I have a macro that runs a group of 150 queries against a rather large database. In XP with Access 2003, I can run thru the queries in 15 minutes. In Vista with Access 2003 it takes 30 minutes. The one thing I notice is that while running the queries in XP, I use at most 50-60% of 2gb of Ram. In Vista, I hit 99% usage after a few minutes. Therefore, the slowness I observe is probably due to Vista using the Page file once the 2gb of Ram is used. Maybe 4gb or more is really needed? Thanks, > did you cleanup you install when it was done and you had loaded up all your programs. > only thing I find that is slower than XP 64 bit is defrag. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could > this be slowing things down, this much? I find that Vista is much more "responsive" -- I run an AMD 3200 with 1 GB ram (Ok, so UPS is bringing me 2 more GBs today!) and a combination of fast, but un-exotic ATA and SATA drives. Additionally, I also work on Access databases, with a local front end and a networked backend, and when I first tried this under Vista I became very worried that this just wasn't going to fly! It was deathly slow. But, the problem was with the network. Full Duplex doesn't seem to work? Lock the system down to Full Duplex, 100MBit and you couldn't stand to open the database or try to work with it, it took forever to do anything. Set the network back to auto detect media type, and it's back to near-normal... I suspect that "near-normal" may be half duplex, but it's usable. There are also some other discussions on the internet about problems with WiFi connections causing limitations on the LAN connections, so if you have wireless on the affected station, you may want to do some Googling on the subject. --Jon Vista is slower... > Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could > this be slowing things down, this much? I have to agree that, for me, Vista is slower than XP. SignatureJohn Barnett MVP Associate Expert Windows Shell/User Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy, reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this mail/post.. > Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could > this be slowing things down, this much? RTM does not have a lot of debugging code. Most of that was removed between RC1 and RC2. The video drivers are still beta and that does impact performance. There are other driver possibilities that may be responsible. The hard drive controller driver is one I would look at. > Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could > this be slowing things down, this much? I think you may be right about the hard drive controller driver. I'll scout around and see if there has been an update. Thanks! > RTM does not have a lot of debugging code. Most of that was removed between > RC1 and RC2. The video drivers are still beta and that does impact [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could > > this be slowing things down, this much? > Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! > > In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to > speed or lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do > faster than XP for the normal user (except deplete their checking > account)? Hang? Frustrate you? Make you wonder what they're smoking in Redmond these days? And that's just 3 areas that will work faster in Vista than in any other version of Windows, except possibly Windows ME. I have found that by disabling SuperFetch, Windows Search Service and ReadyBoost increased performance 200%. In fact at a TS2 event, the instructor's pc locked up, I told him to disable Windows Search and it freed up. > I have found that by disabling SuperFetch, Windows Search Service and > ReadyBoost increased performance 200%. > > In fact at a TS2 event, the instructor's pc locked up, I told him to > disable Windows Search and it freed up. That's good to know but by the time you've disabled all that lot, and if you've seen fancy graphics before in your lifetime and therefore aren't overly entranced by Aero then you've got to really start questioning the value of Vista... A few weeks ago I said Vista was much slower than XP but now I am using RC2 64 bit and XP 64 bit i have run several Performance Tests using both OS on the same dual-boot Opteron PC. They run neck and neck and - an important point - Vista is now performing 40% faster than it was those weeks ago. I don't play games. In fact I don't really do any serious work except improving photographs with Adobe Photoshop, that's why I have to use Performance Test to make comparisons. Both OS now give PassMarks in the region of 735 to 755. But that's what we want, according to every vendor, to Index the world and for it to look pretty. It is a waste. If you want indexing, use Google or Microsoft LookOut. Both index much better. Also, if you are running Outlook 2007, disable its indexing too. > That's good to know but by the time you've disabled all that lot, and if > you've seen fancy graphics before in your lifetime and therefore aren't > overly entranced by Aero then you've got to really start questioning the > value of Vista... Folding@Home runs a tad bit quicker on Vista than on XP. Also, since I upgraded from a 128MB Radeon 9550 to a 256MB AIW 2006, I'd say Vista and XP are neck and neck as far as everyday tasks go. Signature"Hurricane" Andrew Milford, DE >> Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And that's just 3 areas that will work faster in Vista than in any other > version of Windows, except possibly Windows ME. I had the same question until I recently reformatted a computer that had been running Vista RTM for a 40 days and installed XP. Here are the specific things I noticed: When running Lightroom, Vista is much better at looking at many files. When multitasking with one heavy program (like lightroom w/ 7000 photos) changing between the heavy program and others, like IE, is much quicker in Vista. When running setups (Office, Lightroom, SAP2000, ETABS) the computer is much more responsive when running other programs. Vista speeds up a lot after running it for a few days. This is probibly due to better memory management and management of the Core 2 duo. Note that I had 1 gig of ram, a 128 meg graphics card and a 4 gig SD card in ReadyBoost. Ben > Honest, this is a genuine comment/question! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could > this be slowing things down, this much? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.