Experienced Vista Users

[ariesram74]

Vista SUCKS!!!! I am definitely switching to XP once I find a bootleg copy...

It may sucks for YOU but not for ME! And I use both of them!

But I'm a Pro and know how to handle it!

Cheers.

I'm running Vista that came with a HP Compaq 6510b Dual Core 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM laptop and for ME VISTA also SUCKS.

I have disabled most of the nice Graphic features that come by default including gadgets but performance is at best mediocre. Applications constantly come up as 'not responding' before they eventually crawl into life, and startups and shutdowns take minutes to complete.

My Windows Experience Index base score (under Performance Information and Tools) is 2.7 and I have read you need a score of at least 3.0 to run Vista satisfactorily, but as Vista came with this laptop one would assume it should run ok ?

As far as I'm concerned Vista falls far short of it's promise and I can't wait to ditch it and get a proper laptop (i.e. a Mac)

I was also a previously a Computer Programmmer and would consider any operating system that requires daily updates to maintain it's performance and integrity as fundamentally flawed .

My laptop has a 2.7 on the Vista experience scale - wish this was posted on the box! I had to go to the internet to find out 5.9 was the highest. My lack of graphics card pulled it down - but that is LESS THAN 50%. Anyway I am generally happy with Vista. I am speccing a new computer and was thinking of just getting XP but then I don't get DirectX10 and this computer would be for gaming.

[ariesram74]

My laptop came with 80GB - real small but I figured no big deal. Then I realized Vista took up 10 GB and is like 12 GB atm. (Plus HP was kind enough to create a D: drive and make that the back up disc - that was 7 GB.) XP is like 4GB?

Add a gig of RAM, will help improve the situation. Vista eats about 700MB standing still.

[ariesram74]

I am so angry with VISTA that my blood pressure increases just thinking about it:

1. It takes about 3 minutes to open and although I have tried to stop start microsoft messenger it still opens it on start up.

2. Annoying pop ups like 'some start up programs are turned off' or ' virus protection not up to date' or ' new update for nokia' etc etc.

3. Crashes VERY regularly on internet explorer, at least twice a session. (Have to turn off PC).

4. Updates, always show fault after download.

5. So slow to open even a word document.

6. I just cannot control it. Everything I do, suddenly I get a circular whirly thing like an egg timer thing that suggests it is busy.

7. When I get a crash Control Alt Delete does not work.

I might take an axe to it one day, I am not joking. Now I am calm on an XP desktop......................

Wow that sounds like a nighmare! I haven't had any problems disabling startup programs. I have had issues updating drivers like when I reinstalled the OS and had to get all the updates... I have had issues with browsers shutting down for no reason. Also - lol - my computer tends to stall on the Apple website (if Apple only put a dedicated graphics card on the Macbook I'd get one.)

I think Microsoft had (obviously) a lot to prove on the new OS Vista. It wasn't OK just to have performance - they were going for style as well - my first thought upon seeing Vista for the first time last year was it looked a lot like a Mac operating system (thought it doesn't run like one.)

Despite Vista's failings, I like the appearance and will give it a shot on my next system. That said, I think it's fair for people to expect that a new operating system runs FASTER than an older operating system.

[ariesram74]

Vista Home Premium on 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo HP laptop

Startup - about 1m45 seconds

Shut Down - 30 seconds.

I believe you have every right to expect excellent performance from Windows Vista, specifically, I believe all of the following statements should be true:

* On a new PC built with up-to-date hardware, Windows Vista should start up in a minute or less and shut down in 30 seconds or less.

* Video performance and audio playback should be smooth and glitch-free.

* Programs should open quickly and do their work without affecting your ability to perform other tasks.

* File transfer speeds should be limited only by the capabilities of your hardware (disk, controller, and network).

* System crashes should be nonexistent, and application crashes should hang the faulting program only, without affecting other programs.

Now the big question: What are your experiences?

It would be interesting to see the TV user's experiences with all sort of Vista Version. Please post!

Cheers.

[Guest Reimar]

"Vista didn't SUCKS and is way more secure than any XP!"

As if that was a recommendation and you're a "Pro" !! You're kidding me aren't you ?

Xp was created and launched in November 2001 and build for hardware existing at that time and later. Same was happen for 95, 98, 2000 and ME.

But the same applies for Vista as well. Vista is build for todays and later hardeware (I mean with later the hardware which is still not on the market yet but developed). In 3 or 5 years Vista will run like a Dream or as XP run today! At the time XP was launched there was the same reply's as for Vista today.

Ok, compare to XP Vista is an Resource Hog which was XP compare to 200 as well! So what's the difference?

Fact is that Vista is more secure than XP which is for me one of the most important points.

And "tweaked" Vista for your own use, if you don't want all available gimmiks, Vista run very well.

I use within my customers an amount of about ~700 PC's with XP and about 120 PC's with Vista, mainly the Business edition, here in Bangkok. The time for Service the different system looks so: XP = 95% and Vista = 5% (after an "learning" period of 3-4 month).

If you were me would you still says: VISTA SUCKS?

Cheers.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi

Vista seems to "suck" mostly on laptops - just the way Ubuntu 8.04 does. The reason is probably because laptops, generally, have a lower performance than desktop machines - specially so in terms of hard drive and graphics! Most laptops (all that i know of!) have a non-removable graphics "card" that has a much lower performance than one with identical chipset and amount of RAM but with AGP or PCI-E connection.

Also laptop HDD's usually spin slower and have longer seek times than those for desktops.

Plus, to run Vista decently, you NEED 2 GB of RAM. Yes, it does run on 1 GB but the difference between 1 and 2 GB is rather dramatic. Been there, done that.

Then there's certain tweaks for Vista (google for "Vista boot time tweaks" and "Vista shutdown time tweaks") to speed these things up considerably. Some software, upon install, changes certain things in the registry (one is a key named AppKillTimeout" or similar) which make Vista or XP wait for these applications to close upon shutdown - a major culprit is "VMware Server" which modified this setting from the original "5.000 ms" to an insane "2.300.000 ms". Which means that, when shutting down, Vista would sit there for MINUTES waiting for VMware services to close, before force-closing them.

Change that setting to 1.000 and experience an almost-instant "off" on Vista. Mine, with tons of self-starters and memory-hogs, did a full cold boot in below 2 minutes (to end of HDD activity) and a clean shutdown in less than 10 seconds. Vista Ultimate 32bit, and certainly no high-end rig - Sempron 2.800+, 2GB DDR-1, ATI x300 with 128 MB, 500+120 GB HDD's. Vista Experience Index just 2.1 (!!) (lowest score in "Aero Graphics Performance")but chugging along nicely, 14 months without problems except for video codec issues the first few months.

Now i changed to Linux (Ubuntu 8.04) and it boots in below 1 minute and shuts down in around 20 seconds on the same machine.

Vista does NOT suck. It's a high-end system demanding decent hardware to run on. You don't drive a Ferrari on Isan agricultural roads, do you?

Best regards.......

Thanh

[b19bry]

"Vista didn't SUCKS and is way more secure than any XP!"

As if that was a recommendation and you're a "Pro" !! You're kidding me aren't you ?

Xp was created and launched in November 2001 and build for hardware existing at that time and later. Same was happen for 95, 98, 2000 and ME.

But the same applies for Vista as well. Vista is build for todays and later hardeware (I mean with later the hardware which is still not on the market yet but developed). In 3 or 5 years Vista will run like a Dream or as XP run today! At the time XP was launched there was the same reply's as for Vista today.

>>> So in your own words, in 3 -5 years we can enjoy the full Vista experience ?

Ok, compare to XP Vista is an Resource Hog which was XP compare to 200 as well! So what's the difference?

>>> So "Vista is a resource hog" which limits it's functionality/usability on todays hardware as you stated above. No difference maybe but oversold certainly

Fact is that Vista is more secure than XP which is for me one of the most important points.

>>>You clearly missed the point of my previous post which was that, Vista being more secure than XP (which has more holes than a swiss cheese) is hardly a recommendation !

And "tweaked" Vista for your own use, if you don't want all available gimmiks, Vista run very well.

>>>I already indicated in two previous posts I have disabled all the graphical gimmicks of Vista yet the laptop which I was provided as a "Vista laptop" can only manage a "mediocre" level of performance with constant hanging (i.e. not responding) of applications. IT DOES NOT RUN VERY WELL !

I use within my customers an amount of about ~700 PC's with XP and about 120 PC's with Vista, mainly the Business edition, here in Bangkok. The time for Service the different system looks so: XP = 95% and Vista = 5% (after an "learning" period of 3-4 month).

>>>And your point is ?

If you were me would you still says: VISTA SUCKS?

>>>Your original post indicated you clear enthusiasm for the product so no I wouldn't. However in the same post you were asking for other user's experiences which I am giving. If you can't accept that everyone enthuses about vista in the same way as you I'm not sure why you posted in the first place ?

Cheers.

[b19bry]

"Vista does NOT suck. It's a high-end system demanding decent hardware to run on. You don't drive a Ferrari on Isan agricultural roads, do you? "

Yeah, but if I bought a Ferrari and it turned out to have an Isuzu D-Max engine I'd be a little pissed !

[Lucifer]

Tweek your Vista.....

http://www.howtogeek.com/tag/windows-vista/#aero

[Wolfie]

I have a desktop, and its pretty much a beast of a machine (only CPU letting me down atm)

I tried Vista when it first came out - a horrible experience, no driver support, sluggish and cumbersome. I eventually moved back to XP and joined the "Vista bashing" crowd. Recently i decided to give it a try again, because i was using a peice of software that had DirectX 10 support and figured as DX10 is Vista only, i'd have another look. So i installed Vista 64bit, then installed Service Pack 1 (SP1) - i found this time around that all the hardware vendors were supporting vista with stable drivers, the service pack had fixed up a tonne of issues with Vista and my experience was a good one.

I have now been using Vista 64bit SP1 and i am happy with it. I dont get any crashes, BSOD's etc, its very stable. I do loose my internet connection fairly often but i suspect that is either True or my router and not a vista specific problem. Apart from that i am happy i gave Vista another chance

[Guest Reimar]

"Vista does NOT suck. It's a high-end system demanding decent hardware to run on. You don't drive a Ferrari on Isan agricultural roads, do you? "

Yeah, but if I bought a Ferrari and it turned out to have an Isuzu D-Max engine I'd be a little pissed !

Unfortunate your ""HP Compaq 6510b Dual Core 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM"" is just an simple Toyota even under the Laptops: lower mid range!

Cheers.

[Guest Reimar]

I have a desktop, and its pretty much a beast of a machine (only CPU letting me down atm)

I tried Vista when it first came out - a horrible experience, no driver support, sluggish and cumbersome. I eventually moved back to XP and joined the "Vista bashing" crowd. Recently i decided to give it a try again, because i was using a peice of software that had DirectX 10 support and figured as DX10 is Vista only, i'd have another look. So i installed Vista 64bit, then installed Service Pack 1 (SP1) - i found this time around that all the hardware vendors were supporting vista with stable drivers, the service pack had fixed up a tonne of issues with Vista and my experience was a good one.

I have now been using Vista 64bit SP1 and i am happy with it. I dont get any crashes, BSOD's etc, its very stable. I do loose my internet connection fairly often but i suspect that is either True or my router and not a vista specific problem. Apart from that i am happy i gave Vista another chance

Fair comment!

I using Vista 64 bit on an AMD X2 50000 with 8 GB ram and an Nvidia 8500 GT and that machine runns even faster than my main server with Server 2008 64 Bit and 8 GB ram!!

All my other Vista computers running the 32 Bit version with 2 GB Ram and didn't have any problems which have anything to do with the OS. The 2 computers left running XP, now with SP3, continou having the BSOD after some while, hanging about 1 - 2 times a day and having other problems. Because of very old software in use I still need to use that OS otherwise I had changed already.

From experiences I had with computers of my customers, there 2 different category of Vista systems: one with out problems and one with problem! Taking a closer look at that system, I found that the computers without problems running legit software only but the one with problems, uses "copy" software mainly!

On my own system I run legit software only because of my business.

So I suggest before starting to tell that Vista SUCKS, take o close and honest look at your system, don't lie to yourself or others and blame in the right direction!

Cheers.

[PattayaDavid]

I have to agree Vista sucks. I’ve been reasonably satisfied with Windows 95 through to XP.

I also run HP pavilion dv6735ee dual core 2.0 GHz notebook with 2348MB DDR2 SDRAM with pre installed Vista home premium.

Vista takes forever to load and shut down and as far as I’m concerned slows the machine down. At the first opportunity I’ll be loading XP over it. Vista is a waste of money.

I have to agree with those who say that Vista does need updated hardware to perform as it is expected.  It works best when used with a desktop solution running a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Duo Quad processor, a stand alone graphics card and at least 2GB of RAM installed.  I have Vista installed on both my notebook (ThinkPad T61 Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz with 2GB RAM) and my desktop running a Core 2 Duo Quad 2.4GHZ with 2GB RAM with an Nvidia 8800 video card.  The difference in performance is quite notable.  I think that the main problems with notebook computers, other than the video card support, is all of the bundled software that is preloaded on the hard drive at the time of purchase.  In the past, I have fomatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows along with only the programs that i actually use and the speed improved significantly.

Did you purchase your HP notebook in Thailand or elsewhere?  Does it have the Vista ready sticker on it or did it just come with Vista installed.  In Thailand, they tend to install Vista on almost every model computer and don't always count on it being an original version.  

I would not recommend using Vista, especially on a notebook computer, if it did not have at least a Core 2 Duo processor.  That extra 7GB partition on your hard drive most likely is for rescue and recovery to restore your computer to the original state at the time of purchase.

Overall, I have had a good experience with Vista.  Even though it is a little slow on my notebook computer, I have yet to experience a crash of any sort on either of my computers.  I have just purchase Vista Home Premium 64-bit and will be installing it on my desktop along with additional RAM soon.

Pattayadavid

[Guest Reimar]

I have to agree Vista sucks. I’ve been reasonably satisfied with Windows 95 through to XP.

I also run HP pavilion dv6735ee dual core 2.0 GHz notebook with 2348MB DDR2 SDRAM with pre installed Vista home premium.

Vista takes forever to load and shut down and as far as I’m concerned slows the machine down. At the first opportunity I’ll be loading XP over it. Vista is a waste of money.

I have to agree with those who say that Vista does need updated hardware to perform as it is expected. It works best when used with a desktop solution running a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Duo Quad processor, a stand alone graphics card and at least 2GB of RAM installed. I have Vista installed on both my notebook (ThinkPad T61 Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz with 2GB RAM) and my desktop running a Core 2 Duo Quad 2.4GHZ with 2GB RAM with an Nvidia 8800 video card. The difference in performance is quite notable. I think that the main problems with notebook computers, other than the video card support, is all of the bundled software that is preloaded on the hard drive at the time of purchase. In the past, I have fomatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows along with only the programs that i actually use and the speed improved significantly.

Did you purchase your HP notebook in Thailand or elsewhere? Does it have the Vista ready sticker on it or did it just come with Vista installed. In Thailand, they tend to install Vista on almost every model computer and don't always count on it being an original version.

I would not recommend using Vista, especially on a notebook computer, if it did not have at least a Core 2 Duo processor. That extra 7GB partition on your hard drive most likely is for rescue and recovery to restore your computer to the original state at the time of purchase.

Overall, I have had a good experience with Vista. Even though it is a little slow on my notebook computer, I have yet to experience a crash of any sort on either of my computers. I have just purchase Vista Home Premium 64-bit and will be installing it on my desktop along with additional RAM soon.

Pattayadavid

The problem that Vista on a Laptop is more slow (notable) than on an Desktop, is because of the slow speed of the HDD.

One other problem could be the Performance Settings of the Laptop which is mainly set to balanced, If you set to high performance, the system speeds up because the CPU will work with full power instead of reduced power. As long as a power source is available, the Laptop can run in high performance mode because you don't need to look at the remaining battery power!

Cheers.

[b19bry]

"Vista does NOT suck. It's a high-end system demanding decent hardware to run on. You don't drive a Ferrari on Isan agricultural roads, do you? "

Yeah, but if I bought a Ferrari and it turned out to have an Isuzu D-Max engine I'd be a little pissed !

Unfortunate your ""HP Compaq 6510b Dual Core 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM"" is just an simple Toyota even under the Laptops: lower mid range!

Cheers.

>>>Yes I can accept that, but why then is it (along with many other laptops) delivered with Vista (including a Vista logo) when it's clearly not capable of running it satisfactorily. I agree it should have been delivered with XP, but I cannot load XP without the expense of an XP license. I'm not alone, and I and many other customers have been left with a bad taste of Vista because it's oversold !

"Tweek your Vista.....

http://www.howtogeek.com/tag/windows-vista/#aero"

>>> I did already and it still runs like a dog !

[Guest Reimar]

"Vista does NOT suck. It's a high-end system demanding decent hardware to run on. You don't drive a Ferrari on Isan agricultural roads, do you? "

Yeah, but if I bought a Ferrari and it turned out to have an Isuzu D-Max engine I'd be a little pissed !

Unfortunate your ""HP Compaq 6510b Dual Core 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM"" is just an simple Toyota even under the Laptops: lower mid range!

Cheers.

>>>Yes I can accept that, but why then is it (along with many other laptops) delivered with Vista (including a Vista logo) when it's clearly not capable of running it satisfactorily. I agree it should have been delivered with XP, but I cannot load XP without the expense of an XP license. I'm not alone, and I and many other customers have been left with a bad taste of Vista because it's oversold !

"Tweek your Vista.....

http://www.howtogeek.com/tag/windows-vista/#aero"

>>> I did already and it still runs like a dog !

May check the HDD! If the HDDruns at 4000 rpm than isn't fast enough for Vista. And you need 2 GB memory as well!

About the Readyness and the Capable is running some Court Case in the US against MS already!

But What's the meaning of Ready and/or Capable? And by the Way, HP's having the Nick name The Dog!!

My Acer 5593 wit Core 2 Duo 1,66 and 2 GB Ram runs very well with Ultimate!

Cheers

[Insight]

I hated Vista. I think I can consider myself a pro - have been developing on MS platforms professionally now for 10 years - but I hated it. The only thing I liked was the way it could go in and out of hibernation in less than a minute, but that's where it all very abruptly ends.

Reimar, you mention that users should know how to "tweak" Vista to get the performance out of it. Is this on machines that come shipped supposedly "Vista ready" ? My own "tweaks" on a laptop I purchased with Vista over a year ago included stopping the diabolical indexing service, disabling UAC (annoying, patronizing rubbish), disabling Aero, and yet it still performed dog slow compared to XP standards on the same machine. Combine it with the convoluted "Fisher-Price" interfaces, especially in the wireless network configuration, there was very little left to be impressed with.

In hindsight, yes I should of bumped the memory up another gig, but why shouldn't I expect the thing to work out of the box?

Ended up patching a legit XP install CD and installing that on it. No significant complaints since. Installed the OS, drivers, Visual Studio in less than a day and it was all ready for use.

Okay, this was over a year ago and I can appreciate things have changed since then, but it's left a very bad first impression - and can assure you I'm no way in the minority. I know one user, who isn't as "MS Dependant" as us office workers, that has decided to make the switch to Mac for the sake of avoiding another Vista laptop.

Vista sucks.

[Wolfie]

Windows 3.1 runs like lightning on the same machine that your XP install runs 'just fine'

you have to accept the fact that as software moves forward - so must the hardware (or vice-versa), of course Vista is going to be more resource hungry than XP/2000/ME/NT etc - same as XP was more resource hungry than 2000 etc etc. Even if you tweak it to death, its still going to need a beefier machine.

I'll agree with some of the above posters, a Dual Core and 2GB ram is a must for Vista, anything less would be like trying to run XP on an old 386. Laptops again are not the best platform to base an opinion on, a lot of the hardware is integrated, sharing ram etc (thinking GFX & Ram) Also Laptops seem to run hotter than base units, i guess forcing all that hardware into a tiny box with minimal ventallation is going to make it run hotter. As they say, if you want to double the speed of your PC - put it in the fridge!!! Hardware slows down when it gets hotter - fact!

My base unit at home blows away my laptop on non-scientific benchmark tests (laptop XP - base unit Vista) - by non-scientific i mean simply opening the same application on both machines at the same time and visually see which finishes first - both have similar spec CPU's, base unit has double the Ram and a better GFX card. Would i dream of putting Vista on my Laptop? No way!

Everyone has their preferences, i was one of the ones that resisted XP until i simply had no choice other than to use it, some people will be the same with Vista. People are not comfortable with change. The Vista launch was fraught with problems, from both the codebase through to the vendor support, this put a lot of people off as the reports came through saying "vista is cr@p!" etc. Service Pack 1 was (for me) the golden egg when it comes to Vista. Would i go back to XP? Yes if i had to run it on some 'lesser' machines, but if i thought the machine was a high enough spec, i would go vista (sp1) everytime.

[Insight]

Same baseless argument again mate. The first time I got my hands on XP was with an MSDN Universal subscription - way before it hit the shelves. When using it for the first time on an "average" machine back then, it was in no way plagued with the performance and usability issues I experienced with Vista. In fact, it was a marked improvement was we were comparing to Windows 2000 Professional, which took years to boot up. In comparison, XP was a nice breath of fresh air, just like any new OS should be.

Of course OS's and hardware evolve with each other, and modern OS's will require modern hardware configurations. Regardless, Vista was still released very prematurely.

Let's also forget the fact that the laptop in question HP Pavillion dv2000 - was built for Vista, and needed a patched version of the XP CD when installing to support the right BIOS drivers (intentionally made difficult).

[Guest Reimar]

....................................

Let's also forget the fact that the laptop in question HP Pavillion dv2000 - was built for Vista, and needed a patched version of the XP CD when installing to support the right BIOS drivers (intentionally made difficult).

Just to the last of your points: the HP wasn't built for Vista but for XP instead and just capable to run Vista! And HP like to sell staff which isn't that 100% compatible at all. And they even provide infos about spareparts with Specification which never exist!

I had that kind of experiences with HP Thailand and that was why I was happy to be able to sell my former HP-Compaq!

Anyway the HP in question here was a: ""HP Compaq 6510b Dual Core 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM"" and NOT a 2000DV

Cheers.

[slackula]

I using Vista 64 bit on an AMD X2 50000 with 8 GB ram and an Nvidia 8500 GT and that machine runns even faster than my main server with Server 2008 64 Bit and 8 GB ram!!

So, to use Vista properly we all need to have desktop machines with 8GB ram and Server 2008 is crap on the same hardware?

All my other Vista computers running the 32 Bit version with 2 GB Ram and didn't have any problems which have anything to do with the OS. The 2 computers left running XP, now with SP3, continou having the BSOD after some while, hanging about 1 - 2 times a day and having other problems. Because of very old software in use I still need to use that OS otherwise I had changed already.

So you are saying that BSOD is OK if it's on XP, BSOD has nothing to do with the OS, and Vista legacy support is just fine in your experience?

From experiences I had with computers of my customers, there 2 different category of Vista systems: one with out problems and one with problem! Taking a closer look at that system, I found that the computers without problems running legit software only but the one with problems, uses "copy" software mainly!

OK, now this is getting too technical for me! Let me understand correctly, there are two types of systems: those with problems and those without problems? Am I correct? The ones *with* problems had an OS that allowed the software to be installed? Correct?

So I suggest before starting to tell that Vista SUCKS, take o close and honest look at your system, don't lie to yourself or others and blame in the right direction!

So, after everybody upgrades to a 64 bit, 8 GB ram system with a high end graphics card and a high speed HDD their Vista experience will be great, right?

[Guest Reimar]

I using Vista 64 bit on an AMD X2 50000 with 8 GB ram and an Nvidia 8500 GT and that machine runns even faster than my main server with Server 2008 64 Bit and 8 GB ram!!

So, to use Vista properly we all need to have desktop machines with 8GB ram and Server 2008 is crap on the same hardware?

All my other Vista computers running the 32 Bit version with 2 GB Ram and didn't have any problems which have anything to do with the OS. The 2 computers left running XP, now with SP3, continou having the BSOD after some while, hanging about 1 - 2 times a day and having other problems. Because of very old software in use I still need to use that OS otherwise I had changed already.

So you are saying that BSOD is OK if it's on XP, BSOD has nothing to do with the OS, and Vista legacy support is just fine in your experience?

From experiences I had with computers of my customers, there 2 different category of Vista systems: one with out problems and one with problem! Taking a closer look at that system, I found that the computers without problems running legit software only but the one with problems, uses "copy" software mainly!

OK, now this is getting too technical for me! Let me understand correctly, there are two types of systems: those with problems and those without problems? Am I correct? The ones *with* problems had an OS that allowed the software to be installed? Correct?

So I suggest before starting to tell that Vista SUCKS, take o close and honest look at your system, don't lie to yourself or others and blame in the right direction!

So, after everybody upgrades to a 64 bit, 8 GB ram system with a high end graphics card and a high speed HDD their Vista experience will be great, right?

slackula:

I suggest that you didn't try to read what isn't standing in the post from me.

To be very clear, I talked about my own computer and the systems of my customers and not of anyone else computer. The experiences I had with my own system and the systems of my customers didn't reflect anything else.

Did I make that clear enough?

[PattayaDavid]

I have to agree Vista sucks. I've been reasonably satisfied with Windows 95 through to XP.

I also run HP pavilion dv6735ee dual core 2.0 GHz notebook with 2348MB DDR2 SDRAM with pre installed Vista home premium.

Vista takes forever to load and shut down and as far as I'm concerned slows the machine down. At the first opportunity I'll be loading XP over it. Vista is a waste of money.

I have to agree with those who say that Vista does need updated hardware to perform as it is expected. It works best when used with a desktop solution running a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Duo Quad processor, a stand alone graphics card and at least 2GB of RAM installed. I have Vista installed on both my notebook (ThinkPad T61 Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz with 2GB RAM) and my desktop running a Core 2 Duo Quad 2.4GHZ with 2GB RAM with an Nvidia 8800 video card. The difference in performance is quite notable. I think that the main problems with notebook computers, other than the video card support, is all of the bundled software that is preloaded on the hard drive at the time of purchase. In the past, I have fomatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows along with only the programs that i actually use and the speed improved significantly.

Did you purchase your HP notebook in Thailand or elsewhere? Does it have the Vista ready sticker on it or did it just come with Vista installed. In Thailand, they tend to install Vista on almost every model computer and don't always count on it being an original version.

I would not recommend using Vista, especially on a notebook computer, if it did not have at least a Core 2 Duo processor. That extra 7GB partition on your hard drive most likely is for rescue and recovery to restore your computer to the original state at the time of purchase.

Overall, I have had a good experience with Vista. Even though it is a little slow on my notebook computer, I have yet to experience a crash of any sort on either of my computers. I have just purchase Vista Home Premium 64-bit and will be installing it on my desktop along with additional RAM soon.

Pattayadavid

The problem that Vista on a Laptop is more slow (notable) than on an Desktop, is because of the slow speed of the HDD.

One other problem could be the Performance Settings of the Laptop which is mainly set to balanced, If you set to high performance, the system speeds up because the CPU will work with full power instead of reduced power. As long as a power source is available, the Laptop can run in high performance mode because you don't need to look at the remaining battery power!

Cheers.

Reimar,

I agree with most of what you have written, but I fail to agree completely with your primace that the hard drive is the main reason for a laptops slower performance.  Windows Performance Index rates my hard drive at 5.1. Most desktop hard drives, minus the Raptor, run at 7,200 RPM.  My Hitachi hard drive in my ThinkPad T61 also runs at 7,200 RPM.  Of course, RPM by itself isn't everything.  Startup speed, access time and buffer size must all be taken in consideration too, however I don't think that any of these factors will make a substantial decrease in performance.  I do agree that a computer using a hard drive that operates at 4,200 RPM would make a greater difference, but I dare say that you won't find a laptop hard drive in a modern day laptop running at a speed of less than 5,400 RPM.  I still think that the extra software loaded on a laptop that differentiates it from its desktop counterpart has a greater effect on laptop performance along with performance setting as you have pointed out. Also, my laptop uses the Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M running all standard functions including aero and has the lowest Performance Index rating of 4.0.

Pattayadavid

Edited June 9, 2008 by PattayaDavid

[Thanh-BKK]

Hello.

Then how comes that my lowly desktop, with a Vista "Experience" of only 2.1, blew my colleagues shiny new laptop, which reached 4.6 (!), out of the water and to the moon in just about EVERY possible aspect, be it boot time, shutdown time, application launch time and even graphic performance???

He has a dual-core CPU in there, 4 GB of RAM (twice mine!) and a graphics card with 512 MB. Needless to say, he paid almost 80k for that machine. Still it took a minute longer than my slow old outdated desktop to boot the same Vista Ultimate and he even had LESS startup items.

And that was AFTER i had tweaked his machine, about the state it was in when he bought it we don't need to talk, you could have breakfast in the time it booted then.

One item that most people have installed which has a HUGE impact on performance and specially bootup speed is the anti-virus. Norton is the very worst, and Norton's "360" should be declared "illegal" outright for it more than DOUBLES boot time. On Vista, that is - on XP it's only about 75% slower with that hog installed.

Laptop vs. desktop, the performance difference is also visible with XP as well as Linux, when you take identical OS versions and put them on identical spec'ed machines, just one desktop and one laptop, the desktop will ALWAYS win by a great margin.

Plus, laptops have devices in them that desktops don't, and those utilize drivers that are loaded on boot and thus slow things down - think of touchpad, volume buttons, bluetooth, IrDA, WiFI, screen brightness buttons etc etc etc, all things which have Windows drivers to work, and the more drivers you load the slower your system becomes.

try this: On a regular laptop, wipe the drive and install a plain XP (or Vista) without any drivers. Time the boot. Then install all the drivers from the disc supplied with the laptop. Time the boot again. The difference will be dramatic! Then install Norton or McAfee or other bloatware AV and you can say "good night".

Best regards.....

Thanh

[Guest Reimar]

Reimar,

I agree with most of what you have written, but I fail to agree completely with your primace that the hard drive is the main reason for a laptops slower performance. Windows Performance Index rates my hard drive at 5.1. Most desktop hard drives, minus the Raptor, run at 7,200 RPM. My Hitachi hard drive in my ThinkPad T61 also runs at 7,200 RPM. Of course, RPM by itself isn't everything. Startup speed, access time and buffer size must all be taken in consideration too, however I don't think that any of these factors will make a substantial decrease in performance. I do agree that a computer using a hard drive that operates at 4,200 RPM would make a greater difference, but I dare say that you won't find a laptop hard drive in a modern day laptop running at a speed of less than 5,400 RPM. I still think that the extra software loaded on a laptop that differentiates it from its desktop counterpart has a greater effect on laptop performance along with performance setting as you have pointed out. Also, my laptop uses the Nvidia Quadro NVS 140M running all standard functions including aero and has the lowest Performance Index rating of 4.0.

Pattayadavid

Just checked the spec of an T61 and you're right the HDD rpm is 7200.

In my Acer 5593 the HDD is an Hitachi 5400 120 GB and gives an index of 4.7 while the lowest index id the ATI X1600 with 3.3 the next lowest is the Gaming Graphics with 4.3 all others are on 4.7.

I had tested memories with CL3 and the will get an memory Index of 5.7 and I waiting right now for the memory 2 x 2 GB Apacer CL 3 which I ordered from Europe because isn't available in Thailand.

Anyway the lowest part in Laptops is the Graphic Card.

I using the Driver from Guru3D which is better than the one from ATI itself and it was bringing .3 points on the Index.

But with the Lenovo I'm not sure because if the Mainboard is produced by Lenovo itself and not IBM, then the speed is a bit more slow. The IBM Mainboards, which are produced by IBM's own Mainboard manufacturer, are much faster than the Lenovo boards. That could be an weak point.

The other weakpoint can be the overall settings in Vista. Mainly if set to balanced, as I wrote in an other post, the CPU will not work with full speed.

You can esay check via the Power Settings on which state your Laptop is. Just right click on the Battery Icon in system tray follow by click on Power options. Here you can set to your need.

I had set my one to High Performance. If I compare the 5593 (Core 2 Duo 1.66 GHz, 2 GB 667 ) with an Desktop AMD (X2 3800+ , 2 GB 400) there is just a little difference. But compare with and AMD X2 5000 8 GB 800 the 5593 is an Turtle! But still runs beter on Vista Ultimate than on XP Media Center!

So may you try the Graphic driver from Guru3D (http://wwww.guru3d.com) to get bit better speed. But also try to limit the program running TSR!

I use whatsrunning (http://www.whatsrunning.net) a freeware for to check and stop what I don't need. There different software avilable for that checking may same good as whatsrunning, but I like that one.

One other thing for a bit speed improvement is tp keep the Registry clean and the HDD as well. Here I use the software from Auslogic which you can download from their site and it's also freeware.

Cheers.

[Guest Reimar]

Hello.

Then how comes that my lowly desktop, with a Vista "Experience" of only 2.1, blew my colleagues shiny new laptop, which reached 4.6 (!), out of the water and to the moon in just about EVERY possible aspect, be it boot time, shutdown time, application launch time and even graphic performance???

He has a dual-core CPU in there, 4 GB of RAM (twice mine!) and a graphics card with 512 MB. Needless to say, he paid almost 80k for that machine. Still it took a minute longer than my slow old outdated desktop to boot the same Vista Ultimate and he even had LESS startup items.

And that was AFTER i had tweaked his machine, about the state it was in when he bought it we don't need to talk, you could have breakfast in the time it booted then.

One item that most people have installed which has a HUGE impact on performance and specially bootup speed is the anti-virus. Norton is the very worst, and Norton's "360" should be declared "illegal" outright for it more than DOUBLES boot time. On Vista, that is - on XP it's only about 75% slower with that hog installed.

Laptop vs. desktop, the performance difference is also visible with XP as well as Linux, when you take identical OS versions and put them on identical spec'ed machines, just one desktop and one laptop, the desktop will ALWAYS win by a great margin.

Plus, laptops have devices in them that desktops don't, and those utilize drivers that are loaded on boot and thus slow things down - think of touchpad, volume buttons, bluetooth, IrDA, WiFI, screen brightness buttons etc etc etc, all things which have Windows drivers to work, and the more drivers you load the slower your system becomes.

try this: On a regular laptop, wipe the drive and install a plain XP (or Vista) without any drivers. Time the boot. Then install all the drivers from the disc supplied with the laptop. Time the boot again. The difference will be dramatic! Then install Norton or McAfee or other bloatware AV and you can say "good night".

Best regards.....

Thanh

I really don't know how that Index is measured?! But one thing is for sure, the Bus speed of Desktop Mainboards are faster that most of the Laptops.

And you're right the AV software is a big Brake! I using Clam AV (Freeware) and that AV have a very little effect on the speed.

I had just a complete new clean installation on my Laptop because after 1 1/2 Year it was time for that and to much rubbish was on it. In the past 1 1/2 year I had used Avast AV and the CPU init was never below 20% but most above 70% while the use of the memory (2 GB) was steady by about 50-55% at all times.

Now, just before reinstalling I was download and tested the Freeware Driver Max 4.0 just to see how good that software work and it done an excellent job.

I formatted (low level and high level) the HDD (120GB Hitachi 5,400 rpm) installed Vista incl. SP1, installed Driver Max again and than all drivers back with Driver Max, follow by Clam AV, FireFox 3 RC2, Office 2007 Pro complete icl. Sharepoint Designer, Visio and Project and all the other Gimik Softwar I need for my work and now the CPU init is by 1 - 4% while no action and goes up to 5-7% whiloe writing right now. open an other prg (Nero 8) and the CPU goes up to 37%. The memory is by 42% steady.

Before reinstalling the used Memory was min by 1200 MB which is now by 865 MB.

And I didn't disable Aero yet!

But I do believe that a lot of this improvement is because of the AV Software!

Cheers.

[dave_boo]

I mostly run my laptop (listed on the first page of the thread) under Linux, so I've already covered the specs. However, here's the hdparm output for those who think that laptop drives can't be speedy:

daveboo@daveboo-laptop:~$ sudo hdparm -iTt /dev/sda

/dev/sda:

Model=Hitachi HTS542516K9SA00				 , FwRev=BBCOC31P, SerialNo=070920BB0C00WGG1Y63A
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=4
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=7229kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=?16?
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes:  pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 
DMA modes:  mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 
AdvancedPM=yes: mode=0x80 (128) WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: unknown:  ATA/ATAPI-2 ATA/ATAPI-3 ATA/ATAPI-4 ATA/ATAPI-5 ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7

* signifies the current active mode

Timing cached reads:   11842 MB in  1.99 seconds = 5944.96 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads:  158 MB in  3.03 seconds =  52.17 MB/sec

Note that is a 160 GB 5400 RPM drive. Not too shabby in my eyes!

[Wolfie]

I hate to break it to you, but 5400rpm is the slowest speed hard drive commercially available. 7200rpm is pretty much the industry standard these days.

Even my 1.5 TB hard drive runs at 7200rpm

[Guest Reimar]

I hate to break it to you, but 5400rpm is the slowest speed hard drive commercially available. 7200rpm is pretty much the industry standard these days.

Even my 1.5 TB hard drive runs at 7200rpm

Wolfie we talking about Laptop Hard Disks 2.5" and NOT the normal PC HDD 3.5"

Cheers.

[Wolfie]

still slower though