Vista - Help needed, Vista runs very slow

I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow.. does
Vista generally run slower than XP???

I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!


--
B'rgds,

Vinnie

On Jul 6, 11:21 am, "Uncle Vinnie" <vinri...@optonline.not.net> wrote:
> I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow.. does
> Vista generally run slower than XP???
>
> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>
> --
> B'rgds,
>
> Vinnie

10 reasons not to get Vista http://apcmag.com/5049/10_reasons_not_to_get_vista

Has a link to say why you should

Uncle Vinnie wrote:
> I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow.. does
> Vista generally run slower than XP???
>
> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>
>

We have Vista-equipped units that are fast, and others (like
mine) that are relatively slow. There's no obvious difference -
they're all 2GB, core duo, with about the same things on them.

By "slow" I mean there is a perceptible delay in responding to a
click on an icon or an email indicator, and lengthy boot and
shutdown periods.

"Fast" computers are responsive and load at about the same pace
as our previous XP did.

My Vista Home Premium computer was "fast" until a few days ago.



???

"Uncle Vinnie" <vinrin57@optonline.not.net> wrote in message
news:OlB7tp$vHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow.. does
>Vista generally run slower than XP???
>
> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>
>
> --
> B'rgds,
>
> Vinnie
>
You need to give us a little more information. What are your hardware
specs, processor, memory, how much graphics memory and whether or not that
memory is shared or onboard the graphics card. What applications are you
running and what antivirus software do you have installed.

Does Vista generally run slower than XP? That depends. Vista, with all its
visual bells and whistles requires a lot of horsepower to run as fast or
faster than XP, but the information is anecdotal. Vista, with all visuals
enabled runs faster on my system than XP ran but I also have a fast system.
Hence, we need to know more about your system before we can offer any
assistance or see if there are potential bottlenecks.

--
Michael Solomon
Backup is a PC user's best friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

Michael Solomon wrote:
>
>
> "Uncle Vinnie" <vinrin57@optonline.not.net> wrote in message
> news:OlB7tp$vHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow..
>> does Vista generally run slower than XP???
>>
>> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>>
>>
>> --
>> B'rgds,
>>
>> Vinnie
>>
> You need to give us a little more information. What are your hardware
> specs, processor, memory, how much graphics memory and whether or not
> that memory is shared or onboard the graphics card. What applications
> are you running and what antivirus software do you have installed.
>
> Does Vista generally run slower than XP? That depends. Vista, with all
> its visual bells and whistles requires a lot of horsepower to run as
> fast or faster than XP, but the information is anecdotal. Vista, with
> all visuals enabled runs faster on my system than XP ran but I also have
> a fast system. Hence, we need to know more about your system before we
> can offer any assistance or see if there are potential bottlenecks.
>

Michael, it's impressive that Vista runs fast on your system. I
believe you, but the reason is surely more than fast hardware;
it probably involves a number of setup optimizations and tweaks.
Perhaps you would agree that any dual core machine with 2GB
should run Vista well unless inhibited by fixable problems, but
I'm not good enough to identify and eliminate those impediments.
You apparently are, and I hope you will share your skill!

As one example, I have never found a credible list of Services
that I can safely eliminate on this Dell e1405 laptop that
accesses the net wirelessly but never 'shares' and is never part
of a network...

Ike

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:21:08 -0400, "Uncle Vinnie"
<vinrin57@optonline.not.net> wrote:

>I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow.. does
>Vista generally run slower than XP???
>
>I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!

The more information you give the better your responses will be. Just
saying your system runs slow doesn't really tell anybody anything.

For example if you hear your hard drive grinding away a lot that could
mean your computer is indexing or running an anti-virus scan or doing
a defrag. It could also mean it is trying to start up some service or
process and keeps failing, but keeps trying and in the process throws
more resources at it causing everything to slow down. Some application
could be hung up, same result.

Is your system always slow regardless what you're doing or only when
you do certain things or only after it has been running for hours? Try
to be more specific and the responses you get will be more useful.

"Ike" <binarydotike@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6m7ud$dl9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Michael Solomon wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Uncle Vinnie" <vinrin57@optonline.not.net> wrote in message
>> news:OlB7tp$vHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow..
>>> does Vista generally run slower than XP???
>>>
>>> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> B'rgds,
>>>
>>> Vinnie
>>>
>> You need to give us a little more information. What are your hardware
>> specs, processor, memory, how much graphics memory and whether or not
>> that memory is shared or onboard the graphics card. What applications
>> are you running and what antivirus software do you have installed.
>>
>> Does Vista generally run slower than XP? That depends. Vista, with all
>> its visual bells and whistles requires a lot of horsepower to run as fast
>> or faster than XP, but the information is anecdotal. Vista, with all
>> visuals enabled runs faster on my system than XP ran but I also have a
>> fast system. Hence, we need to know more about your system before we can
>> offer any assistance or see if there are potential bottlenecks.
>>
>
> Michael, it's impressive that Vista runs fast on your system. I believe
> you, but the reason is surely more than fast hardware; it probably
> involves a number of setup optimizations and tweaks. Perhaps you would
> agree that any dual core machine with 2GB should run Vista well unless
> inhibited by fixable problems, but I'm not good enough to identify and
> eliminate those impediments. You apparently are, and I hope you will share
> your skill!
>
> As one example, I have never found a credible list of Services that I can
> safely eliminate on this Dell e1405 laptop that accesses the net
> wirelessly but never 'shares' and is never part of a network...
>
> Ike

To be fair, Ike while I haven't done any tweaks to my system, I should at
least state my specs. I have a 3.6Ghz, P4 Hyper threaded system,with 2GB of
Dual Channel 533 SDRAM. Now, hyper threading is not that far off from
dual-core and theoretically they both give the system some of the advantages
of having two processors.

From that we'd have to work our way backward. Whatever advantages I may
have with a 3.6Ghz processor, they are likely offset by running a dual core
processor, even one with a lower clock speed. The next area would be memory
and memory clock speed. We both have the same amount of memory but my
experience thus far has been that running in dual channel mode, if your
system supports it, will certainly give it a boost. I don't know if your
system is running in dual channel mode, it would usually tell you that on
the first boot screen. Today, the average system using dual channel mode
would support a memory clock speed of 633Mhz as oppose to the 533 of which
my system runs.

Next, my graphics card is a now somewhat dated but quite capable ATI X700
Radeon with 250MB of onboard GDDR3 RAM. If your system is using system
memory, that can be a bottleneck. Finally, I have a dedicated soundcard as
opposed to using my motherboard's onboard sound. A dedicated soundcard
relieves the system of some additional burden as well.

My motherboard is an Intel D915PCY. At the time I had the shop build this
for me, there were no dual core systems, the Pentium D had only just arrived
and with the exception of the Pentium D extreme, without hyper threading,
the Pentium D systems were fairly sluggish by comparison. The anecdotal
evidence I've been seeing in these newsgroups tells me that Dual Core
systems have the potential to fly with Vista, especially the "Core 2"
systems but experience seems all over the map and I suspect a lot has to do
with OEM configurations, where they might have scrimped, the possibility of
Norton Antivirus or McAfee on the system since many system are shipping with
trial versions of one or the other and they are both noted system hogs.

Now, understand, if your system doesn't match some of my hardware, you may
be able to do so. You'd have to check what your motherboard supports.
Perhaps, you're not using dual channel memory or running in dual channel
mode but your board supports it. This requires the right memory placed in
the right slots and usually requires memory in pairs.

Hope the above helps a bit.
--
Michael Solomon
Backup is a PC user's best friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

Michael Solomon wrote:
>
>
> "Ike" <binarydotike@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f6m7ud$dl9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Michael Solomon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Uncle Vinnie" <vinrin57@optonline.not.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OlB7tp$vHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs
>>>> slow.. does Vista generally run slower than XP???
>>>>
>>>> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> B'rgds,
>>>>
>>>> Vinnie
>>>>
>>> You need to give us a little more information. What are your
>>> hardware specs, processor, memory, how much graphics memory and
>>> whether or not that memory is shared or onboard the graphics card.
>>> What applications are you running and what antivirus software do you
>>> have installed.
>>>
>>> Does Vista generally run slower than XP? That depends. Vista, with
>>> all its visual bells and whistles requires a lot of horsepower to run
>>> as fast or faster than XP, but the information is anecdotal. Vista,
>>> with all visuals enabled runs faster on my system than XP ran but I
>>> also have a fast system. Hence, we need to know more about your
>>> system before we can offer any assistance or see if there are
>>> potential bottlenecks.
>>>
>>
>> Michael, it's impressive that Vista runs fast on your system. I
>> believe you, but the reason is surely more than fast hardware; it
>> probably involves a number of setup optimizations and tweaks. Perhaps
>> you would agree that any dual core machine with 2GB should run Vista
>> well unless inhibited by fixable problems, but I'm not good enough to
>> identify and eliminate those impediments. You apparently are, and I
>> hope you will share your skill!
>>
>> As one example, I have never found a credible list of Services that I
>> can safely eliminate on this Dell e1405 laptop that accesses the net
>> wirelessly but never 'shares' and is never part of a network...
>>
>> Ike
>
> To be fair, Ike while I haven't done any tweaks to my system, I should
> at least state my specs. I have a 3.6Ghz, P4 Hyper threaded system,with
> 2GB of Dual Channel 533 SDRAM. Now, hyper threading is not that far off
> from dual-core and theoretically they both give the system some of the
> advantages of having two processors.
>
> From that we'd have to work our way backward. Whatever advantages I
> may have with a 3.6Ghz processor, they are likely offset by running a
> dual core processor, even one with a lower clock speed. The next area
> would be memory and memory clock speed. We both have the same amount of
> memory but my experience thus far has been that running in dual channel
> mode, if your system supports it, will certainly give it a boost. I
> don't know if your system is running in dual channel mode, it would
> usually tell you that on the first boot screen. Today, the average
> system using dual channel mode would support a memory clock speed of
> 633Mhz as oppose to the 533 of which my system runs.
>
> Next, my graphics card is a now somewhat dated but quite capable ATI
> X700 Radeon with 250MB of onboard GDDR3 RAM. If your system is using
> system memory, that can be a bottleneck. Finally, I have a dedicated
> soundcard as opposed to using my motherboard's onboard sound. A
> dedicated soundcard relieves the system of some additional burden as well.
>
> My motherboard is an Intel D915PCY. At the time I had the shop build
> this for me, there were no dual core systems, the Pentium D had only
> just arrived and with the exception of the Pentium D extreme, without
> hyper threading, the Pentium D systems were fairly sluggish by
> comparison. The anecdotal evidence I've been seeing in these newsgroups
> tells me that Dual Core systems have the potential to fly with Vista,
> especially the "Core 2" systems but experience seems all over the map
> and I suspect a lot has to do with OEM configurations, where they might
> have scrimped, the possibility of Norton Antivirus or McAfee on the
> system since many system are shipping with trial versions of one or the
> other and they are both noted system hogs.
>
> Now, understand, if your system doesn't match some of my hardware, you
> may be able to do so. You'd have to check what your motherboard
> supports. Perhaps, you're not using dual channel memory or running in
> dual channel mode but your board supports it. This requires the right
> memory placed in the right slots and usually requires memory in pairs.
>
> Hope the above helps a bit.

It's excellent information, though little of it is helpful in
tweaking the typical dual core Vista machine. I switched from a
3.06GHz P4 HT with 2GB RAM, and to me this unit seems slow.

Perhaps SP1?

Thanks!

"Ike" <binarydotike@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6mv1l$o1$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Michael Solomon wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ike" <binarydotike@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f6m7ud$dl9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Michael Solomon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Uncle Vinnie" <vinrin57@optonline.not.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OlB7tp$vHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow..
>>>>> does Vista generally run slower than XP???
>>>>>
>>>>> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> B'rgds,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vinnie
>>>>>
>>>> You need to give us a little more information. What are your hardware
>>>> specs, processor, memory, how much graphics memory and whether or not
>>>> that memory is shared or onboard the graphics card. What applications
>>>> are you running and what antivirus software do you have installed.
>>>>
>>>> Does Vista generally run slower than XP? That depends. Vista, with
>>>> all its visual bells and whistles requires a lot of horsepower to run
>>>> as fast or faster than XP, but the information is anecdotal. Vista,
>>>> with all visuals enabled runs faster on my system than XP ran but I
>>>> also have a fast system. Hence, we need to know more about your system
>>>> before we can offer any assistance or see if there are potential
>>>> bottlenecks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Michael, it's impressive that Vista runs fast on your system. I believe
>>> you, but the reason is surely more than fast hardware; it probably
>>> involves a number of setup optimizations and tweaks. Perhaps you would
>>> agree that any dual core machine with 2GB should run Vista well unless
>>> inhibited by fixable problems, but I'm not good enough to identify and
>>> eliminate those impediments. You apparently are, and I hope you will
>>> share your skill!
>>>
>>> As one example, I have never found a credible list of Services that I
>>> can safely eliminate on this Dell e1405 laptop that accesses the net
>>> wirelessly but never 'shares' and is never part of a network...
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>> To be fair, Ike while I haven't done any tweaks to my system, I should at
>> least state my specs. I have a 3.6Ghz, P4 Hyper threaded system,with 2GB
>> of Dual Channel 533 SDRAM. Now, hyper threading is not that far off from
>> dual-core and theoretically they both give the system some of the
>> advantages of having two processors.
>>
>> From that we'd have to work our way backward. Whatever advantages I may
>> have with a 3.6Ghz processor, they are likely offset by running a dual
>> core processor, even one with a lower clock speed. The next area would
>> be memory and memory clock speed. We both have the same amount of memory
>> but my experience thus far has been that running in dual channel mode, if
>> your system supports it, will certainly give it a boost. I don't know if
>> your system is running in dual channel mode, it would usually tell you
>> that on the first boot screen. Today, the average system using dual
>> channel mode would support a memory clock speed of 633Mhz as oppose to
>> the 533 of which my system runs.
>>
>> Next, my graphics card is a now somewhat dated but quite capable ATI X700
>> Radeon with 250MB of onboard GDDR3 RAM. If your system is using system
>> memory, that can be a bottleneck. Finally, I have a dedicated soundcard
>> as opposed to using my motherboard's onboard sound. A dedicated
>> soundcard relieves the system of some additional burden as well.
>>
>> My motherboard is an Intel D915PCY. At the time I had the shop build
>> this for me, there were no dual core systems, the Pentium D had only just
>> arrived and with the exception of the Pentium D extreme, without hyper
>> threading, the Pentium D systems were fairly sluggish by comparison. The
>> anecdotal evidence I've been seeing in these newsgroups tells me that
>> Dual Core systems have the potential to fly with Vista, especially the
>> "Core 2" systems but experience seems all over the map and I suspect a
>> lot has to do with OEM configurations, where they might have scrimped,
>> the possibility of Norton Antivirus or McAfee on the system since many
>> system are shipping with trial versions of one or the other and they are
>> both noted system hogs.
>>
>> Now, understand, if your system doesn't match some of my hardware, you
>> may be able to do so. You'd have to check what your motherboard
>> supports. Perhaps, you're not using dual channel memory or running in
>> dual channel mode but your board supports it. This requires the right
>> memory placed in the right slots and usually requires memory in pairs.
>>
>> Hope the above helps a bit.
>
> It's excellent information, though little of it is helpful in tweaking the
> typical dual core Vista machine. I switched from a 3.06GHz P4 HT with 2GB
> RAM, and to me this unit seems slow.
>
> Perhaps SP1?
>
> Thanks!
Well, there is one thing I left out, I don't use a desktop wallpaper.<LOL>
Pretty though they sometimes are, I consider it a waste of resources.
However, on my current system, there was very little gain but some gain
nonetheless!

One other thing to check besides what antivirus you are using is some PCs
come from the factory with a power saving mode enabled, as if it were a
laptop. You might check to see if your system has such a mode and whether
or not it is enabled.

--
Michael Solomon
Backup is a PC user's best friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Uncle Vinnie" <vinrin57@optonline.not.net> wrote in message
news:OlB7tp$vHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I need some advice where to look - new HP desktop, simply runs slow.. does
>Vista generally run slower than XP???
>
> I really need to get this pc running faster.. thanks!
>
>
> --
> B'rgds,
>
> Vinnie
>


Vinnie,

Need more info... how much RAM is installed in your PC? Does the video card
use shared RAM? If so, how much? How long have you had this new PC?

Lang