Vista - Solution found for slow Vista

Having experienced a slow Vista we feel that our success in fixing it may
help some other fellow PC users. We have a laptop HP Pavilion 5000 series
with Intel Duo Core T2300 1.66 GHz, HD 80 GB, NVIDIA Geforce 7400 512 Mb,
memory RAM 1024 and O/S Windows XP Pro SP2.
Initially we installed Windows Vista Home Premium full version after we ran
HP Vista upgrade utility. Vista installed successfully but was from
desperately slow to non responsive.
We then reinstalled Windows XP Pro, partitioned the HD and reinstalled Vista
in the new partition.
That solved the problem and both Windows XP Pro and Vista now run smoothly.
Good luck.

Hi,

If the upgrade resulted in a slow system, but a clean install didn't, then
there was something carried over from the original XP installation that was
incompatible with Vista. Possibly AV or other dated software.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Ahoy" <Ahoy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8F9204E1-D891-4059-86C0-FF2717D5F4D4@microsoft.com...
> Having experienced a slow Vista we feel that our success in fixing it may
> help some other fellow PC users. We have a laptop HP Pavilion 5000 series
> with Intel Duo Core T2300 1.66 GHz, HD 80 GB, NVIDIA Geforce 7400 512 Mb,
> memory RAM 1024 and O/S Windows XP Pro SP2.
> Initially we installed Windows Vista Home Premium full version after we
> ran
> HP Vista upgrade utility. Vista installed successfully but was from
> desperately slow to non responsive.
> We then reinstalled Windows XP Pro, partitioned the HD and reinstalled
> Vista
> in the new partition.
> That solved the problem and both Windows XP Pro and Vista now run
> smoothly.
> Good luck.
>

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:10:14 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
wrote:
>If the upgrade resulted in a slow system, but a clean install didn't, then
>there was something carried over from the original XP installation that was
>incompatible with Vista. Possibly AV or other dated software.

Which is certainly one reason why most geeks who have a clue will
always advise a fresh install as opposed to an upgrade of any OS.

--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

Untrue. I advise that a system be running properly and that one make sure it
is clean of any malware before upgrading. This of course in addition to
checking for program compatibility and the usual hardware checks. Upgrading,
done properly, is the easiest way for a user to maintain their comfort with
a system and minimize adjustments and adaptations necessary with a new OS.
If an upgrade fails, one can always go back and clean install, but not the
other way around.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Elden Fenison" <usenet@moondog.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:7spd83hoovue813i6febre8fpmi6i9uh10@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:10:14 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>>If the upgrade resulted in a slow system, but a clean install didn't, then
>>there was something carried over from the original XP installation that
>>was
>>incompatible with Vista. Possibly AV or other dated software.
>
> Which is certainly one reason why most geeks who have a clue will
> always advise a fresh install as opposed to an upgrade of any OS.
>
> --
> -=Elden=-
> http://www.moondog.org

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:45:28 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
wrote:
>Untrue. I advise that a system be running properly and that one make sure it
>is clean of any malware before upgrading. This of course in addition to
>checking for program compatibility and the usual hardware checks.

Then again, most geeks with a clue will also advise against
top-posting.

Eldon;
A Clean Installation is not always a good idea immediately without
considering an upgrade.
However as always, current backups should be available just in case.

A well maintained and properly prepared computer has a great chance of
upgrading without issues and that can save a great deal of time
afterwards.

On the slim chance the upgrade fails, the back-ups can be used during
the Clean Installation.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Elden Fenison" <usenet@moondog.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:7spd83hoovue813i6febre8fpmi6i9uh10@4ax.com...
> Which is certainly one reason why most geeks who have a clue will
> always advise a fresh install as opposed to an upgrade of any OS.
>
> --
> -=Elden=-
> http://www.moondog.org

I top-post, bottom-post, insert-in-the-middle-post, etc. depending on the
forum. Top posting is common on this forum, so I use it here. In 'nix forums
I peruse I use bottom posting via knode, as it is the accepted norm there.
But, when I feel the need, I post in-line as well. There is no "correct"
method, despite the antiquated notion that bottom posting is the only proper
method. What's proper is to answer the question and not worry about the
format of the answer.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Elden Fenison" <usenet@moondog.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:rq0e83l3eervbg0ofpsahd37v8kdkte5m8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:45:28 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>>Untrue. I advise that a system be running properly and that one make sure
>>it
>>is clean of any malware before upgrading. This of course in addition to
>>checking for program compatibility and the usual hardware checks.
>
> Then again, most geeks with a clue will also advise against
> top-posting.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:03:14 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
wrote:
>I top-post, bottom-post, insert-in-the-middle-post, etc. depending on the
>forum. Top posting is common on this forum, so I use it here. In 'nix forums
>I peruse I use bottom posting via knode, as it is the accepted norm there.
>But, when I feel the need, I post in-line as well. There is no "correct"
>method, despite the antiquated notion that bottom posting is the only proper
>method. What's proper is to answer the question and not worry about the
>format of the answer.

Now that's a good answer!

--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org

Ditto. I have almost never had a problem doing OS upgrades after first
making sure that the system is in pristine condition and all driver and
software compatibility issues carefully researched and addressed. If a
full backup is done first, there is no downside to running the upgrade and
often a great deal of benefit.
--

"Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OKTvjk3uHHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Untrue. I advise that a system be running properly and that one make sure
> it is clean of any malware before upgrading. This of course in addition to
> checking for program compatibility and the usual hardware checks.
> Upgrading, done properly, is the easiest way for a user to maintain their
> comfort with a system and minimize adjustments and adaptations necessary
> with a new OS. If an upgrade fails, one can always go back and clean
> install, but not the other way around.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "Elden Fenison" <usenet@moondog.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7spd83hoovue813i6febre8fpmi6i9uh10@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:10:14 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
>> wrote:
>>>If the upgrade resulted in a slow system, but a clean install didn't,
>>>then
>>>there was something carried over from the original XP installation that
>>>was
>>>incompatible with Vista. Possibly AV or other dated software.
>>
>> Which is certainly one reason why most geeks who have a clue will
>> always advise a fresh install as opposed to an upgrade of any OS.
>>
>> --
>> -=Elden=-
>> http://www.moondog.org
>

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:18:57 -0400, "GTS" <x@y.net> wrote:

> Ditto. I have almost never had a problem doing OS upgrades after first
> making sure that the system is in pristine condition and all driver and
> software compatibility issues carefully researched and addressed. If a
> full backup is done first, there is no downside to running the upgrade and
> often a great deal of benefit.


I agree with you and Rick, but I'd like to add one additional point
here: there was a time, back in the Windows 9X days when many people,
myself included, used to recommend clean installations rather than
upgrades. That advice was warranted then, but things have changed with
Windows XP and Vista. Upgrades to XP and Vista replace almost
everything and are actually very close to a clean installation. People
who still recommend clean installations over upgrades these days are
largely living in the past, and don't realize how the upgrade process
has changed.

I'm running Vista Ultimate here now, on a box that was upgraded from
XP Professional. I've been running it since November, and I have had
*zero* problems with it.


> "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:OKTvjk3uHHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Untrue. I advise that a system be running properly and that one make sure
> > it is clean of any malware before upgrading. This of course in addition to
> > checking for program compatibility and the usual hardware checks.
> > Upgrading, done properly, is the easiest way for a user to maintain their
> > comfort with a system and minimize adjustments and adaptations necessary
> > with a new OS. If an upgrade fails, one can always go back and clean
> > install, but not the other way around.
> >
> > --
> > Best of Luck,
> >
> > Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> > Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> > My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
> >
> > "Elden Fenison" <usenet@moondog.org.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:7spd83hoovue813i6febre8fpmi6i9uh10@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:10:14 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>If the upgrade resulted in a slow system, but a clean install didn't,
> >>>then
> >>>there was something carried over from the original XP installation that
> >>>was
> >>>incompatible with Vista. Possibly AV or other dated software.
> >>
> >> Which is certainly one reason why most geeks who have a clue will
> >> always advise a fresh install as opposed to an upgrade of any OS.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -=Elden=-
> >> http://www.moondog.org
> >

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup