Vista - Very disappointed with Vista's performance especially gaming!

Have you checked each drive properties to see if index box is checked?
Made one hell of a difference on 2 machines here. Uncheck it.

In general I find the same things as you and have removable drives so
hardware is identical so I would compare as follows.

Vista 32 is slower than XP on 32 bit machine.

Vista 32 on 64 bit machine is somewhat slower than XP 32 on 64 bit machine.

Vista 64 is slower still than XP 32 on 64 bit machine.

XP 64 is a waste of space on any machine, no drivers etc.

Unless you have some software that requires 64 bit OS stick with 32. Of
course your experience might differ so it's probably cheaper to try both
on separate drives if you are already using one version reliably.




Joe Corey wrote:
> I am no longer running raid but it was hardware raid-0 or striped.
>
> I am always getting the latest drivers for the 8800.
>
> I have tweaked the system about as much as I can without losing
> functionality. Disabled indexing, sidebar, system restore. Not much help.
>
> My performance is not by any means poor, the only thing that was
> disappointing to me (very disappointing I might add) is the fact that my
> XP partition loads so much faster, is so much more responsive. I can
> click multiple things without waiting and the hard drive isnt running
> all the time. With 10krpm Raptors this is very annoying to listen to all
> the time
>
> I don't think that a newer more modern system should be that much
> slower. With that being said I think my rating is not bad at all (5.2)
> and I have seen numerous other systems with ratings of 2 or 3. It's all
> relative to XP. Maybe I'm just asking to much for it to be as fast...
>
> "Dana Cline" <dana@logicsmith.com> wrote in message
> news:%23RUAF%23T1HHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Couple of points to consider. First, the 8800 is an awesome board, but
>> nVidia's drivers have been problems...do you keep up with the latest
>> drivers of the week?
>>
>> Raid slows things down too - are you using hardware raid or software?
>> Do you really need raid?
>>
>> Have you tweaked the system to enhance performance? Turn off the
>> sidebar, disable the Windows Search service. Download Microsoft's
>> "autoruns" utility to see what's in your startup, and get rid of a lot
>> of it. What are you running for antivirus?
>>
>> Dana Cline - MCE MVP
>>
>> "Joe Corey" <klrjoe@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:540E8EFD-505E-44D5-B502-1E2C37F3E502@microsoft.com...
>>> I must say after 3 months now I am very disappointed with Vista
>>> Ultimate x64 when it comes to gaming and general performance. I have
>>> a core2 e6600, 4gb of DDR II 800MHZ, 2 raptor X 150GB 10,000rpm hard
>>> drives in a RAID-0 and the darn thing is still considerably slower at
>>> EVERYTHING than my XP pro which is installed onto a single Samsung
>>> spin-point 40gb drive! I fail to see how something that is supposedly
>>> better and more modern is so much slower. I doubled the ram from 2 to
>>> 4gb and it made no noticeable difference in load times or hd activity
>>> while gaming. THe background tasks are supposed to be low priority
>>> but the just happen to coincide with lag? Programs like MS Flight SIM
>>> X and BF2, BF 2142 take forever to load in comparison not to mention
>>> there are frequent lag spikes during game play. I just feel that for
>>> Gaming Vista is a huge step backwards. I hope that future
>>> updates/service packs do something for the performance because so far
>>> I am not seeing any reason to continue using Vista on a Gaming PC.
>>> All of my hardware is vista x64 compatible and I have latest drivers
>>> and BIOS. It's just Vista. It's slow!!!
>>
>

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:8lf3b3hjv84ke1t9gm8i02irebl4au7lnl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:25:42 -0500, "GeekBoy" wrote:
>>"Lord Takyon" <takyon@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> "Joe Corey" <klrjoe@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> You might have misunderstood me. I have a 64bit cpu and a 64bit OS. I
>>>> have run both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions on this system. Don't see
>>>> much of a performance difference at all. If anything 64 bit seems
>>>> faster.
>
>>The same thing occured when Windows 95 came out and people running 16 bit
>>apps on the 32 bit OS.
>
>>He is going to either go back to 32 bit or by another computer with a 32
>>bit
>>CPU.
>
> False, in that the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is nothing like
> the 16-bit to 32-bit.
>
>
> In the Win95 / NT 3.x era, new processors such as the Pentium Pro and
> (to a lesser extent) the Pentium II were heavily optimised for 32-bit
> code, whereas older processors were not. So there was a large YMMV
> element in 16-bit vs. 32-bit code performance.
>
> In that era, the move to 32-bit came after the processor hardware had
> been in place throughout the 386, 486 and Pentium generations. It
> took ages for OS and software to catch up, and the new 32-bit code
> world was vastly different in ways beyond addresing range - think
> pre-emptive multitasking, hypervisor control over application code,
> virtual memory paging, address relocation, etc.
>
>
> In this era of early 64-bit computing, we do have completely new
> 64-bit processors, but they have remained niche products. What you
> currently refer to as "64-bit" processors are merely variations of
> 32-bit processors with 64-bit addressability added on.
>
> So aside from the ability to address larger scopes, such as > 4G RAM,
> there really isn'yt much inherent value in moving to 64-bit computing.
> Much of what value there is, has been compatibility-shedding security
> enhancements such as PatchGuard, mandatory driver signing, etc.
>
>
> The downsides of 64-bit are a far smaller subset of compatible drivers
> and utilities. Other applications generally don't need to care
> whether they are on a 32-bit or "64-bit" platform, though 64-bit users
> would like them to make use of 64-bit addressability.
>
> In particular, consider your WinPE 2.0 maintenance OS:
> - WinPE 2.0 64-bit will not access 32-bit Vista, and vice versa
> - so you have to use 64-bit WinPE 2.0
> - 64-bit WinPE 2.0 will not run 64-bit programs
> - so you have to use 64-bit av, data recovery, diagnostic etc. tools
>
> It's hard enough to find maintenance tools that will work from WinPE,
> without them having to be 64-bit as well.
>
>
> In particular, the assertion that "he is going to either go back to 32
> bit or b(u)y another computer with a 32 bit CPU" is totally absurd.
> All current CPUs are likely to have 64-bit support, and that means all
> current (new) PCs are running Vista32 on "64-bit" CPUs.

Well then you explain why EVERYONE has problem with 32 bit software slowing
down on 64 bit CPU and OS.


>
>
>
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> The most accurate diagnostic instrument
> in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:11:35 -0500, "GeekBoy" <geek@boy.com> wrote:

>Well then you explain why EVERYONE has problem with 32 bit software slowing
>down on 64 bit CPU and OS.

Does "everyone" have that problem?

Or just folks who have to use version 1.00 64-bit drivers that are
optimized poorly in comparison with version 3.2738 32-bit drivers?

I know folks keep saying "drivers, drivers, drivers" with Vista 64,
but the fact is that virtually all performance-relevant hardware (HD
controllers, display chipset, etc.) is going to depend hugely on
device drivers for performance.

When that layer is not the same (as is inevitably the case, given that
you can't use the same drivers on both platforms) then it's really
hard to draw conclusions based on the applications.

There are two ways around this:

1) Use a test benchmark that isn't affected by drivers

2) Compare 32-bit apps on 32-bit and 64-bit platforms

If you do (2), and the 64-bit platform is slower, then you're either
looking at inefficiencies of running 32-bit code on a 64-bit OS (as
you assert) or you're looking at driver issues (as I suggest).

You can then test the 64-bit version of the app on the 64-bit OS and
compare that with the 32-bit app on the 32-bit OS. Again, if the
64-bit app is slower, it suggests either drivers (as I suggest) or
that the app vendor has written a slower 64-bit version of the app
than their 32-bit version (unlikely, but possible due to the same
reasons that "young" 64-bit drivers may be slower than mature 32-bit
drivers). One may then ask; why bother with 64-bit right now?

If the 64-bit app is way faster than the 32-bit app on either
platform, then it's either a better-implimented app, or there really
is a drastic benefit to 64-bit computing and running 32-bit apps on a
64-bit app is a waste of 64-bit potential.

Whichever way you slice it, you always have at least 2 variables
meshed together - and that makes comparisons difficult to interpret.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Error Messages Are Your Friends
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -