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

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!!!

"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!!!

Are you running Vista x64 instead of 32 bit?

Yes but I have supported drivers for all hardware.


"GeekBoy" <allGeek@hownerdy.com> wrote in message
news:46add68f$0$8034$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "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!!!
>
> Are you running Vista x64 instead of 32 bit?
>
>
>

"Joe Corey" <klrjoe@comcast.net> wrote in message
news82A9CC5-C9CB-4E20-A062-3922292868B2@microsoft.com...
> Yes but I have supported drivers for all hardware.

Well that's your problem.

You need to be running a 32 bit OS on a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit OS on
64 bit processor.

And not running 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS.

Slows everything down.

I have graphic intensive Battle Field 2 and it runs fine on 32 bit Vista.




>
>
> "GeekBoy" <allGeek@hownerdy.com> wrote in message
> news:46add68f$0$8034$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "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!!!
>>
>> Are you running Vista x64 instead of 32 bit?
>>
>>
>>
>

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.



>
> Well that's your problem.
>
> You need to be running a 32 bit OS on a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit OS
> on 64 bit processor.
>
> And not running 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS.
>
> Slows everything down.
>
> I have graphic intensive Battle Field 2 and it runs fine on 32 bit Vista.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> "GeekBoy" <allGeek@hownerdy.com> wrote in message
>> news:46add68f$0$8034$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "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!!!
>>>
>>> Are you running Vista x64 instead of 32 bit?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

"Joe Corey" <klrjoe@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8E04AAB6-23A1-4ED1-B12A-913A4B294F1D@microsoft.com...
> 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.
>
>
>
>>
>> Well that's your problem.
>>
>> You need to be running a 32 bit OS on a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit OS
>> on 64 bit processor.
>>
>> And not running 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS.
>>
>> Slows everything down.
>>
>> I have graphic intensive Battle Field 2 and it runs fine on 32 bit Vista.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "GeekBoy" <allGeek@hownerdy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46add68f$0$8034$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "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!!!
>>>>
>>>> Are you running Vista x64 instead of 32 bit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


Having used 64 bit edition on a comparable system to my own, it did seem
slightly faster. But running 32bit apps in a 64 bit OS always seems to have
a performance drop.

--
Can't think of a sig at the moment.
Read this instead.

"Joe Corey" wrote:

> 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!!!
> No doubt Vista is a litle slower.

I have Vista Business on an Asus A8N5X with an AMD 4800 X2 AMD x1800xt 2
gigs ram with a 250 Gig HD. Have XP Pro on an Asus A8N5X with AMD 4600 X2
Nvidia 7900GT 2 gigs ram and 120 gig HD. The XP machine feels quicker

In article <F36328FC-2BA5-41CD-9E00-A85E295B4B36@microsoft.com>,
GusKline@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> I have Vista Business on an Asus A8N5X with an AMD 4800 X2 AMD x1800xt 2
> gigs ram with a 250 Gig HD. Have XP Pro on an Asus A8N5X with AMD 4600 X2
> Nvidia 7900GT 2 gigs ram and 120 gig HD. The XP machine feels quicker

I have Vista Business on a ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard, Dual 2.8ghz
Xeon CPU (with Hyper threading enabled), Mirrored 200GB SATA drives, 4GB
RAM, and a cheap 128MB AGP card and I can say that on the exact SAME
computer, that XP and/or Server 2003 provides MUCH BETTER PERFORMANCE.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Lord Takyon" <takyon@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23xwp93t0HHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Joe Corey" <klrjoe@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8E04AAB6-23A1-4ED1-B12A-913A4B294F1D@microsoft.com...
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Well that's your problem.
>>>
>>> You need to be running a 32 bit OS on a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit OS
>>> on 64 bit processor.
>>>
>>> And not running 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS.
>>>
>>> Slows everything down.
>>>
>>> I have graphic intensive Battle Field 2 and it runs fine on 32 bit
>>> Vista.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "GeekBoy" <allGeek@hownerdy.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46add68f$0$8034$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "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!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you running Vista x64 instead of 32 bit?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Having used 64 bit edition on a comparable system to my own, it did seem
> slightly faster. But running 32bit apps in a 64 bit OS always seems to
> have a performance drop.


Yes that also.

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.

before Vista I had XP x64 and XP on the same computer dual booting.
Had to when playing games. All the games were just too slow on 64 bit OS.



>
> --
> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
> Read this instead.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2118469b8177c8b1989891@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <F36328FC-2BA5-41CD-9E00-A85E295B4B36@microsoft.com>,
> GusKline@discussions.microsoft.com says...
>> I have Vista Business on an Asus A8N5X with an AMD 4800 X2 AMD x1800xt 2
>> gigs ram with a 250 Gig HD. Have XP Pro on an Asus A8N5X with AMD 4600 X2
>> Nvidia 7900GT 2 gigs ram and 120 gig HD. The XP machine feels quicker
>
> I have Vista Business on a ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard, Dual 2.8ghz
> Xeon CPU (with Hyper threading enabled), Mirrored 200GB SATA drives, 4GB
> RAM, and a cheap 128MB AGP card and I can say that on the exact SAME
> computer, that XP and/or Server 2003 provides MUCH BETTER PERFORMANCE.
>

Yes for 32 bit apps, but when trying to run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS it
goes to crap because it has to emulate 32 bit.


> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)