Windows 7 performance whoops Vista and XP

[IronManForever]

It is not about RAM's cost. Many laptops having 2 GB RAM start dragging like a pig with Vista and AV hogging most RAM. Applications have very little RAM left. Most professional applications are heavy leading to great productivity hit when RAM is unnecessarily lost to OS and necessary services like AV.

I have told about this enough. I'm telling this from many of my friends experience with Vista pre-installed laptops. I'm not interested is re-iterating the whole story.

Same with my friends SONY Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?

Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
250 GB HDD

Nothing has been modified after it was bought. And it is hellish slow; yeah, maybe because of the crapware intalled by OEMs. Vista takes almost 2 minutes to load.

Isn't there anyway to restore the speed without formatting and re-installing?

 

[gxsaurav]

Same with my friends Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?

Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
250 GB HDD

Nothing has been modified after it was bought. And it is hellish slow; yeah, maybe because of the crapware intalled by OEMs. Takes a Vista takes almost 2 minutes to load.

Isn't there anyway to restore the speed without formatting and re-installing?

Well, I don't think there is any other way then reinstalling. My friend is using a similar Acer Laptop & after reinstalling windows, it has become really fast.

 

[desiibond]

^^ Have you tried Vista Tune-Up utilities given in this months' digit magazine. Also check the "guide to Vista"

 

[adithyagenius]

I don't trust 'tune up' utilities. Most of the tune up utilities for xp did more bad than good.

 

[casanova]

No, its not the utilities but the utility is named "Tune Up Utilities 2009 (latest version). Use it to trust it.

 

[Vishal Patil]

The thing to worry about ram usage is that larger the code, more the time it takes to do the job. smaller the code faster is the job accomplished.

so if you code two DIFFERENT programs in C or assembly language to copy data from one place to other with same features, the smaller will execute fast.
I mean it the matter of getting 3MBps and 2.5MBps for copying same data to pendrive in two different OS. Thats where low ram usage matters not the cheapness of RAM.

 

[desiibond]

^^ So, what happens when the RAM never gets full? NEVER!!

It actually depends on the speed of the processor (not clock speed but performance/wall) and speed of RAM (and of course, RAM timings). If the RAM is above 2gig, all you need to worry about is processor and HDD if your system is slow.

 

[Jayanth.M.P]

Same with my friends SONY Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?

Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
250 GB HDD

Nothing has been modified after it was bought. And it is hellish slow; yeah, maybe because of the crapware intalled by OEMs. Vista takes almost 2 minutes to load.

Isn't there anyway to restore the speed without formatting and re-installing?

Pentium Dual Core T2390, 1.86 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
160 GB HDD

Vista runs like a breeze. It boots 15-20(max) seconds. with security suite installed.

 

[desiibond]

Same with my friends SONY Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?

Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
250 GB HDD

Nothing has been modified after it was bought. And it is hellish slow; yeah, maybe because of the crapware intalled by OEMs. Vista takes almost 2 minutes to load.

Isn't there anyway to restore the speed without formatting and re-installing?

Check my PC in my signature. Vista was very fast even when I used onboard nvidia 6100 and 1Gb ram. The speed depends on how you make it work and not on how new your hardware is.

 

[Pratul_09]

Windows XP lost because it didn't have support for advanced devices. Vista lost because it had all the support for all the advanced devices and features, but didn't allow to control them when to activate and deactivate them. Let's hope that Windows 7 learns from these mistakes and improves.

 

[JojoTheDragon]

Easy solution dudes keep both in dual boot or triple boot.

 

[Vishal Patil]

^^ So, what happens when the RAM never gets full? NEVER!!

It actually depends on the speed of the processor (not clock speed but performance/wall) and speed of RAM (and of course, RAM timings). If the RAM is above 2gig, all you need to worry about is processor and HDD if your system is slow.

well all i can say is that, it was an example. Actually copying data is not matter for todays CPU's, but how about playing games with higher fps and resolutions due to low processing required as a result of efficient coding.

 

[khattam_]

Ahem...what???? Slow, where?

I m using a C2D E6550 with 2 GB RAM & Use professional application which u r talking about with Windows Vista. There is no performance penalty that I see compared to Windows XP. oh! I m also not using any anti virus software. Just Ad muncher & IE with IE 7 pro.

I understand that you are an MVP, but IE7??

Anyways, I have the same config as yours.. however, I have Kaspersky installed for obvious reasons.. Am sure you haven't encountered Win32.Sality....

Pentium Dual Core T2390, 1.86 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
160 GB HDD

Vista runs like a breeze. It boots 15-20(max) seconds. with security suite installed.

either your Vista installation is new or you use it very less with very less software installed...

I have a E6550, 4MB L2 Cache, 2GB DDR2 800 and Vista 64bit. It boots in about 20secs too.. but that is only after I reinstalled it, after it became too slow to normally operate, last week..

Easy solution dudes keep both in dual boot or triple boot.

yes I have.. Win Vista 64bit and Ubuntu 8.10 64 bit...
I have XP in VirtualBox which I access from both OS, when I need it.. But I barely do...

 

[desiibond]

well all i can say is that, it was an example. Actually copying data is not matter for todays CPU's, but how about playing games with higher fps and resolutions due to low processing required as a result of efficient coding.

Do you really think that today's games give more fps just by adding more RAM??

btw, on my PC, NFS:MW runs better on vista than on XP. Any explanation for that??

 

[jck]

im going to install win server 2008 64 bit

 

[comp@ddict]

^^^To do what?

 

[JojoTheDragon]

either your Vista installation is new or you use it very less with very less software installed...

My vista is 7months old and i've kAv and comodo installed. Vista totally runs like breeze. Load time after login is about 20sec but boot takes about 15-20sec coz i got daul boot xp&vista. And Xp runs totally cool with load time with 4-5 sec after login screen.

 

[SunnyChahal]

I installed my Vista Ultimate about 5 months back in August. I just use the CCleaner,NOD 32 and my Vista is as fast as it was on the first day. All my hardware works,so do all the games and all the Dx10 games perform better on Vista than on XP. I also keep my OS updated. Installed SP2 and performance in GTA IV increased by 5 FPS!
I see no reason to go back to XP. Though I've got Windows 7 Beta Build 7000 installed just for testing purposes.

 

[MetalheadGautham]

As my experience with Firefox on windows vs Firefox on linux, first on my rig then on a dual core rig tells, the performance difference is seen only on lower end rigs. Once you go higher, the OS which first lost actually gains lots of ground.

Vista may hang like sh!t on 512MB RAM, but on 2GB RAM, vista will be faster than Windows XP.

(In my case, firefox is faster on windows in my rig but on a dual core rig, same OSes its faster in linux).

And having multiple versions of the same OS installed in your PC is a WASTE OF HARD DISC SPACE. Keep One and stick to it.

I once had a friend who had installed Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME and Windows XP on his computer and said that he had absolutely no compatibility issues. Apparently, he booted into Win98 once a week and used XP all the time. Others were just lying there for "compatibility reasons" and Win98 was only for cheap oooold games. Not at all worth it IMO.

 

[jck]

^^^To do what?

to take full advantage of the 4 gb ram which i am going to get