Snail pace Vista - any fixes?

TonyLisaP

Just keeping the thread alive.

russ_gillespie

tonyhague wrote: »

On like for like hardware it is hard to argue that vista doesn't include a performance disadvantage

I disagree. You have to actually use Vista for the performance to increase. I agree that on a fresh install of xp and vista that xp will probably come out on top. But install all your software and use Vista for a month, and it will be considerably faster, maybe not on your spec, but on a more modern PC it would be.

No one's saying you should upgrade to Vista, but there's no doubt in my mind that if you're buying or building a new PC with a modern spec then you should go with Vista and it will give you better perfomance than an XP equivalent.

Also if you think that dx10 is all vista has over xp (apart from security), you're having a laugh.

DatabaseError

TonyLisaP wrote: »

Just keeping the thread alive.

...this to make message long enough....

TechTerry

Im not too sure on this beta tester, doesn't that mean you were beta testing Windows 95?

Anywho, i would say go for the easy route of reformatting, if that dont solve your problem you know its either a hardware problem or something the maafacture put on it, can you tell us what make and model it is so we can look it up?

HelenYorkshire

Hello all, sorry I've only intermittant internet access.

Thanks for suggestions so far, sorry I can't remember all your names to thank but :beer:. And sorry for being a complete novice / idiot!
I'll definately run the scans you've suggested, but it was running v slow from being brand new, and I only got online at least a month later. Had the Norton antivirus trial version on, got rid of that when trial ended as everyone said it would "clog things up". Then I'll have a look at the performance tools.

Specs according to "my computer":
2 x hard drives, of which C has 29.9 out of 69.7GB used. D has 69.4GB free.

Control panel says: Intel pentium D 3GHz, 447MB, 32-bit OS.

It's an Acer Aspire SA90. My printer wasn't compatible at all (no drivers) so is not connected. My scanner had drivers available and seems to work fine. I use the 3 mobile broadband which is tempermental despite me checking it was compatible before signing up.

Is it the 447MB part that some of you think is too slow? Would it be fairly cheap / simple to add extra?

Restoring to factory settings would slow it down startup even more - being an Acer all kinds of little things popped up! Start up is okay, it's just actually running anything.
Last night it (vista) updated itself instead of turning off like I told it :mad: BUT it's not quite so bad now.

I'll post results of scans later

spud17

Had the Norton antivirus trial version on,

Was it removed using the Norton removal tool ?

Millionaire

No wonder its slow, you haven't got enough Ram.

Need at least 1GB to run smoothly but 2Gb would be even better.

try www.crucial.com, put in your system details in the memory advisor and it should tell you the correct ram you need.

TechTerry

447MB RAM?

Thats too small for vista, vista premium needs at least 1024MB (1GB) RAM with recommended at 2GB.

I think even the most basic version needs 512MB RAM.

EDIT: Post above beat me.

[Deleted User]

tonyhague wrote: »

please don't mention security, better tools available free.

I'm sorry to call you on this one, but this point is incorrect. XP is inherintly more insecure than Vista because of the way applications run with the privilages of the account that is logged in, which for most people unless they have done differently (which is rare) is the Administrator account. That's why UAC and SecureDesktop were introduced to both make users aware of what is going on and to force software developers to be write their software in such a way that it wouldn't require full Administrator access systemwide unless it was necessary.

You also can't deny that having IE7 running in 'sandbox' is not more secure than it has previously been..

TechTerry

be_alright wrote: »

I'm sorry to call you on this one, but this point is incorrect. XP is inherintly more insecure than Vista because of the way applications run with the privilages of the account that is logged in, which for most people unless they have done differently (which is rare) is the Administrator account. That's why UAC and SecureDesktop were introduced to both make users aware of what is going on and to force software developers to be write their software in such a way that it wouldn't require full Administrator access systemwide unless it was necessary.

You also can't deny that having IE7 running in 'sandbox' is not more secure than it has previously been..

I have to agree, i also think that even though it uses more RAM, it uses it in a usefull way, applications load fast. Well for me they do.