Snail pace Vista - any fixes?

sco0ter

I take it from the amount of ram that your video card is a shared card as well.. Make sure all the fancy visual effects are turned off and go to

http://www.crucial.com/

And run the Crucial System Scanner tool to tell you what type of RAM you need then have a look on Play or ebuyer for some good deals. Look for at least another 1GB.

[Deleted User]

TechTerry wrote: »

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.

That's what it was designed to do, and the memory kernals were redesigned to make the operating system take full ownership of system RAM and allocate as each program makes a request for it. It can be sluggish for the first week of having a fresh install while Vista prioritises application use on the machine.

I'm on Vista Ultimate, both my PC's are running x64 without a problem and haven't had any issues with stability nor incompatibility. A lot of the negative remarks Vista gets are by:

a) People who are trying to run it on underspecced machines and expecting to much

or

b) The zealots who'd find the smallest fault and over exagerate it.

I'm a professional software developer and I use Vista by choice and consider it infinately better than XP ever was and will be.

sco0ter

formerchamp wrote: »

For the record my first computer was a dragon 32 (which by the way stood for 32k), I have been writing programs for over 20 years and can safely say that I have a huge knowledge of most of microsoft software.

Had the Dragon 64 myself (which by the way stood for 64k)Used to be fine till I lost my DragonDos disk and couldnt get a replacement. Did try OS9 but didnt like it .. Got rid of it for a superior Commodore 64 (which by the way stood for 64k).

formerchamp wrote: »

Don't assume that simply because I didn't use technical language I can't, I was expressing an honest opinion. I really do not like vista and I don't use it on my own laptop, nor do I use office 2007 because I find it patronising. But don't call me a liar, may I refer you to the following links, and see what others think, these are just 2 examples of many:

And google will show a lot more.

So are you a real Beta Tester or someone who gets hold of Beta Software??.

TechTerry

be_alright wrote: »

That's what it was designed to do, and the memory kernals were redesigned to make the operating system take full ownership of system RAM and allocate as each program makes a request for it. It can be sluggish for the first week of having a fresh install while Vista prioritises application use on the machine.

I'm on Vista Ultimate, both my PC's are running x64 without a problem and haven't had any issues with stability nor incompatibility. A lot of the negative remarks Vista gets are by:

a) People who are trying to run it on underspecced machines and expecting to much

or

b) The zealots who'd find the smallest fault and over exagerate it.

I'm a professional software developer and I use Vista by choice and consider it infinately better than XP ever was and will be.

Well said, i do web design as a hobby and i was expecting programs not to work as i herd all this 'Vista dont work with your programs' well everything worked fine, i got vista a few weeks after it was released, even when installing on my nans old machine, the only thing it did not work with was the Modem ( who uses these? ), her webcam ( Was a cheap £9.99 one ) and the card reader, she runs vista home premium on:

Intel P4 2.6GHz
2x 512MB RAM ( Upgraded from 512MB )
Nvidia Geforce FX5200 256MB ( Upgraded from Nvidia Geforce FX5200 64MB )
80GB HDD

Runs fine and on vista test most things show around 3 i think last time i remember.

chunter

HelenYorkshire wrote: »

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

Thanks for suggestions so far
I'll definately run the scans you've suggested,

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

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

I'll post results of scans later

Don't worry too much about the scans. The boys (in their own inimitable way) are right. It's the 512 mbyte which is killing you.

A 1 gigabyte stick of memory will make a noticable difference.

Oh and dump the chandaliers. (ie all the fancy dodahs which come with Vista like that thing on the right hand side.

[Deleted User]

Ok I've just priced up the memory that your computer would require from Crucial.com and 1GB would be £12.91 or 2GB would be £25.84.

If you could stretch to it then I would recommend the 2GB as then you'll have a responsive computer, with 1GB it will be better than it is now but not as good as it can be for you.

HelenYorkshire

Oh that's not bad at all, I was thinking over 50 quid...!
Thank you!

(Does it come with lego / ikea style instructions to plug it in...?)

[Deleted User]

It's just a case of taking out what is in and adding the new, here's two guides to show you how:

http://www.ehow.com/how_895_install-ram.html

http://www.build-your-own-computer-tips.com/install-ram.html

It's not a difficult job by any means, but if you're not confident maybe you can ask a friend with a bit more experience. Certainly don't pay anyone to do it, unless it's a glass of wine or a pint for previously said friend.

TonyLisaP

Be sure to get either an antistatic wrist strap and use it whenever you are working with your computers components. You can quite easily static damage the components which will shorten their lifespan.

superscaper

I've seen people permanently damage electronic components due to not earthing themselves. It's not common but it's probably not worth the risk. Standard practice in the electronic labs I've been in to wear wrist straps.