Speed?

Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!

In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?

I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access queries
mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can dual
boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.

I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
this be slowing things down, this much?

Personally, I have the impression that everything is faster with Vista. I am
NOT a gamer. Especially, multi-tasking is faster, I think, because of the
better memory management.

I am using an AMD Athlon 3200 Barton CPU with 2 gig of PC3200 clock 2 RAM.
The O/S is loaded to a SATA drive.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!



"B Golden" <BGolden@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7F1F15C-8117-4E5D-8E49-F2B53FB0D7EE@microsoft.com...
> Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!
>
> In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
> lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
> for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?
>
> I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
> slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access
> queries
> mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can
> dual
> boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.
>
> I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
> this be slowing things down, this much?

did you cleanup you install when it was done and you had loaded up all your programs.
only thing I find that is slower than XP 64 bit is defrag.



mikeyhsd@sport.rr.com



"B Golden" <BGolden@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:F7F1F15C-8117-4E5D-8E49-F2B53FB0D7EE@microsoft.com...
Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!

In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?

I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access queries
mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can dual
boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.

I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
this be slowing things down, this much?

I did a clean install. In fact I bought a new Raptor drive just for Vista.
Vista and Office are the only things on the drive.

I should have mentioned originally, that I am using the 64bit version of
Vista. Perhaps the 32bit version is quicker.

I also am not into gaming that much. My system is used almost exclusively
for Access database work.

What I based my opinion on was the other threads in this group and my own
experience. I have a macro that runs a group of 150 queries against a rather
large database. In XP with Access 2003, I can run thru the queries in 15
minutes. In Vista with Access 2003 it takes 30 minutes. The one thing I
notice is that while running the queries in XP, I use at most 50-60% of 2gb
of Ram. In Vista, I hit 99% usage after a few minutes. Therefore, the
slowness I observe is probably due to Vista using the Page file once the 2gb
of Ram is used. Maybe 4gb or more is really needed?

Thanks,

"mikeyhsd" wrote:

> did you cleanup you install when it was done and you had loaded up all your programs.
> only thing I find that is slower than XP 64 bit is defrag.
>
>
>
> mikeyhsd@sport.rr.com
>
>
>
> "B Golden" <BGolden@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:F7F1F15C-8117-4E5D-8E49-F2B53FB0D7EE@microsoft.com...
> Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!
>
> In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
> lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
> for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?
>
> I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
> slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access queries
> mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can dual
> boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.
>
> I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
> this be slowing things down, this much?

Vista is slower...


"B Golden" <BGolden@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7F1F15C-8117-4E5D-8E49-F2B53FB0D7EE@microsoft.com...
> Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!
>
> In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
> lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
> for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?
>
> I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
> slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access
> queries
> mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can
> dual
> boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.
>
> I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
> this be slowing things down, this much?

I have to agree that, for me, Vista is slower than XP.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

"B Golden" <BGolden@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7F1F15C-8117-4E5D-8E49-F2B53FB0D7EE@microsoft.com...
> Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!
>
> In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
> lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
> for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?
>
> I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
> slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access
> queries
> mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can
> dual
> boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.
>
> I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
> this be slowing things down, this much?

I find that Vista is much more "responsive" -- I run an AMD 3200 with 1 GB
ram (Ok, so UPS is bringing me 2 more GBs today!) and a combination of fast,
but un-exotic ATA and SATA drives.

Additionally, I also work on Access databases, with a local front end and a
networked backend, and when I first tried this under Vista I became very
worried that this just wasn't going to fly! It was deathly slow.

But, the problem was with the network. Full Duplex doesn't seem to work?
Lock the system down to Full Duplex, 100MBit and you couldn't stand to open
the database or try to work with it, it took forever to do anything. Set the
network back to auto detect media type, and it's back to near-normal... I
suspect that "near-normal" may be half duplex, but it's usable.

There are also some other discussions on the internet about problems with
WiFi connections causing limitations on the LAN connections, so if you have
wireless on the affected station, you may want to do some Googling on the
subject.

--Jon

RTM does not have a lot of debugging code. Most of that was removed between
RC1 and RC2. The video drivers are still beta and that does impact
performance. There are other driver possibilities that may be responsible.
The hard drive controller driver is one I would look at.

"B Golden" <BGolden@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F7F1F15C-8117-4E5D-8E49-F2B53FB0D7EE@microsoft.com...
> Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!
>
> In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
> lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
> for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?
>
> I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
> slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access
> queries
> mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can
> dual
> boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.
>
> I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
> this be slowing things down, this much?

I think you may be right about the hard drive controller driver. I'll scout
around and see if there has been an update.

Thanks!

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

> RTM does not have a lot of debugging code. Most of that was removed between
> RC1 and RC2. The video drivers are still beta and that does impact
> performance. There are other driver possibilities that may be responsible.
> The hard drive controller driver is one I would look at.
>
> "B Golden" <BGolden@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F7F1F15C-8117-4E5D-8E49-F2B53FB0D7EE@microsoft.com...
> > Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!
> >
> > In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to speed or
> > lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do faster than XP
> > for the normal user (except deplete their checking account)?
> >
> > I want to like Vista, I really really do. But so far it appears to be dog
> > slow with an AMD 4800+ and 2gb of RAM compared to XP. I run Access
> > queries
> > mainly and the time compared to XP is almost exactly double XP. I can
> > dual
> > boot thru BIOS and directly compare both OS.
> >
> > I heard a rumor that RTM still has a lot of debugging code in it. Could
> > this be slowing things down, this much?
>

B Golden wrote:
> Honest, this is a genuine comment/question!
>
> In the current window for this group, I see 5 threads relating to
> speed or lack thereof. Has anyone found anything that Vista will do
> faster than XP for the normal user (except deplete their checking
> account)?

Hang?
Frustrate you?
Make you wonder what they're smoking in Redmond these days?

And that's just 3 areas that will work faster in Vista than in any other
version of Windows, except possibly Windows ME.