Vista S ... L .... O ..........................................W!
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
I have both Vista and XP installed, and I frequently must reboot into XP to work on an older application. And the difference is quite noticeable. XP is easily more responsive than Vista.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
No way should Vista be sluggish with those specs. What shovelware came on the machine? THe first thing I'd do is get rid of that junk. If you can spare the time, I'd suggest wiping the drive and reinstalling fresh, and seeing if Vista is still slow. That would at least rule out bad hardware. Just for comparison, I picked up a machine off woot[^] for my mom, 2.4 GHz and 1GB RAM, SATA, nForce motherboard, and Vista flies on it. (I wish I'd gotten another one for myself!)
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Dunder-Mifflin, this is Pam.
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
The same Problem Occured for me too when i installed both the Xp and Vista in my Notebok. Vista Sucks more. So i uninstall the xp from my notebook and it has been transfered it to my testing machine. I have only vista in my development machine and it is working fine. So pls go with only xp or vista don/t go with both in a same machine and the machine will get slow too. Xp will work fine but vista will suck.
Regards, Satips.
-
I just recently purchased about exactly the same computer except its a desktop for my wife. Her computer is quite snappy I was pleasantly surprised. It could be the video, or perhaps you have some software hogging resources.
tgrt wrote:
some software hogging resources
Like NAV or something. :~
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
The same Problem Occured for me too when i installed both the Xp and Vista in my Notebok. Vista Sucks more. So i uninstall the xp from my notebook and it has been transfered it to my testing machine. I have only vista in my development machine and it is working fine. So pls go with only xp or vista don/t go with both in a same machine and the machine will get slow too. Xp will work fine but vista will suck.
Regards, Satips.
Satips wrote:
don/t go with both in a same machine and the machine will get slow too.
Quite... magic. How would you explain that scientifically?
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
In my experience (running vista for 4 months now), Vista is slower at startup than XP, but faster at shutdown. I don't notice differences in most applications, though. Can you name a few examples?
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
MikMit wrote:
I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!!
And graphics?
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
MikMit wrote:
I recently purchased a new laptop
*alarm bells ringing* Have you done a clean OS install? I find most factory-imaged machines totally unusable, even after removing most of the visible crap.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Satips wrote:
don/t go with both in a same machine and the machine will get slow too.
Quite... magic. How would you explain that scientifically?
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
Maybe he was booting them both up at the same time, that would explain the slowdown!
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Satips wrote:
don/t go with both in a same machine and the machine will get slow too.
Quite... magic. How would you explain that scientifically?
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
When i select Vista as a Startup it takes more time when it is compared to Xp. But when i select XP as Startup it has been booted very quickly.
Regards, Satips.
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
MikMit wrote:
I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram.
I just recently purchased a laptop with the same configuration, except 1.66 Ghz! And Vista works fine. I did specifically choose the laptop though for its dedicated 256MB NVidia card. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
tgrt wrote:
some software hogging resources
Like NAV or something. :~
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
Vista is not slower than XP. This is a misconception brought about likely by bad drivers if I were to guess. I've used both on identical systems with fully compliant hardware and up to date drivers and I've noticed many apps actually run faster on Vista. You likely have another problem entirely.
"110%" - it's the new 70%
-
Vista is not slower than XP. This is a misconception brought about likely by bad drivers if I were to guess. I've used both on identical systems with fully compliant hardware and up to date drivers and I've noticed many apps actually run faster on Vista. You likely have another problem entirely.
"110%" - it's the new 70%
Many interesting replies. My main complaint is that this is factory installed and configured. I feel like I need to go get an advanced degree in Vista then uninstall just about everything, then somehow magically "find" all the right drivers. How about something that works right out of the box? Spending 20-30 hours configuring a system isn't my idea of a good time. Besides, I actually have to use this thing to try and make a living. How many bosses out there want to spend $1,000 on a new computer then give their employee 20 hours off to go configure it so it works? My other complaint is that security is screwed down so tightly that I can't even run my own software without telling Vista it's OK - every time I run it! I would rather have the viruses. I guess I should quit complaining and go back to XP. Oh wait. I can't. This machine won't run on XP. If I remove Vista, it won't have the necessary drivers. Oh well. I can just use it as a very large, expensive coaster.
-
No way should Vista be sluggish with those specs. What shovelware came on the machine? THe first thing I'd do is get rid of that junk. If you can spare the time, I'd suggest wiping the drive and reinstalling fresh, and seeing if Vista is still slow. That would at least rule out bad hardware. Just for comparison, I picked up a machine off woot[^] for my mom, 2.4 GHz and 1GB RAM, SATA, nForce motherboard, and Vista flies on it. (I wish I'd gotten another one for myself!)
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Dunder-Mifflin, this is Pam.
Michael Dunn wrote:
(I wish I'd gotten another one for myself!)
You gotta stop using "gotten"! Now my eyes are twitching every time I see it! :) jhaga
Everybody wants to get admission in reputed institution, but it is not always possible. But other than reputed colleges there are many good colleges across India. Those colleges also play an important role in building up career. So we have come up with the site www.collegesearch.in which will help you not only search for the colleges but also build up your career.
-
Does anyone else have this problem? I recently purchased a new laptop with a core duo running a 1.8 Ghz with 2 GB ram. That combination should *scream*!!! Yet, it is so sluggish it's barely useable. This has to be the slowest operating system since CPM. No wait. Ever!!!!! (CPM was quite a bit faster than Vista on the 8 bit 8 mhz processor I used to have.) Am I the only one? I'm constantly amazed at the lack of real progres in the OS department. Bells, whistles, pretty transparent forms, and gadgets (read "viruses") are now more important than functionality, stability, and speed. I remember many years ago when we started talking about 4GL's. I swear, some of this must be written in 10GL. I'm reminded of something Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurasic Park, "Just be we can doesen't mean we should." I used to have to keep my code to 10-16 K (that's kilobytes). Granted, coding is much faster now but I actually hear of professors telling their programming students not to worry about code efficiency because the the hardware has so much capacity now. That's hogwash. When you talk about thousands of threads executing thousands of times and loops spinning through hundreds of thousands of string comparisons, a small inefficiency can really slow the whole thing down. The last thing we need is this happening in an OS. I don't know if that's really what's causing it but nonetheless, Vista is too slow for me. CalmlyFrustrated
I've just installed the RTM of Vista Business on my old machine, a 2.8GHz P4 (533MHz FSB) with 512MB RAM and a Radeon 9550 Pro 128MB video card. It's actually a lot more responsive than RC2 was (IE on CodeProject took a few seconds after browsing to the next page of a message board before the page became usable). It does stall a bit from time to time - too little memory, but due to a bad design choice (RDRAM) I can't upgrade it. For those keeping score, my Windows Experience Index: Processor: 3.1 Memory: 2.9 Graphics: 2.1 Gaming graphics: 3.1 Primary hard disk: 4.9 The graphics card is poor enough that I had to enable Windows Aero manually. I'm not ready to shift to Vista completely yet - I need to verify that my mobile device development tools (eVC 3.0, 4.0) actually work under this OS, because they were broken through the whole Beta/RC phase. For general business use - heck, any use - get the fastest hard drive you can lay your hands on. Make sure your notebook has a 7200rpm drive. With any kind of workload, the slowest part of your system is getting data to and from the disk. Make it as quick as you can.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
(I wish I'd gotten another one for myself!)
You gotta stop using "gotten"! Now my eyes are twitching every time I see it! :) jhaga
Everybody wants to get admission in reputed institution, but it is not always possible. But other than reputed colleges there are many good colleges across India. Those colleges also play an important role in building up career. So we have come up with the site www.collegesearch.in which will help you not only search for the colleges but also build up your career.
gotten FTW!!
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Dunder-Mifflin, this is Pam.
