just started to use vista.... my only issue...

Warrior

Warrior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
13,838
I installed vista on Saturday in the system in sig. And when the installation was finished, i was impressed and all giddy of my new OS. Then after a bit of time went by i started to get used to the OS. Now, I normally don't turn my computer off. And vista does the right thing and turn my monitor off, which is what i want. Now lately when i come back to my computer it takes about 30secs to get my monitor to turn on and me viewing the desktop. And after that my computer is basically impossible to use cause its so damn slow. And i have that CPU/MEM gadget and normally im using about 30-40% of my memory. If i comeback to a slow computer my memory is MAXED, and i just don't know why. What is my computer doing!? And when i say my computer is unusable i mean its soooo sloooow. and i pretty much have to press the reset button on my case and restart windows and its back to normal. This slow down usually never happened when im using the OS, i always comeback to my computer to find it in this state, and i never can get it out of this slow state.. Anyone got any ideas?.... this is a good enough reason to go back to XP....
 
Vista's power settings default to putting the computer in standyb/sleep after about an hour. You might have a driver tha doesn't like to be put to sleep. Open up the power control panel and disable the sleep option.
 
ok, i know for a fact that i have went through the power options and changed it to high performance and saw that it dosnt go to sleep. I did that last night and watched some TV and came back to it having a slow spell again. Now after you said that i decided to take a further look and i went into more depth and found that it was shutting my HDDs off after 20mins. Now its a good possibility that could have been it, i will update this thread if so. thanks!
 
ok.. its stil happening, and even happening while i use the OS... Its getting really tough having to hit the restart button on my case all the time. I have been uninstalling programs that i last installed to see if any imcompatibilitys.
 
It's probably indexing. I warn you that I've had horrible problems with Vista on the desktop. For me it has been extremely slow in comparison to XP. The indexing has continued on for 2-3 weeks regularly causing additional problems.
 
hugo said:
It's probably indexing. I warn you that I've had horrible problems with Vista on the desktop. For me it has been extremely slow in comparison to XP. The indexing has continued on for 2-3 weeks regularly causing additional problems.
Click to expand...

Yanno, I'm really starting to suspect that something else is terribly wrong with your machine, hugo, I really do. The indexing and most everything else that Vista does to tune itself for better operation over time all happens at low I/O priority meaning when it's in progress it doesn't take CPU time away from other apps/software that might require it. It simply does not bog down performance or hamper it - that's the whole point of low I/O priority in the first place, and it works completely different from how such concepts did in XP.

I don't know what your criteria for "extremely slow in comparison to XP" really is, I guess that's the problem. All I do know is that on XP the CPU did basically ~95% of the work when it came to rendering the GUI and the other ~5% fell on the video card for handling (transparency through the drivers, etc).

Now with Vista, and with Aero, the GPU is doing ~95% of that activity - and it's doing it faster than the CPU (picking up the ~5% slack) can actually supply the data necessary to draw the GUI in the first place, and with full effects in place.

Most people - I'll say that again: Most people that use Vista find the GUI to be vastly more responsive than XP ever was and with good reason: now with Aero it truly is an accelerated GUI whereas XP only had certain aspects handled by the GPU.

I really don't get this "Vista is slower" thing, I really don't. I've got just shy of 2000 installs under my belt now and I just don't see it myself.

But as always, the golden rule of PCs is:

YMMV.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Yanno, I'm really starting to suspect that something else is terribly wrong with your machine, hugo, I really do. The indexing and most everything else that Vista does to tune itself for better operation over time all happens at low I/O priority meaning when it's in progress it doesn't take CPU time away from other apps/software that might require it. It simply does not bog down performance or hamper it - that's the whole point of low I/O priority in the first place, and it works completely different from how such concepts did in XP.

I don't know what your criteria for "extremely slow in comparison to XP" really is, I guess that's the problem. All I do know is that on XP the CPU did basically ~95% of the work when it came to rendering the GUI and the other ~5% fell on the video card for handling (transparency through the drivers, etc).

Now with Vista, and with Aero, the GPU is doing ~95% of that activity - and it's doing it faster than the CPU (picking up the ~5% slack) can actually supply the data necessary to draw the GUI in the first place, and with full effects in place.

Most people - I'll say that again: Most people that use Vista find the GUI to be vastly more responsive than XP ever was and with good reason: now with Aero it truly is an accelerated GUI whereas XP only had certain aspects handled by the GPU.

I really don't get this "Vista is slower" thing, I really don't. I've got just shy of 2000 installs under my belt now and I just don't see it myself.

But as always, the golden rule of PCs is:

YMMV.
Click to expand...


I got rid of Vista for driver related issues. THAT did cause slow downs and crashes.

But if the machine is good enough, Vista can really be much faster over the long haul. So in a nut shell, maybe people dont give it a chance to "do" its thing..
 
I disabled the indexing service.

I have a generally very quiet PC to be an enthusiast box, 120mm low rpm fans, just enough cooling to keep it in spec but low noise, but I have Vista installed on a Raptor... yea probably a mistake, andthenoisewasdrivingmebatshitcrazy.

Indexing had to die.

WTF is it for? to help with searches? That doesn't do anything for me. The only time I have ever needed to run a search was to find some missing dll file, or some ocx file, or some obscure system file, which indexer... doesn't index! And whenever I run a search I have to search around for the check box to allow it to check system files...

If it's not a system file that the OS/some application has obscured somewhere, I know where all my other files are via intuitive directory structure....

But I can see how indexer would be extremely useful for grandma who doesn't have a full grasp of how computers work and can't keep track of files.

You can find it in the services list. I also disabled Ready Boost, and have contemplated killing Super fetch, but it's supposedly one of the nicer memory management things in Vista so it stays... for now.
 
I'll say this in big letters so people understand it better:

It's not just indexing that causes the increased disk activity for the first week or so, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter.

It's also related to SuperFetch as Vista watches nearly every disk activity that happens during the first week or so - again, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. It all depends on your patterns of usage, which is precisely what Vista is watching over to find out how best to set the machine up for your particular patterns of usage.

Use it more, and do more with it, Vista will tune itself for higher performance operation. Use it less, do less with it, Vista won't spend so much time rearranging data or doing the other "necessary" things that make it the first self-tuning OS of its kind, really.

It does get faster over time, it really does. This has been reported by too many people - the overwhelming majority - to have a small minority simply negate the effects of the statement.

As for Raptor noise, if you haven't got that drive mounted in rubber bands or some kind of shock-proof/vibration dampening housing, then yeah, you're gonna have noise. Two pencils and two thick rubber bands... that's all it takes. You'll get better cooling for the Raptor (or any drive, really) and you'll think the damned drive isn't even on it'll be so quiet.

If you have a noisy PC, it's for a reason: the reason is you didn't pay enough attention to details to make it quiet, and there are hundreds if not thousands of possible ways to quiet a PC.

After reading that posting above about how much stuff the poster disabled/attempted to disable/doesn't want/could care less about, I don't see why you're running Vista at all. :(
 
well, ever since i uninstalled my virus software, i havnt had that many lockups really. And if vista is 95% GPU based, is my card a problem having 128mb? if it is then ill make it top of my list for upgrades.. i just dont really play to many new games. I play CS:CZ pretty much only now. But am interested in new games.
 
Warrior said:
well, ever since i uninstalled my virus software, i havnt had that many lockups really. And if vista is 95% GPU based, is my card a problem having 128mb? if it is then ill make it top of my list for upgrades.. i just dont really play to many new games. I play CS:CZ pretty much only now. But am interested in new games.
Click to expand...

95% of the GUI is GPU based. Assuming you play CS at tolerable settings, you shouldn't need to upgrade your video card just to run Vista.

What A/V solution were you using?
 
Could it be a driver?

Some drivers for me are really bitchy about sleep.

Agreed with Jordan12, if your machine is fast, then Vista is faster than XP.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
After reading that posting above about how much stuff the poster disabled/attempted to disable/doesn't want/could care less about, I don't see why you're running Vista at all. :(
Click to expand...

I disabled Ready Boost, I have no intention of using a USB memory stick as RAM... I have plenty of RAM and if I need more I'll buy more RAM and upgrade to 64bit Vista to utilize it.

I disabled Indexing, and I described how worthless that feature is for me.

Vista, is the only OS that can use DX10... Will be necessary eventually.
 
My video card should be fine to run Vista, but it is still slow.

When I open explorer in Vista it takes about 3-5 (and once 15) seconds to go from white to the program. On XP it is instant. That's pretty poor.
 
Menelmarar said:
I disabled Ready Boost, I have no intention of using a USB memory stick as RAM... I have plenty of RAM and if I need more I'll buy more RAM and upgrade to 64bit Vista to utilize it.

I disabled Indexing, and I described how worthless that feature is for me.

Vista, is the only OS that can use DX10... Will be necessary eventually.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's exactly what I was expecting to hear. :)
 
hugo said:
My video card should be fine to run Vista, but it is still slow.

When I open explorer in Vista it takes about 3-5 (and once 15) seconds to go from white to the program. On XP it is instant. That's pretty poor.
Click to expand...

System specs? I don't see anywhere, by the accounts I've heard, even the craptactular integrated Intel x3000 handles Vista acceleration well...

CPU, Memory, Videocard? I don't see in your sig.
 
I want to try out Vista, but I'm holding off for several reasons. The main reason being that I use this computer for my recording business and there aren't Vista drivers for my soundcards:-( I may buy another hard drive and dual boot XP and Vista for awhile though. I think I'll go with Vista Business, since that is what most of my clients will be using eventually.
 
Menelmarar said:
System specs? I don't see anywhere, by the accounts I've heard, even the craptactular integrated Intel x3000 handles Vista acceleration well...

CPU, Memory, Videocard? I don't see in your sig.
Click to expand...
3500+, 1GB dual, 7900GT. The whole thing just seems laggy.
 
my A/V:
i run a Dell E207WFP wide screen at full res at desktop.
and Audigy 2 ZS, ad 6600GT ( i have anouther one for SLI but im scared vista will be mean so i just removed one)
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Yanno, I'm really starting to suspect that something else is terribly wrong with your machine, hugo, I really do. The indexing and most everything else that Vista does to tune itself for better operation over time all happens at low I/O priority meaning when it's in progress it doesn't take CPU time away from other apps/software that might require it. It simply does not bog down performance or hamper it - that's the whole point of low I/O priority in the first place, and it works completely different from how such concepts did in XP.

I don't know what your criteria for "extremely slow in comparison to XP" really is, I guess that's the problem. All I do know is that on XP the CPU did basically ~95% of the work when it came to rendering the GUI and the other ~5% fell on the video card for handling (transparency through the drivers, etc).

Now with Vista, and with Aero, the GPU is doing ~95% of that activity - and it's doing it faster than the CPU (picking up the ~5% slack) can actually supply the data necessary to draw the GUI in the first place, and with full effects in place.

Most people - I'll say that again: Most people that use Vista find the GUI to be vastly more responsive than XP ever was and with good reason: now with Aero it truly is an accelerated GUI whereas XP only had certain aspects handled by the GPU.

I really don't get this "Vista is slower" thing, I really don't. I've got just shy of 2000 installs under my belt now and I just don't see it myself.

But as always, the golden rule of PCs is:

YMMV.
Click to expand...

I think you pretty much it the main points. One of the biggest issues I keep finding are the people who install Vista then instantly grab the drivers disk that came with the motherboard. Most common was/is still the installation of the nforce drivers.

It’s hard to explain to people you don’t need them. Vista came pretty well prepared for most newer motherboards including network drivers etc.

Just had one here, eVGA where the guy did everything on the OEM disk right after the install then found a forum somewhere that offered “leaked” video drivers for his card. They might have worked if he had had an ati card, he didn’t.

I’m sure you too have seen your share of these antics. From what I have experienced Vista is the best out of the box OS Microsoft has ever done.:)
 
Hmm, even if the disc says Win 2000/XP, people still install them anyway, and start screaming when their system fails.

Why can't people be logical when it comes to computers?

I remember XP when it came out, people told me to stay away as it was buggy as hell, and now, it's the standard.

BTW, the drivers for mobos work well here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top