[Compiler]

Its been almost a year. Personally, I still refuse to work with Vista or have my clients use Vista. The good thing is that Vista is so bad, that M$ has extended XP production another 6 months… the bad thing is that eventually they will stop – as they want their newest most bloated OS to be the only OS on the market.

As in a previous thread – When you rip out all as much stuff as you can to make vista run faster, then you might have stuck with XP.

But here is what I had to do with a Vista which only further shows what junk that vista is.

Several months ago, a friends mother needs a PC – but couldn’t wait for me to build a new PC with a legit XP install. It was 8:30pm and she wanted a PC that night to replace her old system. We got the best we could for $400 in the limited time. Nowadays, typical $300~450 PCs come with 1GB. $500 and up come with 2GB.


Her OLD dead PC: HP with a Celeron 1.0Ghz (P3 tech) / 128mb / 15gb HD / XP-Home.
Her NEW dead PC: Compaq : Celeron 3.5Ghz (P4 tech) / 512mb / 250gb HD / Vista Basic

I disabled as much stuff as I could, I was able to save about 150mb of memory waste. Since she didn’t use the internet at the time, I disabled the firewall and other “safety” features.

What does this 70year old woman do? She plays card games (easier for her hands), maybe type a letter or two. She recently added internet HiSpeed service to talk with friends and family via email. Maybe go to a news-site. Very LIGHT Computer use. A 3.5Ghz (even a Celeron) can more than handle such a job… until you add vista of course.

Within a day or so, she was complaining about the PC being so slow. The card games that comes with vista tend to crash. The system would not wake up from sleep some times. The card game – while prettier and bigger cards, required more WORK to select/move the cards (typical vista – prettier, but more work).

I’ve made some adjustments… and as they say on websites, Vista does get faster as you use it.

3 months later… She calls me, her shiny vista PC is useless. I come over to fix the problem, as she called and begged me to put XP on her computer. Her NEW computer was much SLOWER than her OLD 128mb system! So I had a stick of 512mb that compatible with her PC, bought her an OEM copy of XP-HOME ($90) and 1GB of DDR2 RAM ($35) in case she is stuck with Vista. Here is what I found:

- It refused to wakeup. Reboot to get access to system.
- It took FOREVER to boot. XP on my old 1.5Ghz notebook is 3x faster.
- I added 512mb to the system to see if it would help. It did, a tiny bit (less than 10%).
- I got online with her PC, went to HP.com and found that they removed/didn’t include ANY XP drivers for their desktop. I know HP has them, because HP has been SELLING these PCs with XP installed! What may throw off the search is that 1-2 letter/number change in a model numbers means XP or Vista… even if the hardware is the same. So I had to use their TEXT chat to get the tech to send me LINKS for all the drivers.

I loved some of the standard HP messages he sent me… like “HP strongly recommends that you do not downgrade to XP for your Vista computer. We cannot provide support for this model when you change the OS.” Etc etc. I typed back “I’m upgrading the PC to XP, the computer is worthless as this moment, give me the drivers please.”

I downloaded 5 drivers (mobo/graphics/networking/Audio) as some from ECS (maker of the mobo – which had a model very similar) in case he screwed up – because he did.

I unpacked one of the driver files… 40mb. Vista spent 2 minutes to calculate how long it will take to unpack the driver. It eventually said 10mins! I don’t have time for this! Cancel. For fun, I wanted to compare a much smaller 2mb ZIP file. It took 2 minutes! Note: CPU usage was under 5% when idle. Later, after XP was installed, the same ZIP file took about 15seconds on the same exact computer.

Wow, no wonder vista has pretty graphics (like when unzipping files) – so you have something to look at while YOU WAIT!! I guess makes it seem like something is happening, eh?
Opening up notepad, doing mundane things was one of the most painful things I have personally experienced on a computer in a long time.

I copied the XP drivers and her data to a USB Key (only 20mb of personal data), which was also a bit slow. While on the vista desktop, I pulled the power plug… I didn’t bother with a shut down (I have limited time anyway, why waste another second of my life on vista, much less 100seconds for a shutdown).

Booted up with the XP CD-ROM… reformatted and installed XP Home over the main partition (I did leave the vista recovery partition in place). Copied the drivers & data to the fresh XP system. All drivers worked. I also installed my set of tools for her as well… (AVG, Zone Alarm, AdAware, Open Office 2.3, WinAMP, Media Player Classic, etc etc – All free software).

Her PC ran faster and smoother than ever before. No hiccups, not slow downs, no crashes.
I gave her the 512mb of RAM I didn’t need. And got the refund on the 1GB.

Vista… too slow for Granny!

Seriously, other than DX10 (which COULD be made for XP) – there isn’t a single useful feature that comes with vista – oh, nevermind – it does come with decent wallpapers. It takes 10minutes to make XP LOOK and feel like vista and without the slowdown.


Just check out the latest FUNNY Apple vs vista Ads… www.apple.com/getamac/ads - click on Podium.

[ScottProdigy]

I know I don't post often, but there is so much inconsistency in your post I have to call you out on this. First of all, what on earth were you thinking buying a PC preloaded with Vista, with a Celeron and 512mb of memory? I'm surprised that Vista would boot at all. You also seem to realize that $400-$500 PC's have 1gb-2gb of memory. Gee, suppose you could guess why that might be? Even 512mb is marginally acceptable for XP with SP2 these days, which I know for a fact would choke that old HP that had XP Home and "ran so much faster" (and probably did not have a Service Pack to begin with.) I could only guess what 512mb doesn't do for Vista.

Here are some more rough guesses: the PC was preloaded with Norton Internet Security, Vongo, iTunes and a few more bloatware titles that are not standard with a Vista installation. Easily 70+ processes on a PC with only 512mb of RAM. Actually, it's closer to 384mb, because those cheapo PC's have intergrated video, in upwards of 128mb shared. So your bottleneck was even worse, effectively giving you 25% less than what Vista requires. Therefore, your system was using the page file, which resides on the hard drive and is much slower than Random Access Memory. What you really needed to do was break the bank for more memory, or a better PC for $100 or so more (like one with an Athlon 64?)

Okay, so you're stuck with this PC. What to do? If you bought it at Best Buy, I'm sure they said the Geek Squad could speed it up for you, but I know, I'm stubborn to pay anyone for something I could do myself. The first thing you need to do was use the Norton Removal Tool and wipe everything Norton out of the system. That would free you about 15 processes alone, especially since you claim it had the firewall. Since it's not online "at the moment" you could grab AVG or AntiVir and use it as the antivirus software. (There's a link in your signature.) Though not the best, Windows Defender would protect from most malware, unless she visiting the nastiest of porn sites.

While you're at it, ditch Vongo, iTunes and all the internet offers that popup. Get that $35 stick of memory and get the system up to 1gb-2gb. Your Vista Experience score is still going to be between 1.5-2.0, but it's at least bearable. If she's not using networking, there are a few more services to dump like Computer Browser and the PC will run even smoother.

Instead, you went backwards with a system that didn't have the compatibility to do so. Audio is always the biggest issue when doing this. When you saw that HP did not offer support for XP, that should've been the end right there. Even worse, an OEM version of Windows XP is stripped of most drivers to begin with, so your only option is to try Windows Update, after the XP install, and cross your fingers. I hope you were clever enough to burn the Recovery DVDs/CDs or at least leave the Recovery Partition in tact before going wild with the XP CD, in the event that PC ever needs the licensed copy of Vista that was shipped with it. (For resale, or future use; maybe handed down to a relative? Now you might have to purchase the discs from HP.)

Your story is nothing more than a rant of how bad Vista runs on a crappy PC. There are no true facts to back up why it ran poorly. Even a log of your startup items would've helped to identify the problem areas. Surely for someone with 1600 posts on this site you thought of that right?

Also, zip files are no indication of how fast something "runs". Some zip files, especially ones that are 40mb, contain more compressed files and directories than those that are 95% smaller such as your 2mb example. Keep in mind, your antivirus applications scan archives for infections too. Since you're most likely working with the page file as system memory, the CPU load was certainly 100% on the Vista machine, no surprise there.

Next time you decided to rant, intellectually put some more thought into your post, because when I get bored I would much rather spend the time to respond to someone in need, instead of highlighting the inaccuracies of why it was so necessary for you to force XP onto a system designed for Vista.

P.S. If you're really suggesting Mac OS is the way to go, that's what you should've paid for in the first place, though, a moot point if you only wanted to spend $400-$500 to begin with!

[DaveA]

I agree with ScottProdigy, as you did NOT do any thinking upfront.
Why waste any body's time with your rant

[Gulo Luseus]

The main problem with Vista today is bandwagonning. "My mate say..." being the prime cause, or " I had it and.." being the other. I run XP and 2 vistas on my rig, and th eonly time i use XP is for Autocad. Vista runs fine, and if it isnt to your liking, well, i guess thats the way of things. I dont intend flaming, but there are so many anti- vista rants, it reminds me of the time XP came out, when everyone said no, i want 98, its so much better.

I also agree, for 512 mem, you are lucky to get a start at all. Yes, vista likes mem, but thats how it is. And given how little cache a celery has, no wonder it takes forever to do anything.

[mrrb]

Compiler, I'm with you. We found out that 512 mb is too little memory for Vista to run even marginally. When you need a replacement computer and buy one off the shelf, you expect that the hardware will run the operating system it is sold with. To buy a Vista capable computer only to get it and find out that it only marginally works is not acceptable.

That is my biggest gripe with Vista.....how it is marketed and how it treats the common non-technical consumer. No computer should have to be tweaked and have half of what you paid for removed in order to work even marginally. And Vista is slow- those of you who deny this only have blinders on. True, it may work well with a $3000 computer with 4 gig memory but that is not what most customers can afford. Most are like grandma, they just want to send emails, download some music and store their digital pictures- they don't need 1 gig of memory with its high cost- they just need a bare bones computer that works. In other words, one without Vista.

I have two computers- a desktop with XP and a laptop with Vista. I downloaded a zip file with the Vista laptop and was told it would take 20 minutes to download. I then proceeded to download the same exact zip file with the XP desktop, unzipped it and was looking at it while the Vista was still downloading the file. To get the same performance with Vista that you got with XP, you literally have to spend a thousand or more in hardware and then you're not certain that it will work.

Compiler, stand firm. Only by raising our voices will Microsoft acknowledge Vista's problems and get them fixed.

The rest of you take of your blinders and acknowledge that Vista should not be sold with any computer that has less than one gig of memory.

Sue

[Rollin' Rog]

512 mb is definitely too little for Vista in any configuration. But the one thing that really adds molasses to the engine is the pre-"installed" antivirus programs such as McAfee or Symantec that come with most off-the-shelf systems.

I bought a cheap Acer Business Vista system -- it came with Symantec, so I decided to try it. Immediately, my boot time doubled. Uninstalling it was a great relief. Adding an additional 512 of ram (now 1gig) pretty much brings it up to speed -- but the Celeron 3.60 ghz still does not match my XP Pentium 2.54 system -- EXCEPT where pure CPU graphics are involved.

There is no reason to dis Vista so broadly once its requirements, tweaks and updates are taken care of.

[Compiler]

Originally Posted by ScottProdigy

I know I don't post often, but there is so much inconsistency in your post I have to call you out on this. First of all, what on earth were you thinking buying a PC preloaded with Vista, with a Celeron and 512mb of memory?

Errr... its a little old lady. Only needs to play Solitare and read email. While it is a junky CPU, its more than enough for basic users with a more usable OS.

I'm surprised that Vista would boot at all. You also seem to realize that $400-$500 PC's have 1gb-2gb of memory. Gee, suppose you could guess why that might be? Even 512mb is marginally acceptable for XP with SP2 these days, which I know for a fact would choke that old HP that had XP Home and "ran so much faster" (and probably did not have a Service Pack to begin with.) I could only guess what 512mb doesn't do for Vista.

gee... as stated, there is about a 3+ month time difference. The memory demands of the bloated OS has driven down the cost of RAM. $400 PCs with 1GB were not available at the time. And by the way, the server I recently built with XP-PRO/SP2 and 80 patches (68mb) runs just fine on 512mb. Of course its on a far more powerful CPU and better built system that *I* built. Gee... perhaps M$ should learn how to make an OS that doesn't suck - memory.

Here are some more rough guesses: the PC was preloaded with Norton Internet Security, Vongo, iTunes and a few more bloatware titles that are not standard~ ecause those cheapo PC's have intergrated video, in upwards of 128mb shared. So your bottleneck was even worse, effectively giving you 25% less than what~

As stated, I cleaned it out. I do know how to do these things. And since she's not playing games, it was set to 8mb for video. And as I stated BEFORE... I had upped the RAM to 1GB... yep, still sucked.

What you really needed to do was break the bank for more memory, or a better PC for $100 or so more (like one with an Athlon 64?)

I resolved the issue for less... $90, XP home. Worked great.

said the Geek Squad could speed it up for you, but I know, I'm stubborn to pay

If I wanted to pay someone to kill a computer, GS is the way to go.

Instead, you went backwards with a system that didn't have the compatibility to do so. Audio is always the biggest issue when doing this. When you saw that HP did not offer support for XP, that should've been the end right there. Even worse, an OEM version of Windows XP is stripped of most drivers to begin with, so your only option is to try

1 - HP buys the mobo from ASUS, ECS and others. Drivers are NOT impossible. Audio wasn't an issue. The tech-support guy errored, but I covered my rear by getting the drivers from another source. Oh yeah, the company that made the mobo.

2 - OEM, Retail or upgrade - they all have the same drivers. They are not stripped, they just don't have it all.

I hope you were clever enough to burn the Recovery DVDs/CDs or at least leave the Recovery Partition in tact before going wild with the XP CD -

I hope you might have read my line about "I did leave the vista recovery partition in place".

Your story is nothing more than a rant of how bad Vista runs on a crappy PC.

No, its a rant about a crappy OS(vista) running poorly on a basic PC, that would be middle of the road for XP. As stated in the END, the PC runs smooth as silk with XP.

Also, zip files are no indication of how fast something "runs". Some zip files, especially ones that are 40mb, contain more compressed files and directories than those that are 95% smaller such as your 2mb example. Keep in mind, your antivirus applications

Funny... as stated, the same file on the same PC with 1GB of RAM - the XP OS kicked vista between the legs in getting the job done. It unpacked the 40mb file faster than vista could unpack a 2mb file.... impressive, ain't it?

because when I get bored I would much rather spend the time to respond to someone in need, instead of highlighting the inaccuracies of why it was so necessary for you to force XP onto a system designed for Vista.

The computer is "NOT" designed for vista. Its what HP/M$ want to sell. It runs XP just fine. I could throw Linux on it too, it'll work. Inaccuracies is when you skip what I posted as if I never said them at all.

I'm in the computer business. And a lot of people in the computer busines DO NOT PUT VISTA ON THEIR PCs, much less their clients!

[Compiler]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

512 mb is definitely too little for Vista in any configuration. But the one thing that really adds molasses to the engine is the pre-"installed" antivirus programs such as McAfee or Symantec that come with most off-the-shelf systems.

That junkware always has to go... its usually trial version anyways.

but the Celeron 3.60 ghz still does not match my XP Pentium 2.54 system -- EXCEPT where pure CPU graphics are involved.

My point is that an old lady who JUST plays solitare and reads email shouldn't need a dual-core 3.0ghz system and 4gb of ram to work... Remember boys and girls, many of us were ON THE INTERNET back in the days of 100mhz CPUs and 4mb of RAM and didn't deal with this much harrassment.

There is no reason to dis Vista so broadly once its requirements, tweaks and updates are taken care of.

Actually, there is. A newer OS, while ALLOWED to have increased requirements, does need to actually BE an improvement over the previous version. XP, when it was NEW - was a bit harder on the hardware, but not horrible since Windows2000 had been on the market for 2 years. XP with 128mb was horrible even 6 years ago. 512mb is fine for a basic system for today. Even in stores, the higher in models come with 3GB of ram... and the demand for even more RAM (4GB+) is a problem as Vista64 is even SLOWER and has even more support problems.

Vista, which is advertised "The most easist Windows yet" - is not true. It requires so much fighting the OS to get something down. What takes 1 clicks in XP may take 5 with Vista... so much for easier... but it is prettier in some ways. When a lot of junk such as the UAC is disabled - you might as well have XP. A lot of problems with vista of course is the severe DRM that is constantly running. Overall, its sloppy coding.

Of course intel loves it, creates more demands for more expensive multi-core CPUs.

If vista ACTUALLY did something special, made life easier, more flexible - then things would perhaps be different.

[Rollin' Rog]

Vista is really a hybrid of dumbed down GUIs and hyper technical diagnostics and event reports that would make most tech's eyes glaze over.

But with basic ram at 1 gb -- its performance would be basically indistinguishable by your "little old lady" from XP. You really didn't give it much of a chance before condemning it.

For what I use my Vista system for -- burning, streaming media, basic browsing -- I'm quite satisfied with the performance. It has an improved System Restore that is much more thorough than XPs -- and on some configurations -- the ability to backup the entire drive if you have it setup right.

You can make Vista more efficient by tweaking it. You don't need many more clicks to get what you want. Disable UAC, which I think is pretty useless, and if you use search alot -- use a 3rd party tool. They did blow on those two things, I will agree.

[Satsumomo]

I used Vista Premium for a whole day today, and it was a terrible experience. Yes, everything looks beautiful, but as stated, everything takes longer to do.

Not to mention the 4 authorization dialogs required just to create a folder... and a security pop-up appearing half-way during a DVD movie and making it crash. "We need your authorization to view this DVD"...

When I went from Windows 98 to XP, I loved it. I expected the same from Vista, but it hasn't been like this.

[Compiler]

Agent Ransack does work with VISTA, even thou it wasn't programed to do so. Agent Ransack is a great Search Tool.

I gave Vista a good chance, it wasn't the ownly PC with Vista I've worked with. I've had borrowed a system for a week before wiping it out, installed XP and delivered it to a customer. (custom software, not compatible with vista back then). I work or know a lot of people in the PC industry - repair techs, retail and corp. sales, etc - thumbs down on vista.

Windows XP, Pro, MCE and even HOME (its on the CD or you can DL it) have built in backup that works pretty good. The little old lady beg for XP... she liked the nicer look cards in the games - but it was harder for her to play.

--------------
Hey Satsumomo, even renaming a folder or item on the desktop requires 4 UAC/whatever clicks! Or entering hardware manager = 2 UAC clicks. Renaming or deleting a StartMenu = UAC.

With ALL of these silly MOUSE clicks for PERMISSION - you know what is the sick joke?! The OFF button from the Start Menu DOES NOT REQUIRE a CONFIRMATION! I've hit it by accident (click start, go all the way to the left and click OFF) - and the PC shut down. Opps! Idiot design team.

Number of people I know personally (friends or not) that use Vista:
Two - one because its a notebook, the other - he's not too bright in my book anyways.

Hey, if your PC is a desktop - you should be able to install XP. This is one reason I tell people if they want a reliable system - then they need to pay for a custom build while they can!

[ScottProdigy]

UAC can be turned off. It's no less annoying than running Ubuntu IMHO...

Compiler, if you did clean the system out, kudos, but I still think with 1gb of memory, a Celeron should be able to open up Internet Explorer and Solitaire with no problem. Also, who uses the built in archive utility found in XP or Vista? Get WinRar and save yourself the headaches.

BTW, you can make the same .zip speed comparisons between versions of Mac OS X also. I really hate seeing those Mac commercials and hearing how they live in their perfect little world, where Windows is rubbish. If OS X actually had apps for what people needed, maybe there would be an alternative!

Mrrb, I do agree that any system should be able to run what OS it ships with, however, this has been going on for years. Dell started this whole sham by shipping XP machines with only 128mb and saying it only costs "X" amount of dollars. People gobbled them up, then cried foul because the PC sucked 14 months later. They were still selling 128mb systems with Celerons even after XP SP2 shipped, which obviously required more. Most Dell systems sell 6 month old components as a fire sale, at least on the low end. It's a shame.

Also, seeing Vista barely run on PC's that were designed for XP is no different than 5+ years ago when vendors were putting XP on PC's made for ME. It's the same cycle. People that want a cheap computer are still going to get a cheap computer, barely able to run the OS and loaded with bloatware.

[simpswr]

FWIW . . I have a dozen or so clients using VISTA with no issues to date. . one did not even know she had Vista . . thought it was still XP, but just "looked different". I have it loaded on one in the shop just so I can learn to use it . . no issues yet.

I recall hearing the same rants when XP came out . . and again when SP2 came out . .

[Compiler]

yeah, those 128mb/40mb HD/CD-ROM(not R) $300 Dells were a sick joke - I saw the ads all the time. Of course, to upgrade to 512mb/CD-R drive would raise the price to $500~600 back then heheh...

I just delivered 10 systems for a business/network. If I had gone with vista (instead of $120 XP-MCE which is a cheaper/newer Pro) - Each system would have cost about $200 more - $2000 total. Instead of $60 CPUs, 1GB RAM, etc I would have needed faster CPUs, etc to get simular performance without any actual benifits to the company.

That is a constant fact with vist, look at data from reputable companies that track such things. vista cost more to operate with nothing extra in return.

[katabby]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...535&CatId=2627 should of got your friend this