Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 17:09 UTC, submitted by Jeremy
Windows "Unlike previous Microsoft operating systems, Windows Vista is pretty streamlined right out of the box. It makes terrific use of a system's resources, but it's built as much for pretty looks and increased stability and security as it is for horsepower. It's time now for a course of action that will take the ball and chain off this baby and let it fly. The ink on Windows Vista's EULA is barely dry, so it's very likely that more speed tips, registry hacks, and deep settings will be revealed in the weeks, months, and years to come. For now, here's our set of tweaks that can help you turn up the throttle on your new operating system."
Thread beginning with comment 227009
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
stare
Member since:
2005-07-06

Now, take a look at Vista's insane system requirements.

Vista runs fine on my old 900Mhz Duron/512Mb box. System requirements satisfied by almost all 5-6 old PCs are hardly insane.

Edited 2007-04-03 18:34

Reply Parent Score: 1

leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Vista runs fine on my old 900Mhz Duron/512Mb box

No. It doesn't. It really really doesn't, and I don't know what you're used to, or what your definition of "fine" is, but Vista does not run fine on that hardware.

It may run "fine" on your hardware in the same sense that Windows XP runs "fine" on my parents $300 PC with 256MB RAM. That is, it boots, and then manages to start the browser and email client after some swapping. If that's your definition of fine then so be it. For someone who just wants to browse the web and check email, that kind of performance is ok. Of course, people with those needs have been fine with the performance of computers for over 10 years.

But the rest of us actually do things with our computers. We are not content to wait for Vista to thrash the harddrive for 3 minutes after bootup (longer than my 2 year old install of XP), we are not content for it to fill the RAM with god knows what, and not content to have background processes consuming resources for no apparent benefit.

Windows XP SP2 is the better Windows (and quite good overall), and Apple/Linux is the better alternative.
Of course, none of this will matter and Vista will have great success. Aren't monopolies great?

Edited 2007-04-03 19:37

Reply Parent Score: 5

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

blahblah blah... and more blah.

I haven't booted into windows since last december on my PC, but damn people. XP *can* run "fine" in 256mb of RAM. but NO out of box ;) all my xp installs used about 50-60mb of ram on bootup.

but Vista... 'eh, it *needs* 1gb. I've used PCs that have it with 512mb of ram. it sucks ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

You've got to be joking. Vista barely ran on my 2Ghz Athlon Machine with 1 GB DDR2 Ram. Ever tried using explorer?

Reply Parent Score: 4

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

You've got to be joking. Vista barely ran on my 2Ghz Athlon Machine with 1 GB DDR2 Ram. Ever tried using explorer?


I think one of the deciding factors in Vista's speed is the graphics card as Vista (unlike previous versions of Windows) actually uses the GPU to render the UI.

An example of this was on my modest 2GH Celery 512MB RAM PC. XP actually ran slower than Vista and I think that's all down to the high spec'ed ATI card I have installed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Vista performance must vary quite a bit. It ran very well on my Athlon 3800 X2 with 1 GB. That's 2 GHz. Later I upgraded it to 2 GB RAM and it runs much better, but it did run fine before.

It could be that you upgraded. If you have a bunch of files already in place, then the disk indexing Vista does may take a while to complete. It also defrags the disk in the background. Both seem to slow down disk accesses a bit, but the system is better for it afterward.

Reply Parent Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

My 2Ghz Athlon 2800+ with 1G DDR 400 runs it pretty good, at least as good as XP on the same hardware. Maybe you ahve a hardware issue of some kind.

Reply Parent Score: 2

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Aero off right?

It runs well on my macbook without Aero with 512MB of RAM, although not exactly great (but that's prolly Parallels fault).

Edited 2007-04-03 21:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Getting to the desktop and starting Mail doesn't totally count as "running fine".

Even Windows 95 booted on my 486 DX2-50 with 8MB of RAM, but I hardly classified it as "usable".

Reply Parent Score: 1