What is adequate HW for Vista?

[DaveGoTech]

Hi
My friend ordered and received a new Dell with Vista. As I recall it was a core 2 duo, 2GHz I think. I told him to make sure he got plenty of RAM - 4GB and he did. When it came in, he asked me to come over and set it up (something he has asked me to do for all his PC's over the past 15 years).
I set everything up, installed and configured his software and restored the data. Everything went well and I left. But I was extremely disappointed in the poor performance of Vista. The machine was very sluggish and anemic compared to my old Win XP machine. I know Vista is vastly larger and more complicated than XP, so what is needed to improve performance in case I decide to purchase a new PC? I was thinking a 4 way processor. This might help, but is the Windows Vista license only for 2 PC's? Or maybe I should just stick with XP on my next computer.

 

[linney]

System Requirements.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

Find License Terms for Software Licensed from Microsoft

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

 

[DaveGoTech]

The Microsoft system requirements are a joke. This machine was over what is recommended and still very slow.
Any 'real life' recommendations?

 

[cpjust]

Go into the System Properties dialog, click the Advanced tab, then click the Settings button in the Performance section. Change the radio button to "Adjust for best performance", then click Apply & OK.

 

[DaveGoTech]

That was one of the first things that I looked at. Not the problem. Again - All the setting are correct. Windows Vista is very sluggish on a 'standard' store bought PC. What would be a very good performing HW configuration for Vista. Anybody know?

 

[cpjust]

You might also consider getting 2 or 3 fast SATA drives and connecting them in a RAID (5 for safety & speed or 0 just for speed). These days, the CPUs are so fast that it's the I/O that's the biggest bottleneck.

Vista also has a feature that lets you plug in a USB Flash drive to increase performance. I've never tried it, but I'd like to see it in action one of these days.

Faster RAM and FSB would also help, but of course your motherboard has to support it.

 

[pagy]

hmmmmmmm, I have Vista installed on my laptop which is a core duo with 2 gigs of ram and Vista runs like a bat out of hell on it. Is there anything specific that's slow?? If you use task manager is there any one app that's grabbing loads of RAM or loads of CPU time??

Paul

MCSE 2003

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein

 

[DanielJupiter]

I have a 3gb P4 and 1gb of DDR1 pc 2700 slow as hell. but it does the Job, vista isnt 2 slow. starts up within 30 seconds.

only problem being is that. the games are VERY VERY sluggish on it.

i have got a Nvidia 6800GT so it shouldnt be 2 bad, Running medial of honor spearhead i get around 05-30 FPS. but in XP i get around 100-200 just weird

but you dont need the "mutts Nutts" pc to run vista. mine works fine. apart from it crashing and blue screening after my second reboot LOL

Thanks

Daniel

 

[porkchopexpress]

I have Vista dual booted with XP on a system with a 3GHz P4, 1Gig RAM, 128Mb GPU and it runs fine, maybe a slight performance hit but nothng to lose sleep over.

 

[Stevehewitt]

New backoffice system here at work have 1gb RAM and a Core 2 Duo (2x2.86Hghz). Single SATA HD and bog standard other hardware. (Including graphics - we use the integrated one)

All seems fine. Performance isn't any better or worse than XP to be honest.

What I would say is if you buy a new machine from Dell, Gateway (even HP have joined in) through a consumer channel it will always be loaded up with crap before hand.
Format the machine, load up Vista and then just install what you need. (E.G Office 2007, Adobe reader, Flash player, antivirus)

I've got a mixed hardware environment running here with XP and Vista across them. Performance doesn't seem to be a factor - but that's only with a clean, fresh install!




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[pagy]

Stevehewitt makes a good point there. OEM installs often have so much gunk on them that wiping and re-installing is the best way to go.

Paul

MCSE 2003

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein

 

[DaveGoTech]

Well, most of what I spent the time on setting up the PC was to remove the bloatware that comes on Dell PC's.
My point is this. I have been installing/setting/using PC's since the DOS days, and with each successive Windows O/S there is always a slow down. I feel as if I am always going backwards - never forwards! If you were to take a modern PC and install Windows 3.1 on, it would really fly. Kind of like having FIOS internet service, as opposed to using a dial up connection compared to Windows Vista. I hate waiting seconds (even though its only a few seconds) when I click something. Again, I personally was very disappointed with Vistas performance, but I guess that is a matter of personal experience. All I'm saying is that I do not think a 'standard' off the shelf PC gives an experienced user sufficiently good performance and don't want to go this route when I need an new PC (which may be soon). I would like to buy something that is beefy enough to handle Vista but not pay a premium price either.

 

[cpjust]

Back in the DOS days, computers were oriented toward computer geeks that new a lot about computers.
These days, computers are oriented toward people who can barely use a VCR.
All those extra help wizards and fancy GUIs with 'pretty colors' makes the OS bigger and slower (and in my opinion, harder to use since you have to go through dozens of windows to change a simple setting).

 

[pagy]

I agree with cpjust up to a point there, but I have to say Vista runs faster on my laptop than XP did, it boots faster and is more responsive overall and as has already been stated Vista is much 'bigger' then XP.
Yes computers are more mainstream nowadays and in general IT is not aimed solely at IT 'geeks' anymore but aimed at a much wider audience. I suspect, though, that is why many of us who use tek-tips have jobs in IT

Paul

MCSE 2003

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein

 

[Grenage]

When it comes to Vista - RAM, and lots of it. 1GB minimum, 2GB if you actually want to run 'meatier' applications on it.

Carlsberg don't run I.T. departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Nelviticus]

DaveGoTech, in your original post you said that the machine is a Core2Duo with 4 gigs of RAM. Vista should fly on a machine like this, even if it's the slowest Core2Duo available. If it is performing sluggishly then there is a problem somewhere.

You didn't mention what graphics card the machine has. If it's a really, really low-end card, or low-end integrated graphics, and you have the Aero Glass theme enabled with all its GPU-intensive eye-candy, that could make it perform sluggishly.

Alternatively it could be down to faulty hardware or buggy drivers. Either way it's something you need to investigate - upgrading to a faster CPU isn't the solution.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[SonofAdam]

Possibly indirectly related: a number of web sites and forums report that a 32 bit operating system cannot usefully use 4GB of RAM. Some reports are that anything over 2GB are wasted, but other reports say that something closer to 3GB can be useful. In my own case, I have 2GB of RAM and a core2 duo processor and Vista operates as fast or faster than my old XP machine. Cf these web sites:

http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vista/544193-can-vista-handle-4-gb.html

http://www.dailycupoftech.com/2007/03/11/mia-ram-in-32-bit-vista/

 

[Stevehewitt]

FYI - the spec's we use for RAM is 1Gb for backoffice users (sales, customer service, marketing, MD, admin etc.) and 2Gb for our development and design departments. (Dreamweaver, Visual Studio, SQL 2000/2005, SVN, Photoshop, Flash etc.)

Happy with the results so far (no complaints yet!). Again though, I saw my mates XP MCE laptop from dell that he got for xmas. I took a look 2 months after he got it and it runs slower than my 512Mb 1.8Ghz (single core) VISTA ultimate MCE machine I have at home. Why? Not the specs - he's got 1 gig of RAM in that baby plus a dual core 2Ghz chip and decent graphics. The culprit was the 42 bits of software Dell 'pre-loaded'. Even apps like Norton (yuck) can take up 160Mb in RAM - what a joke.

<rant>
Not having a go, or pointing anyone out, but before people comment on performance compared to XP PLEASE don't compare a year old formatted XP box that's been managed by an IT pro with an off-the-shelf Vista box from a consumer channel. (even business channel's load them with crap now)
</rant>

Cheers!




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson