Simplify your laptop buying
Windows Vista: Slow computer right out of the box?
I can't imagine how slow the notebook is
by bytlan - 2/23/07 9:24 PM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by eastshore4I purchased a Vista desktop - low end 512 mb, Celeron D, Compaq 3.xx GHz. The security is tight and is over burdened. This box appears to be slower then my XP note book at 1.8 GHz. I am thinking one has to look for and find the tweaks for running virtual memory and then utilizing something like 2 gig of memory and that might be an answer to my dilemmas on this box.
Oh and the flicker video stuff - yes I got that to in the desktop box too. What is up with that is not quite clear for me either.
Yes, the Flash operations are slow – way to slow. I went into the control panel and reset the display performance from let computer handle it to try the best visual, for a matter of less than 1 hour. Then I set it to the best performance of applications and lost all the visual opacity display stuff but the box got faster. It still does the circle looping system check before it initiates a new operation. But it is nothing like my old XP as for speed.
There is allot more tweaks that one needs to figure out for this (OH – is it another ME?) version to operate smoother then the out of the box stuff its doing. Where is the tweak to turn off all this secondary system checks so I can build the box up and then turn it back on and maybe the security settings would turn out to be useful. There must be ways to run these boxes with out frustrating oneself in dealing with the security levels of this. This is not a WOW for me as a user responce to the advertised information…
slow vista
by lisaharrisstudio - 2/23/07 11:17 PM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by eastshore4ever since there has been an up-grade of an operating system, there has been computer companies that have sold computers that were under equiped to handle the new one. I remember dell selling desktops with xp that only had 128mb ram and a cd rom, but had a "cool" 15" lcd mon.
as part of a $400 pkg.
Min. requirements for vista is 512mb. your compaq has a single 512 ddr2 memory card and suffers from a bad case of shared memory (32 to 256 worth) from a minimal graphic card so it is running below what microsoft says is min. system requirements. Adding the extra mem. will help, but with the cost of memory and a possibility of invalidating your warranty, it would have been worth up-grading to a computer that came with 1gb ram. You would have gotten a better (duel) processor, bigger hard drive and a dvd burner for your money.
rule #1: you get what you pay for!
VISTA is a PIG!
by mkoehne - 2/24/07 4:28 AM In reply to: slow vista by lisaharrisstudioMy wife just purchased an HP desktop with an Athlon 64 bit dual core processor and 2Gb of RAM. It came preloaded with Vista Home Premium. I was really looking forward to getting this PC out of the box and playing with it. I must say I am completely underwhelmed by the performance. I didn't run any tests, but my initial response is one of disappointment. This computer is a pig! And I suspect Vista is the problem.
Vista may be here but the hardware isn't.
by gvergho - 2/24/07 10:38 AM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by eastshore4Vista basically requires two things to run adequately: a minimum of 2GB of RAM and a really good video card. What you see for sale in the stores for desktops and laptops are the same units that were around before Vista launched only now they have Vista instead of XP.
If you're buying a PC on the cheaper end, you have to expect that you're going to have to upgrade things. For example, the laptop you got has 512MB of RAM. If it had XP on it you would want to upgrade that to at least 1GB or if you had the money, max it out at 2GB. That's for XP. With Vista, if you had the money, you would want to pack it with 4GB to get the best performance. But you would be hard pressed to find a laptop out there today that can accomodate 4GB. And the on-board video that comes in today's laptops isn't going to cut it either. So, on the laptop front, there isn't an affordable option that can run Vista.
For desktops, there are certainly units that can run Vista. But the ones at the stores are simply left over XP inventory in base model XP hardware configurations. They are going to require a significant investment in upgrades to run Vista well.
At least for the next 6 months or so, I would hold off on buying a Vista PC. I certainly wouldn't buy a laptop that can only handle 2GB of RAM because when you come to the realization that Vista wants twice that, you'll be very unhappy.
You could do a Vista desktop today, but don't do it off the shelf. Go to HP or DELL and hand-pick the configuration (customize it as much as you can afford for Vista.) Or build one from scratch with all the bells and whistles... lots of RAM, a great graphics card, all the latest multimedia features. No matter what, be prepared to put some work into a Vista PC. If you just want to get a computer that works, get one with XP or get a Mac.
Slow Computer
by Umbarger - 2/24/07 6:22 PM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by eastshore4I have a Gateway Desk Top GT5056 Model it came with XP and 1gig if memory and worked just fine, updated to Vista and lots of problems, I installed two more Gig of memory now up to 3 gig and seems to work as good as before update.
Jim Umbarger Jr.
don't forget video ram requirements
by mgason - 2/26/07 6:23 AM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by eastshore4Microsofts site states a minimum system requirement of 1gig of ram for all versions of vista except "home basic"
Home Premium / Business / Ultimate all need 1 gig
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
sounds like you are probably seriously under powered in the graphics department. How much graphics memory do you have, is graphics load being passed off to shared system memory making things even worse? I doubt a system with only 512meg of ram came with 128 meg of dedicated video ram.
required for vista.......
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel
norton
by simonshawca - 2/26/07 8:03 AM In reply to: don't forget video ram requirements by mgasonNorton SUCKS!!! get it off you system asap.
When you install a new virus software, set you virus scans for over night...
oh, and if you haven't figured it out yet, get more RAM...!
too much
by hardygr - 2/26/07 10:19 AM In reply to: don't forget video ram requirements by mgasonthere's two things that bother me A LOT about vista. First, people have to buy new hardware (that's normal anyway), but having to buy top of the line hardware is just stupid. If i just use a navigator, an office suite and a messaging system, i don't want to buy hardware that will run NASA software. There's no need for it. At least for me. Is like having to buy a new car because there a new fuel which is just much much much less efficient, and the car will only be able to carry one person because all the other space is used by the fuel. ITS STUPID. I see other OS's and even they use more resources as the time goes by, the ratio between performance and hardware capacity gets better everytime. I'm not a gamer, so i don't want to have a expensive video card for using a spreadsheet, its nonsense. I don't want to have 1 Gigs of ram, and being fully occupied by the OS. I want my appz to use that ram. As you can see i'm not upgrading, but really don't understand how people can really want to upgrade. People who want to upgrade will not get what they pay for sadly, cause the OS is gonna take it from you.
upgrading can be worth it- but wait
by cc3 - 3/1/07 2:54 PM In reply to: too much by hardygrIts sad people are having the difficulties that they are with Vista. It should be a positive experience, but there are just too many bugs and uncertainties to deal with- its like a redesign of a car. (Going with the car analogies already on this thread.)
You should always wait one model year before buying the redesign- it gives the manufacturer time to get the major bugs out. Same with Windows. And retailers obviously do not yet know what hardware they should be selling with Vista. Give that time.
I know this doesn't do the original poster or anyone else who already bought a system any good, but maybe you should just return it and get one with XP Professional on it and call it a day. You can always upgrade that system in a year.
P.S. I would never by a laptop without 2Gigs of RAM, that's what I have one my Inspiron and I've had NO problems. It can do a dozen things at once. (Also have a 256MB graphics card that helps.)
Slow computer right out of the box?
by ashekumar - 3/2/07 5:24 AM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by eastshore4The problem is 512 MB ram. Windows Vista, (with all the bells and whistles) is a much slower OS than Windows XP. Ideally requires 2 GB ram or better
Painfully Slow
by highmarcs - 3/19/07 11:00 PM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by ashekumarI had to purchase a laptop for a new job. I unfortunately was only able to buy a Vista machine. It's all they have in the stores now. It's only a 600.00 Toshiba but it's much, much, much, much...slower than the 500.00 desktop I bought about FOUR YEARS AGO!... It's horribly, painfully, slow. TEN seconds or more to just close a run of the mill app!
I know 512 memory is nothing great, but if it can't even run the machine, why build and sell in such configurations? This tactic is just going to get the manufacturers a bunch of returns. I'm fairly certain this machine is going back and I've only had it several hours. I've even turned off all the crap bloat ware and no improvement. Everyone keeps saying, just buy 200.00 worth of new memory and it will be "better"? Not great! Just acceptable.
Vista really needs 4 gig of memory to wow you? Gee...how much is that going to cost? I only stick with P.C.s because of the price advantage over Apple. If I need a 4 gig notebook that cost 1500-2000.00, forget it. I'll just get a MAC for those prices, as I think they are better all around computers.
I can't help but thinking what the purpose of this O.S. is. XP was far...better. I haven't experienced any of the Vista WOW factor that MS talks about. A slightly different looking GUI? Not better, just different. Why didn't they just release a service pack 3 to fix some of the security problems? Not to mention most of the programs I use for fun won't even run on Vista yet. It just gets better and better.
Is there anyway I can just buy Windows XP and install that on this machine. That should be a cheaper and all around better solution than buying 200-400.00 worth of new memory and still not be able to run some of my dearest apps. I'm in a quandry because I need a machine for work, NOW. This was not a planned or expected purchase, so no, I don't have 1500.00 to throw at a machine, so please spare me the condescending "you get what you pay for" lectures. I expect anything that is brand new to at least be acceptable in it's performance. This is not.
Painfully Slow
by ashekumar - 3/20/07 5:31 AM In reply to: Painfully Slow by highmarcsThere should be a class action lawsuit againt Microsoft and any P.C. manufacturer that bundles Vista with a P.C. and less than 2 GB of ram. They all know that Vista (Specially with Aero feature) needs at least 2 GB (Ideally 4 GB) of ram to run at acceptable performance level. Yet they will sell you a P.C. bundle on the basis of low price and then expect you to pay out an arm and a leg for the memory upgrade later(selling a Vista P.C. with 512 Mb ram is like selling a Corvette with 6" Tires)
Vista seems like a step backwards!
by highmarcs - 3/27/07 8:19 AM In reply to: Painfully Slow by ashekumarI agree. To purchase a computer in 2007 that doesn't even have enough oomph to run the desktop is highly unethical. Anyway, I did return that Toshiba the next day. I fought with Best Buy about the restocking fee. They claimed it wasn't technically broken. I said any machine that works like a machine from ten years ago is broken in my book. I got the value of the restocking fee back on a gift card once I called up corporate and complained.
I found a sole remaining, new, HP at another store that came with 1 gig of mem and XP. They went in the back and tried to find something, as I told them I was desperate to have XP back. I ended up getting quite a deal, as the store was trying to get rid of all XP stock. It doesn't have a high and mighty Dual Core like that Vista machine had, but this thing runs circles around that Vista machine. It's like night and day! I'm getting better performance than on my 5 year old desktop. I would only expect that ANY computer I bought today would be noticeably better than ANY computer from 5 years earlier. My new XP HP is terrific! Fast, fast, fast.
Tell me this. How is it considered an improvement for an operating system to become more burdensome to the machines resources, how is it considered an improvement to do LESS with MORE. Shouldn't efficiency improve with a new version, not decline. It's like saying "the all new Corrola gets 10mpg LESS than it's predecesor!" People always expect power, and HP to improve and resource consumption to go down, or at least stay the same. That's progress.
The slowness of Vista totally and completely offsets ANY perfomance gains made in processor technology, i.e. dual cores etc. And remember, I was only trying to run VISTA HOME BASIC! I shudder to think what my performance would have been under VISTA ULTIMATE! The machine probably wouldn't have had enough resources to power up!
MS realy needs to chunk this one and LIGHTLY tweak XP here and there. That's all.
Lawsuit filed
by rpgile4 - 4/4/07 4:42 AM In reply to: Painfully Slow by ashekumarSomeone has filed a lawsuit
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=standards_and_legal_issues&articleId=9015500&taxonomyId=146
Add more RAM
by pcpal - 3/28/07 3:44 PM In reply to: Slow computer right out of the box? by eastshore4Once you add more memory it'll work just fine. Trust me I had the same problem. If you can don't add 512GB more but 1GB more, for 1.5GB.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
