PeaceByJesus

Thanks for the clarification. I can try to look more into USMT to copy user settings. I found this which might be of help: http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Back-Up-and-Recovery/Muve-User-s-Stuff-Tool.shtml

I also had Vista, and as i recall i could copy program folders such as Firefox from the user folder, so i guess the issue is what needs to be copied. What would W/7 Easy Transfer (Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools) accomplish in this regard to what the OP wants to do?

Why would not software that uses Shadow Copy, like Drive Image XML work? Under XP i would just copy the whole users folder by disconnecting the HD and plugging it into another PC using a $3.00 USB adapter (and the PCs own power supply, if possible). I think i also have used a Linux live CD like Puppy to do it. You could just copy it onto a USB stick now. Are you saying that would not work with W/7?

I am one of those few (i presume) users who find the transparent, glassy look of Windows 7 makes things harder to see, at least on this new Sony laptop (2.20 ghz cpu, 4gb ram. W/7 64 bit) I know you can turn off the the Transparency” option (right click desktop>m Personalization>Windows Color and Appearance>uncheck the “Enable Transparency”) and have deselected Desktop composition and Use visual styles.. (Windows key and pause/break>Advanced>Performance>Visual effects) which helps, but not as much as using classic styles, (Personalization>Windows Classic, then hit Windows Colors and customize). It is under customizing Windows Colors that i find the problem, which is that if you change and apply certain settings like inactive title bar, and border, and disabled, then if you go and change the 3d object (like dialog boxes) color, then it will change what you previously customized. You have to change the 3d object and then the rest and not change the 3d again if you want it to be kept. This has been an issue with every version of Windows i have used from W/95. Also, it will not allow you to change the font color in the Message box to be separate from the Window color, and which also seem to determine what color text some items of 3d dialog boxes will be. All told, after much careful fiddling, I have found you cannot choose a very dark color for 3d objects, which requires a light color font, and have the text in all visuals (from menus to dialog boxes) to be light and dark contrasting colors. The high contrast theme MS offers have the same problem. I can provide the theme i am working in now if any want to try. No big deal, and i thank God for eyes to see and for color!.

Hi all. I have been attempting to configure my first wireless network, btwn 2 pc, one running Xp and the other Vista, which are both in front of me. I have a Netgear WGT624 wireless router, and and a Westell 6100 modem. I have the modem hooked to the router, which then goes to the XP box, and have an Internet connection now. Initially i was able to establish a connection on the Vista box, using a USB network adapter, but i could not get a secured connection, likely because i did not know you had to do the http://192.168.0.1 setup at Netgear, which is where i am now. My questions are what will make the best connection. On the Netgear page I did not choose a Domain name, and for Internet IP Address i choose "Get Dynamically From ISP" as that is how I am set up in XP Network connections, and likewise for DNS, but some say i need to manually choose these. Then there is the Router Mac address, and i am not sure if it need to leave it at Use Default Address or choose "Use Computer MAC Address "or "Use This MAC Address " or where they are. Then there is the issue of Bridged Mode. This link http://www.dslreports.com/faq/7815 advises another route (among others) that would give a better connection, which requires configuring it for use with FastAccess, which sounds like A Bell south feature. My ISP is Verizon (i do not think they use PPPoE) As you can see, i need some advice as i am only on first base in this area of PCs. Thanks for any help. I am connected now to the 2nd PC, but it disconnects when i try to up the security from Open to WPA2 personal. On the Netgear page the Security Options are None, WEP and WPA-PSK (Wi-Fi Protected Access Pre-Shared Key ) - use WPA-PSK standard encryption. These PCs are for house use, in a neighborhood if it makes any difference. ======= Update. Both are connected, running WPA-PSK (Wi-Fi Protected Access Pre-Shared Key ) - use WPA-PSK standard encryption, as seeing no response here i just went ahead and on the Netgear page. And was also able to update the firmware. So praise the Lord it all works now! I still do not know about the other suggestions on configuration that the link talks about, but for now i will leave alone, and see how good a connection i have when i move this receptor PC upstairs.

That's one way to get a WP page. (but your link must need a space before the closing parenthesis)

Outside of the fact that W/7 is still in beta, I thought this article is quite substantive, and helps explain many things. "But first, the straight skinny on Vista: Compared with Windows XP, Vista delivered database transaction times that were a full 92 percent slower on our dual-core test bed. However, when the focus shifted to our quad-core system, the performance gap with XP narrowed to just 19 percent. Likewise, the workflow portion of the test went from a 98 percent delta on two cores to a more modest (yet still gaping) 66 percent delta on four." "...when viewed under the same processor-utilization parameters as Windows XP, Windows Vista consumes 40 percent more CPU cycles per database transaction on our dual-core test bed and 44 percent more on our quad-core test bed. Similarly, Vista chews up 30 percent more cycles when executing our workflow transaction loop on dual-core and 27 percent more cycles on quad-core." Windows 7 put up against Vista and XP in hardcore multicore benchmarks, XP wins

http://windowssecrets.com/2008/11/20/03-Do...rojan/?n=story3 I did see a refernce to it here on the forums, but thought this alert might be in order.

No, i do not want to go back to 9X! - i was only making a comparison in a specific aspect. As for Linux distros, i have tried most every one (PCLinuxOS being the best in my opinion), and it has lots of potential, but they do not offer the functionality i can get with Windows, esp. as the missing codecs needed for full multimedia processing evidently are not legal in the US (i know you can buy packages). Plus the required learning curve, such as is required in getting universal RW access on all my Windows NTFS drives. But that is a discussion for another thread, and as a poster pointed out, this one is basically exhausted. Thanks for your input.

My quest was not much to how to run heavy duty software faster, but to know why the newest OS is so noticeably slower in basic tasks (like navigating) than W/9x is on PC's with far less cpu speed and memory, etc. It seems my new hardware was as advanced in correlation to the demands of a new OS. I think we will see an a emphasis upon speed in Windows 7. But i thank God i can even do what i do now, and this is a workhorse.

Thanks for all the advice, which has helped. Just received this interesting article from Windows secrets, which i am sure is controversial. .

Well, due to the amount of rearranging i would have to do, i made a partition on the 2nd partition of 2nd drive (XP is on the 1st). Vista would not let me make one more than approx 1.5 gb, though i have 22 gb free, so i used the EASEUS Partition Manager free, which did what i wanted. Now the page file is there.

Right. No games on this PC. The query is why the delay on things like opening folders and navigating. From the time it it begins to boot from the selected OS till you see the desktop is approx. 45 sec., and 75 sec. till all start ups and services and apps are loaded so the busy circle stops and the cpu settles down to it's normal 1-3% activity. But long after that, with no other extra activity, opening w. explorer or sys. properties (Win.key and Pause/Break) takes 6-8 sec. (Even W. 9x will basically just pop those right up.) Is that normal on yours? The next try takes only about 2 sec. but things get slower the more you hibernate and resume, or load more progs. Below are the normal user start ups. C:\Program Files\BillP Studios\WinPatrol\WinPatrol.exe C:\Program Files\Traysoft\PhoneTray\PhoneTray.exe C:\Windows\System32\igfxpers.exe C:\Windows\System32\hkcmd.exe C:\Program Files\Google\GoogleToolbarNotifier\GoogleToolbarNotifier.exe C:\Program Files\Clipdiary\ClipDiary.exe C:\Program Files\AutoHotkey\AutoHotkey.exe C:\Program Files\AutoHotkey\AutoHotkey.exe C:\Program Files\KatMouse\KatMouse.exe Number of Running Processes: 44 processes

But will Windows even use the page file if it has enough free ram (just how much really is enough is another question)? But the PC will run at the lowest speed module correct? Thanks

Thanks. I thought i read that it would help somewhat due to fragmentation. Time to use Vista's nifty Disk management to squeeze out maybe a 3-4gb partition on the 2nd 7200rpm sata drive (back up first). Some recommend leaving a very small pagefile on the C drive in case of a memory dump, if the 2nd drive is not available.

I am aware that 2 different speeds will under clock the higher one, but read there was no real discernible difference in speed. I was using just the two 667 sticks, installed in matched pairs, and probably should go back to that. If i had to do it all over again it would maybe get one 2gb 800ghz

OK, back it goes!

Yes, there is more than just CPU clock to sped. i was amazed at how much faster my friend's 400.00 PC (which i prayerfully shopped for ) was to this (which was a gift to us), though this costs more refurbished Sounds viable, maybe next time i do a clean install i will look at it, but as i have XP i would like to make as much full use of Vista as i need.

I understand what you are saying, and i like Vista for the overall stability, and better Disk and power Management, and have evidence that part or all of the sluggishness of Vista i due to my hardware, and so i appreciate your input. . UAC did not last long with me either. At least not in active mode. And as the only account i override it's permissions on files if necessary as well (Unlocker and or TakeOwn.zip). But explain about the effect of DRM upon speed. and an it legally be turned off? Please explain. Thanks

Hi again. I see. I will try it and get back to you. I have not noticed any real decrease in load times (Vista loads apps ok) but if it save ram - which Vista still should have enough of - i think i can leave it off. I recently moved my page file to it's own partition on the C drive, which did help, and the size is set at 2500, though i know it can be more, but i rarely get below 500mb of ram. They are set at optimal settings in BIOS, and Optimize for Performance in DM, but not Enable write caching.. or Advanced performance. You think that will help much? Thanks again.

Thanks for the advice. I disabled Superfetch on advice to stop the occasional disk activity described, which many forums discuss (not as many as "why is Vista too slow"), and my problem was that of basic tasks, as in opening folders, navigating - not loading apps. In fact, i recently made a AutoHotKey script that launching 5 apps at once, and all load fine as before. But i did look under boot and Advanced.. in msconfig, and nothing was checked next to processors, though 1 was greyed out beside number of processors. As this is dual core, and not exactly 2 cpu's, i left it alone. What you you think? And how would i take the governor of the cpu throttle? Thanks and may God bless.

Thanks for the advice. I realized by now that cpu speed and memory is not the only thing that determines speed. My main 7200rpm HD is onl 18 months old, and just running that one Vista lacks the speed one should expect. I largely suspect it is the integrated video, though many have such on other PC's that must run snappier than this. When you open a folder it does so kind of slowly, with the perimeter coming into view, then about a sec. later the interior comes into view (if also forgets the last widows size if it reduce it). Time to pray about another purchase perhaps. My ram speed is two 1 gb ddr 667 and one 533 (which is the one that came with the PC ) and i am sure 800 would help somewhat. Here is the rating for the WEI which is 3.4 Processor Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.06GHz 4.3 3.4 Determined by lowest subscore Memory (RAM) 2.50 GB 4.6 Graphics Intel® G965 Express Chipset Family 3.4 Gaming graphics 358 MB Total available graphics memory 3.4 Primary hard disk 16GB Free (39GB Total) 5.7 I just turned off Windows Meeting Space, dfs replication service & remote differential compression (Run: OptionalFeatures.exe) if that would gain anything.

I hear ya. Or maybe the battery is low on my Desktop

I am a heavy PC user, and one that wants to do what i do quickly, and wonder why Vista can be so slow. I dual boot with Vista home basic (no Aero) and XP on a Dell e520, 3.06ghz dual core CPU, Intel 2.5GB ram, 965g chipset, integrated vieo/audio, with latest drivers and updates (incldg. SP1), yet Vista is noticeable slower than XP in basic tasks, such as navigating, opening folders (it kind of seems to strain a bit to do so, and initially takes approx. 7 sec. to open up windows Explorer, even though cpu is under 10% or less usage), etc. It is even slower in that area than a my old W98se PC with a 650mhz cpu and 320 ram. This Vista noticeable slowness is the case right after a clean install with about the same configuration and programs as XP, as well as after trying various tweaks and with unnecessary apps pared down from start up (incldg. without any anti virus, W. defender, and indexing running). Disabling Superfetch and Windows Update helped stop the heavy disk activity you sometimes would get for about 7 minutes upon resume from hibernation, but did not speed up things noticeably. In the latter quest i also shut off windows Consolidator recently, which is part of the Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program i must have agreed to be part of somehow. See good resource here on that) I can see what is running, and have checked out things to make sure nothing "odd" is in there, and while speed is faster right after boot it still seems to strain just to open a folder, even though (again), CPU level is very low. When multitasking with a resource heavy program like Windows Movie maker running (not encoding) it becomes even more doggy: approx. 4 secs just to open a folder, and 2 secs to switch btwn open windows, even though it shows above 1gb of ram free and cpu usage is under 40%. I am sure this is partly due to this PC, as a friend of mine has a $400.00 AMD X2 5000+ DUAL CORE - ASUS M2N-MX SE Motherboard - 2GB DDR-2 800MHz on which XP flies much faster than mine, even though he has it loaded with far more start up progs than this one. I am glad to have what i do, but wonder why Vista is so slow on this PC and so many other fairly high end and tweaked PC's BTW, here is a good resource of How To Make Shortcuts to Control Panel Pages in Vista for tweakers like me: http://www.dailygeeks.com/howto/how-to-mak...pages-in-vista/

I found disabling superfetch was necessary to stop 5-10 minutes of disk activity upon resume from hibernation, with no apparent negative effects (and sometimes I load 5 large apps at once thru the use of a script). Vista does use a lot of ram, and that trend should continue with W/7, but I was seeking more speed, and with 2gb of ram, I did find a very noticeable decrease in boot time and increase in speed by using a 3gb partition (on the main disk) for my page file. Still not as snappy as XP on basic tasks (I dual boot), and comparable configuration, or even W/9x in things like navigation and opening folders. But no, i do not want to go back to the latter!