Why exactly is Vista so slow?

[MrCobra]

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.

Moving the pagefile only helps if it's moved to a different drive. If it's still on the same physical drive as your boot drive, you gain nothing.

[PeaceByJesus]

I have a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz process on my older desktop and it runs slower than my Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz because you can't compare CPU speed between the two (not exactly apples to apples).

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

Regardless, you probably may benefit from vLiting your Vista and get rid of the crap. I have Vista Ultimate on my Pentium Centrino laptop 1.7 GHz (IBM T42) with 768 MB DDR ram and it runs great!!! But it's been vLited to the essentials

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.

Edited October 23, 2008 by PeaceByJesus

[PeaceByJesus]

You should always use superfetch and superfetch isn't the cause for your occasional disk activity whistling.gif

OK, back it goes!

[PeaceByJesus]

I wouldn't recommend using two different specs in your RAM. Either you are over-clocking one of them, or under-clocking two of them.

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

[PeaceByJesus]

Moving the pagefile only helps if it's moved to a different drive. If it's still on the same physical drive as your boot drive, you gain nothing.

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.

[fizban2]

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.

This would be the first thing that i would fix, sure it might be working right, but having ram running at different frequencies in the machine with play havoc with I/O for the machine. try taking the slower 533 ram and see if that helps. best option would be to pick up a 800 mhz 2 gig or 4 gig pack of memory (2 at the minimun!)

[MrCobra]

Moving the pagefile only helps if it's moved to a different drive. If it's still on the same physical drive as your boot drive, you gain nothing.

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.

You can bypass fragmentation on the boot drive, no matter the pagefile size, if you set the min and max values the same.

It works best if it's on the 1st partition; faster access.

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.

This would be the first thing that i would fix, sure it might be working right, but having ram running at different frequencies in the machine with play havoc with I/O for the machine. try taking the slower 533 ram and see if that helps. best option would be to pick up a 800 mhz 2 gig or 4 gig pack of memory (2 at the minimun!)

They won't run at different speeds.

Edited October 23, 2008 by MrCobra

[PeaceByJesus]

It works best if it's on the 1st partition; faster access.

But will Windows even use the page file if it has enough free ram (just how much really is enough is another question)?

They won't run at different speeds.

But the PC will run at the lowest speed module correct?

Thanks

[spacesurfer]

But the PC will run at the lowest speed module correct?

That is correct. When you mix speeds, your faster RAM will run at the clock speed of the slower RAM.

For normal tasks not involving gaming, you won't see a difference in removing the slower RAM according to an article I read at ExtremeTech. The more RAM the better (even if slower; however, I wouldn't a vast difference between the slower and the faster RAM) for non-gaming type of multitasking.

[PeaceByJesus]

wouldn't a vast difference between the slower and the faster RAM) for non-gaming type of multitasking.

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

[PeaceByJesus]

It works best if it's on the 1st partition; faster access.

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.

Edited October 23, 2008 by PeaceByJesus

[PeaceByJesus]

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

Universally, we found that our engineering applications required 65% more time to complete tasks [on Vista] compared to XP on the same hardware. We estimated that the average user would waste at least an extra 60 minutes each day simply waiting for things to happen

.

[cluberti]

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

Universally, we found that our engineering applications required 65% more time to complete tasks [on Vista] compared to XP on the same hardware. We estimated that the average user would waste at least an extra 60 minutes each day simply waiting for things to happen

.

True. Although, considering they were already in use on XP for a good amount of time (engineering apps usually don't update often), I'd say it's more likely the apps weren't written to take advantage of Vista rather than some Vista flaw. Definitely a deal-breaker for a customer if these apps are everything they do, though.

[jaclaz]

More generally, in my experience "engineer related" apps usually belong to two categories:

1) "good" apps, "well" written by good programmers that completely fail to deliver the actual needed output as the programmer knows nothing of enginerering and on how engineer work

2) "bad" apps, "approximately" written by an engineer that thinks he is a programmer, that completely fail to be fast and efficient, but deliver the needed output and do that (slowly) while letting the engineer work the way he likes

Why programmers and engineers do not usually team together to create something both efficient AND working remains one of the great unresolved misteries.....

And this happens in a number of other fields, and expeciallly with "vertical" apps....

jaclaz

[MrCobra]

But will Windows even use the page file if it has enough free ram (just how much really is enough is another question)?

Some will argue that with enough RAM that a swap file isn't needed. There are applications, especially games, that absolutely require a swap file in order to function properly. Your usage may fall into the area where you can get by without a swap file, but be aware that there are cases where it's absolutely required.

If you have the space to spare on another drive for a primary partition to put the swap file on, I'd recommend doing so.