Why exactly is Vista so slow?

[cluberti]

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

Technically, yes - even if you don't have a pagefile created, there are certain situations (usually under memory pressure in the kernel) where the Windows kernel will page out kernel paged pool memory and certain kernel executive binaries. Even if you don't have a pagefile configured, if Windows needs to do this, it will try (and create a temporary pagefile), or bugcheck. It's not a common scenario, but it can happen.

Also, as previous posters have said, some apps do require a paging file or swap file, although some of those will create their own if Windows doesn't have one.

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

[spacesurfer]

seem this horse has been beaten to death. let's move on.

[weEvil]

Superfetch takes awhile. It monitors your system for the most commonly loaded apps and preloads them into spare memory.

It takes awhile. Has to determine a pattern first.

Also, Vista is not slow. It is slower than XP. You messed up your system. That's your problem, not Vista's.'

Clean it up, and put in the right settings.

Edited October 26, 2008 by brucevangeorge

[Nick_White]

Vista can be fast if you optimize it.

I have disabled 27 services (out of 80 or whatever) and it works like a charm.

[sbolton]

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, yet Vista is noticeable slower than Xp in basic tasks, such as navigating, opening folders (it strains to do so, initially taking approx. 7 sec. to open up windows Explorer, even though cpu is under 10% usage), etc. It is even slower in that area than a my old W98se PC with a 650mhz cpu and 320 ram.

This Vista slowness is the case right after a clean install with about the same configuration and programs as XP, and 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 am sure we have ALL had this problem from a fresh install of Vista, takes 5 mins to copy a file across etc etc - solution?

Vista Service Pack 1 <-- install it

[soldier1st]

you should leave the pagefile alone and let vista manage it also for the write caching put the first one back on but for the advanced option keep that off,also integrated graphics are a bad choice as they use system memory that could be used for better things.also tuning the default vista services won't yield much if anything in performance,also don't run vista on less than 2GB memory.

[weEvil]

you should leave the pagefile alone and let vista manage it also for the write caching put the first one back on but for the advanced option keep that off,also integrated graphics are a bad choice as they use system memory that could be used for better things.also tuning the default vista services won't yield much if anything in performance,also don't run vista on less than 2GB memory.

I agree with everything but the services. You can disable resource hogs like defender, indexing service, and the gadgets. Everything else, not much difference.

[FthrJACK]

Also take into account that vista wasnt just made to run on todays hardware, but to run for several years, even long after windows 7 comes out. It has to have a lifespan, and the same with any OS that MS (or other companies) have brought out. It was exactly the same with XP, but those people shouting about how wickedly fast it is right now, mostly arent running it on hardware they where when XP first came out

XP has also been service packed and hotfixed extensivley. I remember when we first opened msfn, and most of the posts where about "how bug ridden, slow and useless xp is rant rant rant, why wont half my programs work!!!!! i installed a CD burner and now my PC keeps rebooting, wahh some prat is using RPC broadcasts to reboot my pc!" etc etc.

I must get a pair of those rose tinted, forget the bad stuff, glasses myself....

My own personal experience is that vista has been the smoothest, most enjoyable, welcome, and much needed improvement in an OS i have so far had from MS... i have been using windows since 95 first came out.

Why does nobody ever come online going on about how they refuse to ever stop using Windows ME i wonder?? hmm...

[GrofLuigi]

If I could get drivers for today's hardware, I'd still run windows 95.

I don't need any services (as in favors) from the OS. Just to boot and get out of the way. I don't need to be blinded by the 'experience' - then I'll forget to do any work.

And for every task I intend to do there's a program (often freeware).

GL

[sbolton]

If I could get drivers for today's hardware, I'd still run windows 95.

I don't need any services (as in favors) from the OS. Just to boot and get out of the way. I don't need to be blinded by the 'experience' - then I'll forget to do any work.

And for every task I intend to do there's a program (often freeware).

GL

Believe me i went back to it a few months ago and hell it is restrictive!

[FthrJACK]

Yes you forget, its those rose tinted glasses you see!

if you wanted to go back to 95 just for performance reasons, then use Solaris, or a light weight Linux distro - way more functional than 95, and get all the open source free apps you want

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

[FthrJACK]

I didnt mean you pbj! i posted in response to GroftLuigi's post, bottom of page 2.

[GrofLuigi]

I didn't intend to argue, just stating my (OK, taken to the extreme) opinion.

GL