Which features of vista slows it down??
- Thread starter kiyhkuj
- Start date
- Status
Daveskater
Posts: 1,412 +0
In my experience, the sidebar doesn't make much of an impact, on the CPU at least, at the moment it's using 13MB of ram so it's up to you whether that's a lot or not.
Flip 3D isn't on all the time so that shouldn't really be an option, it's only up for a matter of seconds at a time. The same goes for the minimizing/maximizing effects.
Also, it's not just that Vista is slower (I'm assuming you want to compare it to XP). Of course a new OS is going to be bigger and better so if you expect to run it on the same hardware then you're in a dream world. I had to upgrade my RAM to the maximum amount that my mobo would take (1GB - phwoar
) to get half decent performance out of it.
Think of it this way: get a PC that will run Windows 98 smoothly (as smoothly as 98 comes, anyway). Then install XP on it. Lag City is where you'll find yourself. To expand this a bit, i have a laptop with 98 on it and it has 16MB of RAM and a 100MHz Pentium (1) CPU and a ~800MB hard drive so therefore i would never even imagine putting XP even near it.
Flip 3D isn't on all the time so that shouldn't really be an option, it's only up for a matter of seconds at a time. The same goes for the minimizing/maximizing effects.
Also, it's not just that Vista is slower (I'm assuming you want to compare it to XP). Of course a new OS is going to be bigger and better so if you expect to run it on the same hardware then you're in a dream world. I had to upgrade my RAM to the maximum amount that my mobo would take (1GB - phwoar
) to get half decent performance out of it.Think of it this way: get a PC that will run Windows 98 smoothly (as smoothly as 98 comes, anyway). Then install XP on it. Lag City is where you'll find yourself. To expand this a bit, i have a laptop with 98 on it and it has 16MB of RAM and a 100MHz Pentium (1) CPU and a ~800MB hard drive so therefore i would never even imagine putting XP even near it.
L
link590o
the aero theme and other effects are the only places i can see feasible effect on the overall performance. any graphical elements added on top of what is considered minimum will make the system work harder and decrease performance. and i checked other effects because of how Vista deals with RAM. it's not like XP where you can throw, in some versions, up to 128gigs on it and have it running lickity split. it decides to be pissy about as little as 4 gigs.
that for me is the biggest strike against vista. the way it deals with RAM.
that for me is the biggest strike against vista. the way it deals with RAM.
Daveskater
Posts: 1,412 +0
I just remembered, i upgraded my graphics card from a GeForce 4 MX 420 to a GeForce 6800GS. Partially because the 420 didn't work with Aero and i think it was dying anyway. I was getting 2.2FPS out of it :grinthumb
Daveskater
Posts: 1,412 +0
Dude, chill.
It's probably because this question has been answered before, you haven't given reasoning behind starting the poll in your original post and because the choices aren't all relevant and it's obvious which ones "slow Vista down" when compared to XP.
People have had enough of the XP vs. Vista debate and this is just another thread that will fall on that pile.
It's probably because this question has been answered before, you haven't given reasoning behind starting the poll in your original post and because the choices aren't all relevant and it's obvious which ones "slow Vista down" when compared to XP.
People have had enough of the XP vs. Vista debate and this is just another thread that will fall on that pile.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Gigabyte confirms "Ryzen 9000" branding for AMD's upcoming Zen 5 CPUs- antiproduct replied
