IT Jobs
Expert users say Vista is too slow
Boot it up or boot it out?
By Gregg Keizer, Computerworld | Computerworld UK
Published: 05:14 GMT, 10 April 07
Windows Vista's start-up, shut-down and application load times are far too long compared with Windows XP, according to users.
Users on Microsoft's Performance & Maintenance forum, who sound pro-Vista for the most part, have vented about a variety of speed issues.
"I have XP and Vista running side-by-side [but] I twiddle my thumbs waiting for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load is instantaneous on the older XP machine," wrote a user identified as William. "I've tweaked it as best as I could with the info available and I am still very disappointed."
Wrote another user, Kris: "Recently I upgraded from XP to Vista [Home] Premium. When I start the laptop and I see the last BIOS info and Vista starts loading, then I have to wait a full 6 (six!) minutes before I can open my first application (for example Outlook or IE or whatever)."
Some accepted the slower speeds as the price of getting the latest and greatest from Microsoft. Said Jon: "XP is undoubtedly quicker than Vista. I don't think there will be a way around that. You'll never get extra functionality, without some performance cost, assuming the same hardware."
Suggestions from other users, including some tagged as Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals, ranged from adding more RAM to running Vista's Performance Information and Tools control panel to diagnosing possible problems. Replies to such messages, however, typically claimed 2GB or more of memory, and said no problems were reported by the operating system.
Start-up and shut-down times were particularly grating to some users. "Takes about 10 minutes to boot, then 5 minutes after login before you can use it," said user Bengt. "If no improvement I have promised my family to return to XP. But I want Vista!"
One user had a worse tale to tell. Martin Racette wanted to know if it was normal that Vista took more than an hour to shut down and to restart.
Others, at least, kept a sense of humour. "I've compared it to a Commodore 64 loading programs from tape, but I think the Commodore was faster," said Steve Franks. "I'm currently writing this on my other PC, because nothing has happened on my Vista machine for about 15 minutes."
Users, software reviewers and some analysts have dinged Vista for its high-end hardware requirements, and a lawsuit filed last week took that very tack. But head-to-head comparisons between XP and Vista speeds remain anecdotal.
So it was no surprise that Microsoft denied that Vista is slower to boot, reboot or shut down. "Start-up and shut-down times will vary based on the configuration of the PC by the OEM," said a company spokeswoman. "But we have seen, based on both internal and external measurement and testing, that most Windows Vista users experience very quick responses when using sleep, shut-down or restart.
"In fact, the majority of users will have start-up and shut-down times that are faster than they would have been with Windows XP," she added. "If users take advantage of Windows Vista's default sleep setting, they can achieve two-to-three second resume times."
Microsoft has positioned Vista's new sleep mode - a hybrid state that combines Windows XP's separate hibernation and standby modes - as the default setting, essentially conditioning users to not power-off their PCs. Some have reasoned that the move was made to mask Vista's long boot and shut-down times.
Although Microsoft has not admitted as much, last December, Jim Alchin, then the head of Windows, while describing sleep mode, said: "The bottom line is that because there is no reboot, the PC can respond much more quickly."
.gif)
Add your commentComments
wizards52 | Published: 12:13 GMT, 17 January 2009
On the money.
Don | Published: 07:21 GMT, 20 November 2008
I'm using vista and I am trying to get more speed out of it. However, I boot under 3 min. and shut down in 1. These guys seem to have other problems to go along with the power drag of Vista.It would be nice to have less processes running in the back ground.
Don | Published: 07:18 GMT, 20 November 2008
I'm using vista and I am trying to get more speed out of it. However, I boot under 3 min. and shut down in 1. These guys seem to have other problems to go along with the power drag of Vista.It would be nice to have less processes running in the back ground.
mehust | Published: 04:37 GMT, 20 September 2008
I HATE VISTA !!! My old computer bit the dust, so I had to get a new one. And, vista was on it. It has taken as long as 37 minutes for my comuter to come up and be ready to use. I went from dial up to high speed, but I can not see a difference. It still takes ages for pages to load. Why am I paying for high speed? Whatever the advantages of Vista are supposed to me, I haven't seen them. Give me XP. Ahh, those were the good old days !
Markus Odelein | Published: 18:30 GMT, 10 September 2008
At the office now I have a quad-core CPU with 3 Gig of RAM that came with Vista. I do not find it too slow. It is a little faster (but not much) than my previous 2.4G P4 with 1 Gig of RAM, with XP on it. I wouldn't have installed Vista on the 2.4. At home I have a Dual-Core 1.8 (lower-end Dual-core) with 2 Gig of RAM and Vista on it runs at about the same speed as another computer we have which has a Celeron 1.8 with 512M of RAM running XP. So Vista requires you to have latest hardware components to run smoothly. That said, I do not consider it a 'breakthrough' in terms of functionality, I do not do 'more' (as they claim) as I was doing with XP. It is cosmetically different if you wish, but it is not simpler nor better. And I do not like Microsoft's tendency to 'copy' here and there other's ideas and integrate them into their OS. But today there are alternatives.
Charles | Published: 20:51 GMT, 02 July 2008
I purchased a $2000 toshiba that came with Vista. I tried to downgrade to XP but cant get all the neccessary drivers, I tried to upgrade to Visata SP1, it wipes out my sound drivers. I now am the proud owner of a $2000 pirce of crap computer. Thanks Microsoft, hello Linuix
Mr Gee | Published: 21:16 GMT, 01 June 2008
My old lap top was running very slow and it was old, so I decided to purchase a new one. I bought one which has 1Gb memory which should be quicker, how wrong I was. The new laptop has Microsoft Vista on it, and how slow is this system. Surely with a Gb memory it should be quicker than my old 512mb machine. Not very impressed with it.
Didi | Published: 02:58 GMT, 12 January 2008
Vista, total miss i think, new notebook (core duo 2ghz, 2 go ram, nvidia 8400 gs...) and with vista is slow. Il looks great, works slow. an exemple : dvd documents 3.5 go to notebook with vista take 35min and with xp, same computar took 8 min.
Nick Walton | Published: 12:58 GMT, 03 January 2008
I have a brand new HP Pavillion Laptop, and as a power user have completely lost patience with Vista. I can't run more than half my software, the laptop can take over 15 minutes to boot to desktop, and don't even get me started on the ridiculous UAC/Naggity mcNag and irritating IE7 'security'. I have begged HP to send me an XP CD to go back to XP, but they just won't do it, and even XP is no speed demon!! Microsoft WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING? DID YOU LEARN NOTHING FROM WINDOWS-ME ?!?!
Mike | Published: 01:26 GMT, 25 December 2007
I have vista on my laptop with 2 gig of ram and the AMD Turion 64x2 1.8GHz processor. Very Very Slow. It also freezez up every time I start a new program or switch programs. My friend has the exact same laptop and his does the exact same thing. I am getting a 4Gig ultra fast SD Chip that should arrive next week to try readyboost. If that doesnt work I'm going to load XP.