I was considering buying a new compaq laptop but before I did I went to a
rent 2 own place to check one out with the new O.S. Vista. I rented it for
one week and right off the bat I thought for a brand new computer with more
than enough ram and more than enough on the hard drive was running slow,
slower than my desktop pc with XP and a couple years older. I asked the
dealer about this and after calling someone in their service dept. I was told
that it is because Vista is larger than any other O.S. before and there was
nothing to do about it and microsoft actually confirmed this before Vista
even came out. Is this place blowing smoke up my arse which I believe they
are or what. The laptop I checked out was brand new out of the box. I was
the first user on it so what say you??

Well, you haven't told us much about the System like Specs, installed
software. Insufficient memory, Norton Antivirus are factors that can affect
your experience on Windows Vista. Vista is not the largest OS in the world.
Mac OS X Leopard which will be released on October 26th 2007 uses 12 GBs of
disk space.

irobot1959 wrote:
> I was considering buying a new compaq laptop but before I did I went to a
> rent 2 own place to check one out with the new O.S. Vista. I rented it for
> one week and right off the bat I thought for a brand new computer with more
> than enough ram and more than enough on the hard drive was running slow,
> slower than my desktop pc with XP and a couple years older. I asked the
> dealer about this and after calling someone in their service dept. I was told
> that it is because Vista is larger than any other O.S. before and there was
> nothing to do about it and microsoft actually confirmed this before Vista
> even came out. Is this place blowing smoke up my arse which I believe they
> are or what. The laptop I checked out was brand new out of the box. I was
> the first user on it so what say you??


No smoke, he is correct, it HAS to be slower than XP on the same
hardware because of the extra "Layers" of abstraction and the fact that
Vista was programmed in a language that generates a higher processing
overhead.

Also, 1GB of RAM for Vista is roughly equivalent to 256MB in XP, so if
that's what's in it you might see some improvement with 2GB, but still
not as fast as XP.

And yes MS have said that.

And you're now thinking WTF and so are some of us :)

In some ways it will turn out to be a better OS I think but not yet and
not on 32 bit hardware.

"irobot1959" <irobot1959> wrote in message
news:6e60
>I was considering buying a new compaq laptop but before I did I went to a
> rent 2 own place to check one out with the new O.S. Vista. I rented it
> for
> one week and right off the bat I thought for a brand new computer with
> more
> than enough ram and more than enough on the hard drive was running slow,
> slower than my desktop pc with XP and a couple years older. I asked the
> dealer about this and after calling someone in their service dept. I was
> told
> that it is because Vista is larger than any other O.S. before and there
> was
> nothing to do about it and microsoft actually confirmed this before Vista
> even came out. Is this place blowing smoke up my arse which I believe
> they
> are or what. The laptop I checked out was brand new out of the box. I
> was
> the first user on it so what say you??

Does the laptop fall into the specifications of these Vista ready laptops?
You'll notice Duo Core, speed and memory.

<http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?page=2&Nav=%7Cc:2480%7C&Sort=0&Re cs=10>

My HP dv9000 laptop has got it all, and I have no problems running Vista, I
have a whole host of background processes running too, and they and the O/S
run lickity split on the speed. I was at my sister's house earlier today to
use her printer with her desktop running XP Home. I was rolling on the floor
hollering how slow things were compared to my laptop running Vista. :) The
desktop computer was a few years old, and I did take that into
consideration.

"with more than enough ram"
But how much is that?
Microsoft minimum is 512 MB, but that is low for most.
Most need 1 GB wile some need 2 GB or more depending on how the
computer is used.

Most new computers, particularly those from the major OEMs, have a lot
of garbage installed that slow them down.
It should be uninstalled if not needed or disabled from startup if not
needed all the time.
This can be easily disabled or uninstalled with a significant boost in
performance.

The service department is not exactly blowing smoke, but they are not
very knowledgeable either.
..

I have found each new version of Windows and Mac OS to be faster than the
prior. Every time a new OS is released, airheads start running their
mouths. I always install OSes from scratch and have never had problems with
Wintel(DOS, 3.x to Vista) or Mac (OS 7 to Tiger). Even with pre-installed
PCs for corporate clients, I have little to no problems FOR YEARS!

Even on a Pentium 4 with 256MB of RAM, I didn't have a single problem with
multiboot 2000, XP Home and Professional. People load garbage on their
computers, then spread myths about the underlying OS. As the saying goes,
"A bad workman blames his tools."

Vista is superior to prior Windows releases. Period. Those with negative
experiences should examine their hardware resources and software
installations. Most applications supposed to "make the computer better" do
just the opposite - bog it down with useless processes!





"irobot1959" wrote:
[..]

You have no clue at all have you?

If there were no problems why have MS decided to "Fix" this little lot?

> [..]

(And you can read this on MS' own website but this article is easier to
read...)

Comparing a clean install of Vista against a clean install of XP with
the correct drivers and using the same machine Vista is noticeably
SLOWER then XPPro and this includes the 64 bit version of Vista which is
marginally slower still. This is NOT going to change until / unless
major changes are made to the structure of Vista, and that's not about
to happen any time soon.

As for it being other software causing problems you may be right,
Microsoft's own...

> [..]

Or are you saying that everyone else is wrong and only you are correct?

Now "IF" your setup is working well that's great, but you should
exercise more caution recommending something that the user may well find
disappointing, whatever the cause, as your ill informed advice only
creates more ill feeling toward Microsoft.


Iakov wrote:
[..]

"Charlie Tame" <charlie> wrote in message
news:3940
> You have no clue at all have you?
>
> If there were no problems why have MS decided to "Fix" this little lot?
>> (And you can read this on MS' own website but this article is easier to
> read...)
>
> Comparing a clean install of Vista against a clean install of XP with the
> correct drivers and using the same machine Vista is noticeably SLOWER then
> XPPro and this includes the 64 bit version of Vista which is marginally
> slower still. This is NOT going to change until / unless major changes are
> made to the structure of Vista, and that's not about to happen any time
> soon.

Prove that major changes in structure are required. PROVE IT.

>
> As for it being other software causing problems you may be right,
> Microsoft's own...


You speak from no scientific or statistically based data. You speak
stupidity.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> "with more than enough ram"
> But how much is that?
> Microsoft minimum is 512 MB, but that is low for most.
> Most need 1 GB wile some need 2 GB or more depending on how the
> computer is used.
>
> Most new computers, particularly those from the major OEMs, have a lot
> of garbage installed that slow them down.
> It should be uninstalled if not needed or disabled from startup if not
> needed all the time.
> This can be easily disabled or uninstalled with a significant boost in
> performance.
>
> The service department is not exactly blowing smoke, but they are not
> very knowledgeable either.
> .
>
I'd suggest they're far more knowledgeable than a Vista fanboy like you.

Cheers.

Typical of you.
Another attack while making no attempt to assist the OP.
To bad you are unable to contribute anything of value to the OP.
Typical of you.