I suggest that if you do want to help your friend with his slow Vista load times that you format the drive and install Vista clean for him using his Vista installation disc. Not to say that it will outperform a clean XP install on the same hardware, but at least the kettle won't have time to boil during boot.

Vista on my newer laptop shows "Logging Off..." for anything up to ten minutes when I close it down. Sometimes it does it in just a few seconds, but several times per week it will take seemingly forever.

I agree with Vince - a clean install is the way to go. I mostly use XP but Vista works ok on my 1GB Dell laptop.

I have noticed slow logoffs after installing updates. I install updates manually and let them accumulate for at least a month. Perhaps, if updates are on automatic, that is what is causing an intermittent problem.

Kaled.

LOL, it was a brand new top of the line laptop, Vista factory installed, in use for less than two days. How much cleaner an install can you get?

Lovejoy

"factory installed" does not mean "clean".

Most manufacturers install loads of rubbish including just about the worst security software on the planet - they just don't seem to be able to stop themselves. This isn't a Vista-specific problem but, perhaps, it is more apparent under Vista.

Kaled.

Dell are seemingly fascinated with delivering a machine that has a lot of extra detritus installed.

"I feel much better now that I purchased an Imac..."

First, it's iMac, not Imac.

Second, it seems you have a made-up complaint with the purpose to advocate Macs. Maybe you have watched to many Mac commercials lately!

In my case, I've never had any problems with my Vista installations. Indeed, Microsoft Vista is a pretty robust operating system.

Definitely not like your FreeBSD version on steroids plus cute GUI that now runs your Mac.

In my case, I've never had any problems with my Vista installations.

But other people have had problems.

Indeed, Microsoft Vista is a pretty robust operating system.

And most users found XP SP2 to be robust too.

If you think Vista (or anything else) is getting a bad press, by all means tell people of your positive experiences (but without any marketing spiel) but do not assume other people are wrong if their experiences differ from yours.

Kaled.

"But other people have had problems."

I wonder about the background of these people with "problems" with Microsoft Windows Vista.

I've read most posts from these people and their problems in WebmasterWorld. There is clear trend in all of these posts: lack of technical details in their claims.

Example: "I was helping a friend set up their new printer on their new lap top with Vista installed. The laptop has four gigs of ram and yet it took longer to load Vista than my old desktop with 256megs of ram to load XPhome ;~).

I would like to know the brand and model of the Vista laptop. Also I would like to know the brand and model of that "new printer".

Then and extremely important, I would like to know the name and versions of the software packages installed in the Vista laptop.

Remember, WebmasterWorld's Terms of Usage and Conditions of Service specifies in item number 5: "Be descriptive, specific, and succinct in your postings. This way your opinion and point is clearly understood and referenced."

...the brand and model of the Vista laptop. ...brand and model of that "new printer". ...name and versions of the software packages installed in the Vista laptop.

I think the worry here is that it shouldn't matter which specific brand and model you use. The expectation is that Vista is technically more capable than XP; and if that is so it should outperform XP on all hardware. Software slowing down Vista should not slow it any more than when under XP, and hardware even if poorly implemented should fare better under Vista than under XP.

I do appreciate that many members here have been bought over to the dark side by slices of spare IBM cash...

Ok, you want specifics...

I have a Dell Inspiron 1501 with Dual-core Turion and 1GB of memory. I also have a 256 MB IBM Thinkpad with a Celeron processor (actually, it's 768MB as of a few weeks ago). Vista on the Dell feels noticeably slower than XP on the IBM.

Or how about the wireless reconnect time after standby - about 5 seconds in XP and about 30 seconds in Vista (both on the Dell). Or how about the fact that the light seems to stay on on flash-drives after going through the remove-hardware procedure. Or how about file dialogs misbehaving when requesting confirmations (often the confirmation dialog is placed behind the progress dialog).

My own experience is that Vista works ok, but in almost every regard it is inferior to XP (however, I have not yet installed either XP SP3 or Vista SP1). Sure, Vista is pretty but there are many daft things even there too. For instance, the only way to identify a focused window is by looking at the depth of its shadow - that's hardly an improvement. I suppose the live thumbnails are nice (on the taskbar) and the new Start Menu is perhaps a little better, but then I absolutely hate the new file-search interface (Win 2000 wins that contest hands-down).

The essential problem with Vista is that Microsoft opted for revolution rather than evolution and it will be some time yet before they iron out all the kinks. Indeed, given that MS are now talking about Windows 7, they may not try too hard to get Vista right, preferring to concentrate on Win7 instead.

Kaled.

"... Vista is technically more capable than XP; and if that is so it should outperform XP on all hardware."

The problem with your assertion is "all hardware".

Do you mean hardware from the late 1990s and early 2000s? Do you mean hardware not certified by Microsoft for Windows Vista?

Please don't try to run Windows Vista on out-of-date hardware. Also, don't try to run Windows Vista on hardware not certified by Microsoft.

Kaled thanks for the details. That model laptop has performance bottlenecks, particularly in the graphics, that make it a less than optimal choice for Vista.

Macs have always been the computer with the weakest knees and the narrowest shoulders. The hardware the stock versions came with have consistently been too weak to handle the software, resulting in lockups and crashes galore. Macs look nice but PCs give you more choices in terms of hardware made with high quality parts- unless you buy them from Dell, etc.

Dell's are made from cheap no-name components from cheap no-name companies in China so as to come in at the under $999 price points. You get what you pay for.

I think those experiencing hangups with Vista may actually be having hardware issues. That said, I don't feel I need to upgrade to Vista because XP works fine for what I use it for.

"I have a Dell Inspiron 1501 with Dual-core Turion and 1GB of memory. I also have a 256 MB IBM Thinkpad with a Celeron processor (actually, it's 768MB as of a few weeks ago). Vista on the Dell feels noticeably slower than XP on the IBM."

Is your Windows Vista copy legal?

I would like to know also the name and versions of the software packages installed in the Dell laptop. Thank you.

zafile, I have no reason to put a plug in for Mac's, I've used PC's since 286's first came out. I was perfectly happy with XP, but all the new PC's in my local stores were loaded with Vista, which at the time was getting all kinds of bad press. I bought the Mac on an impulse after trying it out in the store, and I still have my old presario with XP and will use it until it blows.

After playing around with Vista I'm very glad I didn't buy a machine loaded with it, my friend has since returned the laptop and is looking at other options.

Lovejoy

Please don't try to run Windows Vista on out-of-date hardware. Also, don't try to run Windows Vista on hardware not certified by Microsoft.

I presume that's tongue-in-cheek! This is an OS we're talking about... a system which by definition should be resource-light, unobtrusive and free up as many resources for the actual software applications as is possible. One of the main purposes of an OS is to provide a uniform interface to software so that individual applications don't need to know about the wealth of hardware configurations possible - if we should only use 'Microsoft Certified Hardware' then the OS isn't doing a very good job at all.

I think those experiencing hangups with Vista may actually be having hardware issues

Isn't that the wrong way around? Seems to me it should be 'those experiencing hangups with Vista may be having Vista problems because it fails to provide good hardware support' - consumer grade hardware failing to work well under Vista is Vista's failing and not the consumer's.

Coming soon:

Please don't try to use your XYZ brand printer on a computer more than six months old. Also, please don't try to run your XYZ brand printer on a computer which is not certified by XYZ.

Is your Windows Vista copy legal?
I would like to know also the name and versions of the software packages installed in the Dell laptop. Thank you.

My copy of Vista on the Dell is legal - I bought the laptop specifically to run Vista for testing.

The only software on the Dell that might affect performance is ZoneAlarm 7 (which does slow down program start for Firefox and and Thunderbird - but only under Vista) and AVG 7.5

That model laptop has performance bottlenecks, particularly in the graphics, that make it a less than optimal choice for Vista...
Dell's are made from cheap no-name components from cheap no-name companies in China so as to come in at the under $999 price points. You get what you pay for.

Graphic performance on the Dell under Vista is fine - no problems at all.
The hard-drive is Hitachi - in my experience an excellent make.
The Graphics adapter is by ATI
The Modem is by Conexant
The Network card is by Broadcom

In terms of hardware, the only weakness in the Dell is the keyboard - the IBM is much better.

And while I think about it, under Vista, the LAN card remains on in standby and has a habit of waking the computer - I tried all sorts of things to fix it (but have now gone wireless so it doesn't matter anymore).

Kaled.

"... so that individual applications don't need to know about the wealth of hardware configurations possible - if we should only use 'Microsoft Certified Hardware' then the OS isn't doing a very good job at all."

Your assertion is wrong. As a matter of fact, the OS does an excellent job when it identifies non Microsoft Certified Hardware.

vincevincevince, there's excellent, good, mediocre, and bad quality hardware being sold at computer shops.

Usually, hardware that has been labeled Microsoft Certified Hardware is excellent or good quality hardware.

Hardware that has not passed as Microsoft Certified Hardware should be considered in most cases as mediocre or bad quality hardware.

I always strive to obtain Microsoft Certified Hardware. This assures me my computers and those of my clients will always function adecuately.

There are times in which I decide not to use Microsoft Certified Hardware, things like network cards. It's a risk I'm willing to take thanks to my expertise.

Nevertheless, when I deal with computers from my clients, I try to stick with Microsoft Certified Hardware as this will assure me I won't receive unhappy calls from them.

In conclusion, get Microsoft Certified Hardware for your Windows Vista installations. Your first experience with Vista should be awesome.

I have just bought a new pc with Vista pre-loaded. Frankly it's rubbish. I cannot open any large (i.e. multi-file) folder without it going berserk with its crazy indexing system. And that's with the indexing service turned OFF! And once it's started indexing, that's it. I'm not going to be doing anything else for the rest of the night unless I unplug the computer from the wall and reboot.

I have been forced into using Firefox because even though I have completely disabled Defender and the Windows Firewall I can hardly go to any page in IE without Defender warning me about some danger or other and refusing to allow me to load up the page. This includes previewing my own web page before publishing!

Anything that remotely resembles an exe gets subjected to the Spanish Inquisition before I'm allowed to run it.

For chrissakes! It's MY computer! I can do what I like with it!

Absolute tosh. Give me Win 2K any day.

"Give me Win 2K any day."

I've used Windows 2000, Windows XP and now Windows Vista.

I use Windows Vista for my daily jobs. Vista also guards my most important files.

On the other hand, I have 2 machines with Windows XP that have some legacy software I still use today, things like FileZilla, Groff, GView, PStill, Wintex - Miktex, Winrar, WinZip, XnView, XVIEW. Basically, legacy software that I use for research.

I also use both Windows XP machines to test my Web sites on IE 6.0 and other non-Microsoft browsers.

Because of lack of security mechanisms included within Windows 200O, Windows 2000 is unusable to me.

How can Windows 2000 be usable to you today? Hmmm...

And you accuse me of beating as drum for Mac's? LOL Zafile, you sound like the guy who plays "PC" on the Mac commercials, It's always someone else's fault when windows screws up.

Lovejoy

aj113,

Disable real-time anti-virus - that will probably help considerably. Also, as mentioned before, a clean install is always best and ditch the crappy security software for something that doesn't kill performance (assuming that is the problem).

zafile,
I have a Windows Vista sticker on my Dell Laptop and I have a legal copy of Vista, so I guess it should be perfect - but it isn't. To be fair, I haven't suffered stability issues under Vista, but then I haven't suffered any under XP either (on the same hardware) and with almost identical software. But, no matter how I compare the two, Vista simply isn't "better".

The bottom line is that the same software on the same hardware typically runs slower on Vista than XP. Often, the difference is unimportant but it is apparent. And many of the changes in Vista are simply not improvements, for instance, the file confirmation dialogs are just awful.

Kaled.

"... you sound like the guy who plays "PC" on the Mac commercials."

As I wrote on message #:3641708, you have watched to many Mac commercials lately.

Be careful, those TV commercials have a lot of Steve Jobs in them, to much "reality distortion". RDF is pretty contagious. See Wikipedia for more information.

Your evasion of addressing the obvious noted ;~) I bought a Mac because experts were panning Vista, not Steve Jobs.

Lovejoy

"I bought a Mac because experts were panning Vista..."

Experts on what? On the 'reality distortion field'?

No doubt those experts can really distort your first experience with Vista!

To deny that Vista has had a lot of problems indicates that it is not my reality field that has issues

[news.com...]
[theregister.co.uk...]
[pcmag.com...]

Lovejoy

Did my first Vista backup yesteday. 6 hours to back up 90gb of data - and the hard drive was thrashed throughout, making the PC virtually unusable. I used to use a dos batch file, and it sure didn't take 6 hours.

Disable real-time anti-virus - that will probably help considerably

I disabled Defender altogether - if that's what you mean - I'm using PCTools instead.

Either way, it's a pretty poor state of affairs if your OS doesn't have the ability to run realtime AV software without it rendering your PC useless.

it's a pretty poor state of affairs if your OS doesn't have the ability to run realtime AV software

I don't want to name names, but there are at least two AV products out there that can slow down file-intensive operations by 80 to 90 percent, irrespective of OS (i.e. the operations take 5 to 10 times as long to complete). I am no fan of Vista, but Vista may not be to blame.

Kaled.

Hardware that has not passed as Microsoft Certified Hardware should be considered in most cases as mediocre or bad quality hardware.

How can you say that with a straight face? Hardware that has not passed as Microsoft Certified is usually hardware that they decided not to support because it was too much work... their solution? Get something we certify?

In conclusion, get Microsoft Certified Hardware for your Windows Vista installations. Your first experience with Vista should be awesome.

Not true....

In fact they are being sued for calling hardware "Vista Capable" when they clearly weren't able to run Vista.

[pcworld.com...]

Vista's ULCPC hardware specifications included a minimum system memory of 256MB, not enough for any version of Vista. The newer operating system also needs considerably more disk space than the 1.1GB cited by Microsoft for Windows XP in its ULCPC guidelines.

zafile.... I am glad your experience has been good with Vista, I wouldn't touch it, especially now that it is going to be the next M.E. dropped after a few short years in the market....Win 7 (milestone)

The fact is an OS should be capable of operating a system. It should work for the user... not the other way around. If I have a Vista on my laptop and go to do a service call that has a dot matrix printer and want to print to it using Vista I should be able to... the fact that you think I shouldn't be able to makes me wonder what you think an OS should do.

The other problem I have with your "just get new hardware" and it will work mantra is... why should I have to upgrade all my hardware to accommodate a new OS? That is so ssa backwards... I can install my win98 and use all that old and new stuff... it stands to reason that the reverse would be true.... why do I think that? because it is true of EVERY OTHER MODERN OS