Vista 64 Business : It's slower than XP

[exaltair]

Well, I've been messing with Vista 64bit Business for over a day now, and I can conclude that it's slower than my Windows XP... even WITH ReadyBoost. This is absurd.

I am running:

C2D (2.0ghz), 1gb RAM, 160gb 5400RPM hd, ATI X1300 Mobility.

Driver support is OK for now, I have most of the important ones (chipset, graphics etc).
Most software installs just fine, some tweaking was done to get Itunes to install and whatnot.

So, hows the performance stack up? :

- Boot times are faster than XP (a few seconds)
- System resource usage is IMMENSE. 700mb of memory in use on idle, constant disk usage (ESPECIALLY with ReadyBoost, since it constantly copies the pagefile to my memory stick it seems), my CPU usage is wildly sporadic: even with just windows Sidebar and Itunes running!
- Responsiveness is subpar, inferior to my XP Home's responsiveness. Firefox loads in twice the amount of time, IE loads slightly faster but still significantly slower. Once open, Vista seems to cache it and the when you close and reopen it will be faster... but STILL slower than in XP on the first time!
- ReadyBoost seems useless for me, especially upon bootup.
- Shutdown takes ages... AGES

I can comment on other factors about Vista like what I DO like about it and what I find highly annoying (or puzzling), but that seems premature or for another thread...

But to think that 64 bit Vista is less responsive than my XP Home is just appalling...
If anyone has any suggestions to speed it up or something, please let me know, because I am now back to posting this on XP...

 

[Smilin]

How long has your install been up?


Note: pay NO attention to memory or CPU usage. Just concentrate on how it feels. Vista can run background maintenance that burns CPU/mem like crazy without affecting responsiveness. If you are curious wtf it's doing check the scheduled tasks and show the hidden ones.


Why are you running 64 anyway? It's not without benifit on a 1GB box of course but the benifits will be trivial and there are some big gaps in 64bit drivers right now (especially since the OS isn't technically released yet).

 

[MikeyLSU]

You could use an extra GB of RAM, or at least 512MB for Vista. Second, x64 is known to be more buggy than going with the normal x86. It is a new OS that just came out, and it is much bigger than XP...I would expect it to run slightly slower.

I just installed Enterprise edition and am happy with it thus far. I play games, but I know going into it that they will all run slower on Vista, just the price you pay to upgrade.

Also, Readyboost does not take the place of RAM at all, it is actually much slower than any system RAM you would have, it is more of a bandaid...so don't expect huge changes by using it.

 

[Smilin]

Yeah ready boost is probably helping you quite a bit with that 5400 rpm spindle, but not doing anything with RAM.

 

[Mem]

You could use an extra GB of RAM, or at least 512MB for Vista. Second, x64 is known to be more buggy than going with the normal x86. It is a new OS that just came out, and it is much bigger than XP...I would expect it to run slightly slower.

You'll probably find 64 bit OS more stable since it has no legacy 16 bit software in the OS,so trimmed OS,I have not heard of any bugs in 64 bit version,but you can bet both versions will have bugs being a new OS,as to drivers, true both 32 bit and 64 bit are lacking at this time but to be expected.

Why are you running 64 anyway? It's not without benifit on a 1GB box of course but the benifits will be trivial and there are some big gaps in 64bit drivers right now (especially since the OS isn't technically released yet).

It's known fact that 64 bit version has better security then 32 bit version,also some games down the road will have native 64 bit Vista support so they will get a boost in speed(for 64 bit users),also handy if you intend to use 4GB+ ram down the road,the more people support 64bit Vista the quicker it will become the norm,do you really want to stay with 32 bit OS forever?



Getting back to his problem,what SpeedBoost compatible USB size are you using?..Obviously more ram and faster HD drive will help.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Mem
It's known fact that 64 bit version has better security then 32 bit version

It is?

 

[Mem]

It is?

Yes.

x64-specific features

A number of Windows Vista security features will only be made available on x64 versions of the OS, the 64-bit versions of Windows Vista that run on newer AMD and Intel processors. These include Kernel Patch Protection (sometimes called PatchGuard), which prevents hackers (and as it turns out, security companies and even Microsoft applications) from altering the Vista kernel at run-time; digitally signed drivers, which ensures that all hardware drivers used in x64 Vista versions are digitally signed and therefore of high quality and unlikely to be the cause of instability issues; and the removal of the 16-bit subsystem, which breaks compatibility with older applications but makes the overall system simpler and more reliable.

.

 

[Smilin]

far out.

 

[funkbass81]

digitally signed

welcome to windows 2000

 

[Mem]

digitally signed

This is taken from OCUK thread.

There are two swords to the signing process in Vista. Let me explain:

The first is Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) signing. This is basically where the hardware vendor sends its drivers to Microsoft to be tested and they in return receive a code signing certificate to attach to their driver. This prevents Windows from displaying the annoying "This driver is uncertified... do you still want to install it?" message from appearing.

The second is with, and only with, Vista x64. This OS will only load signed drivers. They do not have to be WHQL certified, just simply signed by their author. A signed driver of this type does not mean it has been tested by Microsoft at all. It simply means the driver file itself contains a valid code signing certificate and thus provides an assurance to the OS that it has not been modified since it was published and that the author who created it can be easily identified.

This concept is much the same as when you download a .EXE file, and run it for the first time, Windows XP SP2 and Vista will display a dialog saying who published the file - this is great because it allows you, as a user, to make a security trust decision. E.g. "Erm, I just downloaded a Microsoft hot fix and it this dialog says "Unknown publisher"... that's not good, I think I'll goto the Microsoft website to get a proper one..." See where I'm going with this?

In Vista x64 a similar process is performed with drivers. Except that it isn't the user making the trust decision, it is the OS. The OS simply does not trust unsigned drivers. Period.

The reason for this is security. Malicious hackers who make root kits cannot afford a relatively expensive (~£500) code signing certificate from Verisign. Any legitimate company wishing to distribute its driver can. If there is a hacker out there that can afford it (god he must be sad!) then Microsoft can blacklist the certificate and thus prevent the OS from even attempting to load the rogue driver.

Also note that actual kernel drivers of this kind are going to be increasingly uncommon soon. The only time you actually need to develop a kernel driver with Vista is for a graphics card. ALL other types of hardware or software can use a user-mode device driver. User mode device drivers do not require signing at all because they are, of course, not loaded into the kernel. Microsoft is increasingly trying to dissuade the development of kernel-mode device drivers - unless you're Nvidia or ATI they simply aren't required anymore. Yes it will probably take several years until this becomes a reality (points figure at lazy vendors like Creative...) but it will eventually happen. With every Windows release from XP x64 on, Microsoft is making it harder and harder to put your code in the kernel.

 

[exaltair]

I'm using the A-Data 1gb USB drive I just bought from Newegg... it's fully compatible with Readyboost... don't know about exact speeds but its Read/Write is around 12mb/s.

Perhaps the HD could use a boost, but its the Hitachi Perp recording drive... should be comparable to a 7200rpm drive, and maybe I need more (and faster RAM), but it's hard to believe that Vista is slower than my XP... even though it uses so much resources and advanced methods of speeding up the system..

Point being: the system FEELS slower, and in fact it is, from everything from opening programs to shutting down to multitasking...

Also... I just installed OpenOffice onto it, and the whole freaken system absolutely LOCKED for about 5 minutes... which is ludicrous with Readyboost, C2D and no programs open except Itunes!

Btw: I have no troubles with 64 bit Driver Support for the core of the system (graphics, chipset etc), its the small stuff like the WIFI card and 5-1 reader that doesn't have support yet...

 

[InlineFive]

Have you tried disabling ReadyBoost? I've read about some problems where ReadyBoost devices will cause the system to hang and slow down.

 

[greylica]

Note: pay NO attention to memory or CPU usage. Just concentrate on how it feels. Vista can run background maintenance that burns CPU/mem like crazy without affecting responsiveness. If you are curious wtf it's doing check the scheduled tasks and show the hidden ones.


Why are you running 64 anyway? It's not without benifit on a 1GB box of course but the benifits will be trivial and there are some big gaps in 64bit drivers right now (especially since the OS isn't technically released yet).

Translating:

Pay no attention for how hungry of memory the Tamagotchi of Vista is, give more ram and he will not cry anymore. If he is feeling bad the remedy can be more and more memory, the next step is give lithium ...

Why are you running 64 ?
Don you know that isn't ready yet ?
Don't you know that you have to wait for the drivers to become ready ?
Don't you know that ?
Don't you ?
Don't ?

hauhauahauauahau, Are you ready to boost your system to the space ?

 

[Dooyas]

For the 1st few days of installing Vista it usually indexes everything, which is why the HD is thrashing, after a few days of normal use it gets used to yourprograms and such that you run and skims down the memory usage somewhat and accesses the HD a lot less.

You memory usage is higher because it keeps the programs you use on a constant basis stored in there so start up is faster. But it releases that ram as soon as it is needed elsewhere.

As for using 64bit and drivers. I am doing alright on drivers so far, yes ATI and Creative drivers are buggy as all get out, but lets be honest, they are with XP as well.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: greylica

Note: pay NO attention to memory or CPU usage. Just concentrate on how it feels. Vista can run background maintenance that burns CPU/mem like crazy without affecting responsiveness. If you are curious wtf it's doing check the scheduled tasks and show the hidden ones.


Why are you running 64 anyway? It's not without benifit on a 1GB box of course but the benifits will be trivial and there are some big gaps in 64bit drivers right now (especially since the OS isn't technically released yet).

Translating:

Pay no attention for how hungry of memory the Tamagotchi of Vista is, give more ram and he will not cry anymore. If he is feeling bad the remedy can be more and more memory, the next step is give lithium ...

Why are you running 64 ?
Don you know that isn't ready yet ?
Don't you know that you have to wait for the drivers to become ready ?
Don't you know that ?
Don't you ?
Don't ?

hauhauahauauahau, Are you ready to boost your system to the space ?

You're fast becoming the Link19 of Vista.

 

[OGROK]

Vista prefetches your memory so the system is more responsive so it seems like it uses up more RAM but it doesn't.