Windows is interestingly slower than my older desktop

Today I used my old desktop (Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz, 4GB DDR2 RAM) to find a few files and noticed that after bootup completed, programs seemed to open more quickly than with my Sager laptop (i7 3610QM, 16GB DDR3 RAM). Whether it be "My Computer," or programs like "Ccleaner," most would open nearly instantly on the desktop. On my Sager, it seems like opening basic Windows tools have more of a delay and other programs like Ccleaner and Chrome take a more noticeable amount of time to load and then open.

This laptop still smokes the desktop in games, though. Any one have an idea why navigation is not too snappy but gaming performance is still about where it should be?

 

Sounds like you need an SSD

 

The desktop also has a standard hard drive, and plus it has less and slower RAM. I should at least be getting the same snappiness if the problem were hard drive related.

 

did u make sure that both windows power options and the hotkey tool are set to high performance? makes a big difference in overall system snappiness, if ure on powersaver of high perf.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Even with both at high performance I don't see a difference. It's not like it is slow or unbearable, I am just curious as to why it is slower than my Vista desktop in a noticeable way.

 

maybe uve got some resource hungry background process slowing ur system down?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Even though both have HDD, I'd bet your desktop has one with at least 7200 RPM and your laptop most certainly has a slower 5400 RPM (with the benefit of slight less power consumption). I'd wager that's where your difference in speed resides. This, of course, assuming you don't have extra services running on your laptop and are going with the High Performance power profile...

 

Comparing 7200RPM destkop HDD vs 5400RPM laptop HDD is clearly the issue there. There is no comparison since bootup and basic windows tasks are very I/O intensive which means RAM and hard drive. That's why SSD's are so popular, they reduce and nearly eliminate any I/O bottlenecks so even a slower CPU and RAM system seem fast.

 

I remember back in 2008 january when I got my Asus EEE-PC 701.

That Celeron M @ 633mhz (with 900mhz unlockable), and a 4GB SSD, loaded faster than my desktop beast!

 

My laptop hard drive runs at 7,200 RPM guys. There is not a single internal component inferior to my desktop in this Sager. I'm kind of angered by the fact that you all just assumed it runs at 5,400 and branched a conversation based on an assumption. Back to the drawing boards I guess.

 

format both machines, reinstall windows, test both after very first boot

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply or prove though. There could be any number of factors. What's loaded and installed on each machine, even with a 7200rpm notebook hard drive will likely perform slower than a desktop counterpart mainly due to 64MB cache vs laptop's 16MB cache, not to mention cache speed. Also if the desktop was fully defragged and the laptop wasn't. Like jaybee83 says, do an apples to apples comparison first preferably with a clean format on each then compare.

 

You can try updating to PREMA's BIOS, he added the very latest Intel RST firmware and the latest ME8 firmware. Everything snappy here. Though this laptop has been very fast booting into Windows and navigating Windows from the start... So dunno what to tell you. My old G73Jh was the same. Probably what HTWingNut said, something else is going on.

 

The laptop and desktop drive may both be 7200rpm, but the desktop drive is 3.5 inch platter and the laptop is 2.5". The edge of a 3.5" platter is spinning much faster than the edge of a 2.5" platter even at the same spindle speed.

 

I apologize for assuming you had a 5400RPM on the laptop and a 7200RPM drive on the desktop. However, since you haven't provided us with both machine's specs, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. If you'd be so kind as to describe them for us, maybe we can be more of an assistance.

As it has been said, it may not entirely be due to hardware. A true comparison would come from either benchmarking each of them (particularly RAM and I/O benchmarking) or comparing both with a clean version of windows

 

My signature includes my system specs.

 

Run a benchmark like ATTO Disk Benchmark | ATTO to see if you're getting the same results.

 

Yes, but what of your desktop specs?