Slow, I mean dog slow.

for today's popular kernels, they are a non-issue, especially for desktop OS. I don't find XP to be particularly slower than linux or crash often. The are all pretty stable and efficient. NT's kernel is actually a very advanced one. In fact, SQL Server running on Windows compares pretty well with other RDBMS on *nix, so long similar hardware spec is used. Which demonstrate that the kernel of Windows is not as bad as people think.

 

i have Samsung Q35 Ruby... i don't reinstalled my vista yet... n yes... it run smoothly eventho i only have 1Gb RAM... with C2D T5500 1.66.Ghz... only the first setup was lil bit longer... but then... i would say... it run smoothly...

only when i run too many IOPUS... together with Photoshop... n some more software... i experience lil bit slow... but... of coz thats normal.. when i use up all the resources...

 

Actually, technically speaking, Linux is a viable gaming platform. It uses OpenGL, a graphics renderer akin to DirectX 10. Companies like Id (Quake and Doom series) and Atari (Neverwinter Nights) have made native Linux games. In fact, Quake Wars: Enemy Territory is coming with a native Linux version.

Last lan party I went to, I only used my Ubuntu install. Everything from Soldat to Call of Duty 2 to Counter-Strike ran just fine. All it takes is a manufacturer to make the effort. Unfortunately, most don't.

The OP had an experience that many of our fellow forum members have run across too. He was asking why it ran so much slower than his Linux install. Some other users came in and offered solutions, some of which will most likely be helpful should the OP decide to try Vista again in the future.

 

^^Hmm, I just don't think the OP originally placed the blame where the blame is due. Any PC that has the bloatware that every laptop comes standard with is going to run "dog slow". The OS installed doesn't really have any bearing on it. I think most of us are savvy enough to understand this, and most of us do clean installs to get rid of the junk, regardless of what OS is installed. I mean, the OP even admitted he didn't know what half the crap was on his desktop. You don't even know what bloatware is and you're still going to blame the OS w/o trying to fix that situation first?

 

Maybe if you had paid a little more attention to my post you would have seen that I didn't use Gentoo, I used Ubuntu and OpenSuse. Here's a post on how "easy" getting 3d acceleration in one of the many flavors of Linux is :
http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Latest_nvidia_feisty

Yeah that is a fun read eh?

And I have to laugh at the first statement of the Linux article: "Requirements: An Nvidia GPU..." , LOL what if I commit the sin of chosing an ATI card?

To be honest, I had better luck getting an ATI card running stabily with Beryl than a Nvidia card, but maybe I just got lucky.

 

Again, Linux is supposedly so much more stable than Vista? I guess the OP doesn't use "an everyday desktop". Vista Aero is rock solid stable, here even the OP admits that Beryl is "fun to play with but not that stable as an every-day desktop..."

Case closed.

 

You have ur favor and we have ours. Stop sulking about how Vista is "superior" than linux.. Linux is for pros, beginners that have no intention of learning it should stay far far away...

I think my post will be deleted by Chaz but it is here for you to read.

 

LMAO .. pros and beginers doesn't come into it lol it's horses for courses. If the software you use doesn't run on Linux then you don't use it.. simple, why bang your head against a brick wall when you don't have to? .. if it does and you like Linux then that's great go for it.

(I use Linux and Vista HP 64bit each for different purposes)

 

I don't believe that Vista is better than Linux, but neither do I believe that Vista is, as the OP states it "Slow, I mean dog slow"...

As for Linux being for pros, well maybe that is the biggest part of the problem. I want an OS that works, not one that I have to be a "pro" in to operate. I'm a pro in my chosen field of study, not in Linux operations.

I don't know who Chaz is, but hopefully they don't delete your post, as we are having an intelligent discussion and all of your arguments are valid.

 

I too use Linux and windows each for different purposes. What i meant was that if you have no intention of learning linux, it's better to stay away.The learning curve is a bit harder than other GUI based software.

P/S: Chaz is the Mo-dee-ra-tor

 

yup got to agree with you there.. it took me a couple of months to get openSuse 64bit version running fairly smoothly, it's still a bit tempermental to be honest (probably due to my ATI drivers). It reminds me a little bit of old DOS machines and Windows 3.1 where a lot of hardware setup was done manually..

..at least we don't have to use dip switches and stacks of jumpers to set things up anymore! Nothing more annoying than putting the whole lot together then getting conflicts then having to dismantle things to change a switch.

I do like Linux and will like it even more when I've got it sorted out propperly!

 

Yeah! I did the jumper thing also.. tried to overclock my 486 speed up but somehow it is at it's limit.. dang that i din have internet that time.. (I think i was 7years old... forgot which year, din even knew internet existed) Fun times...

 

Someone had asked whether anyone is using Vista that came with the system, rather than blowing it off and reinstalling it clean ...
I recently bought a 17" Gateway notebook system for someone. It came with Vista Home Premium. I removed all the bloatware, crapware and trialware, ran the Crap Cleaner and a few Registry cleaners and found, to my surprise, that the system ran really well. Bear in mind that I was not a fan of Vista, (I'm still running XP on all my systems) but in the week that I ran the Gateway through it's paces, I actually was getting to like Vista.

 

On equivalent hardware, the difference in speed may be enough to give that impression.

The way I see it, Linux is good for a few different demographics:
A) People who have never used a computer before.
B) Experts who want to get as close to their perfect operating environment as possible.
C) People who have the patience to learn something new, just like a new language.

In my experience, the people who have the most difficulties with Linux are:

D) Windows "Power Users".

Oh, and for nVidia users, installing the drivers in Ubuntu Feisty are as simple as System → Administration → Restricted Devices Manager.

 

I disagree with your opinion. My HP nc6000 business notebook with XP was not dog slow from day 1. My Apple iBook G4 was not dog slow from day 1. I've owned a few notebooks before, and this is the first that I've been truly disappointed with the performance from day 1. About five pages ago, I stated the following in relation to my experience with Vista and the alleged Bloatware:

"Is it Microsoft's fault? Is it HP's fault? I don't care".

All I know is my brand new high-end laptop felt slower and less responsive than my Pentium 2 laptop running Windows 2000. Obviously, the hardware is much faster so that couldn't be the problem, that leaves the software to blame.

FWIW, I am a Linux and UNIX "guru" with several industry certifications and many years of experience with AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, and Linux, plus all the applications I use are available for both Windows, and Linux, which made it an easy decision for me to load Linux when Vista proved inadequate. That said, I purchased this notebook with the full intention of using Vista, hence my disappointment and irritation with the product.

I'm not a Windows "guru". I don't know how to hack the registry or fool with the DLL's or whatever it is you do. I use Windows at work to run my Outlook email, as well as OSX and several flavors of UNIX servers. The last version of Windows I installed from CD myself was Windows 98. My point here, is I think it's unacceptable to have the expectation that I need to re-install the OS just to get a decent computing experience. That's like expecting the buyer of a brand new car to have to immediately re-build the engine just to get it to run right! This seems to be a consistent theme amongst the Windows guru's. "No matter what the ailment, re-install the OS! That'll cure it!". That's not a solution in my book.

That said, HP doesn't even give you the option to install a fresh copy of Vista. They don't include the CD's. They include a "restore partition" on the hard drive that can be used to restore the OS to it's factory fresh original state. Bloatware and all. Now assuming this bloatware was the original problem, that doesn't help me much, does it? So the only way I could install a 'clean' install of Vista, is to go to the store and pay Microsoft for another Vista license, just to get a clean retail copy of it. Um, sorry Bill, that ain't gonna happen.

I'm not here to flame anyone who's happy with Vista. Good for you, congratulations, I'm glad you're happy with Vista. I'm not trying to dissuade you from using it, so just relax! Really. This is the first time I've ever touched Vista. My goal with this thread was to see if others had experienced the same problems with a brand new Vista computer, what the cause of the problems were, and what you did to fix it.

 

Or you can use the Anytime Upgrade DVD for the clean install (provided HP gave you one). It worked well for me the other day and Vista is much more responsive without the bloatware.

 

Exactly. When it comes to these things it isn't necessarily just the OS that's to blame, as your original post suggests. For example, the notebook I was given in technical school 4 years ago had Windows NT installed, and when I first it booted up it was SUPER dog slow. And the reason why was because of a combination of things -- bloatware, installed programs that the NB couldn't handle, a lack of RAM, etc. Not that your configured spec couldn't handle Vista well (it should as a matter of fact), there are other factors that will make your PC slow. Let's place the blame squarely on what in fact needs to be addressed, i.e., bloatware for example.

That's not how your original post read by a long shot. However I am happy that you clarified this in later posts

EDIT: BTW there are people (points at self) that can get by with uninstalling the bloat, cleaning up the start-up programs, running a registry cleaner and defrag, and end up with a speedy computer. A re-install is of course a sure-fire way to fix what ails a Windows PC, however not necessarily the only way.

 

When you're frustrated and pissed off and driving on the highway, they call it 'road rage'. After farting around with Vista for half the day, I guess I had 'keyboard rage'.

 

I just received my new D830 (specs in my sig) the other day. I posted in another thread how I felt it seemed a bit sluggish, notwithstanding my issues with the graphics card drivers (i opted for the NVS140m).

I also read somewhere in this forum that Vista will naturally be a bit slow at first as it indexes all your files for a faster search. So... how can this apply to a fresh, out-of-the-box computer with almost no pre-installed bloatware (I asked them to install nothing but the OS and a few key programs, like the Embassy Suite)? If there's not a lot to index, why does it still feel slow? AND, if it *is* the indexing, how long can I expect this performance hit to last? Whenever I open the indexing dialog, it says it's diabled because user activity is ongoing. Does that mean I have to leave it idle for a day or so?

 

Oops, my sig didn't show. Here it is:

 

mad max. Mad Lupin?

 

Simple answer: a heck of a lot of people like you don't.