vista performance

prelude I have installed vista x86 on a P4 2.8, 512MB, ram intel graphic card. I know this is beta and improvements will come.
The specs above probably about an average system. The average user will have somethign close to this maybe a better video card. The eye candy is nice, but the speed with vista is terrible out of the box. I have already adjusted the graphics for best performance but it is still a lot slower than XP pro. I am going to continue to tweak the setting to see what I can get but most users will only see that there computer became a lot slower with Vista.
Windows performance rating gives the system a rating like this. processor 3.4 memory 3.6 hard drive 3.8 graphics 2.0 gaming graphics 1 (not detected) overall rating 1
Odd that the overall rating is 1 when 4 of the 5 rated items are higher than 1. Maybe the video card plays a large role with vista performance. What is the highest performance rating possible? 10?
Jon

Well, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link ;
I wouldn't take that performance rating too seriously, but you definitely need more RAM, especially since your onboard video is using it also.
"Javan" wrote in message

prelude I have installed vista x86 on a P4 2.8, 512MB, ram intel graphic card. I know this is beta and improvements will come.
The specs above probably about an average system. The average user will have somethign close to this maybe a better video card. The eye candy is nice, but the speed with vista is terrible out of the box. I have already adjusted the graphics for best performance but it is still a lot slower than XP pro. I am going to continue to tweak the setting to see what I can get but most users will only see that there computer became a lot slower with Vista.
Windows performance rating gives the system a rating like this. processor 3.4 memory 3.6 hard drive 3.8 graphics 2.0 gaming graphics 1 (not detected) overall rating 1
Odd that the overall rating is 1 when 4 of the 5 rated items are higher than 1. Maybe the video card plays a large role with vista performance. What is the highest performance rating possible? 10?
Jon

That is your computer's rating, not Vista's. The overall rating is the lowest of any of the ratings (weakest link theory).
"Javan" wrote in message

prelude I have installed vista x86 on a P4 2.8, 512MB, ram intel graphic card. I know this is beta and improvements will come.
The specs above probably about an average system. The average user will have somethign close to this maybe a better video card. The eye candy is nice, but the speed with vista is terrible out of the box. I have already adjusted the graphics for best performance but it is still a lot slower than XP pro. I am going to continue to tweak the setting to see what I can get but most users will only see that there computer became a lot slower with Vista.
Windows performance rating gives the system a rating like this. processor 3.4 memory 3.6 hard drive 3.8 graphics 2.0 gaming graphics 1 (not detected) overall rating 1
Odd that the overall rating is 1 when 4 of the 5 rated items are higher than 1. Maybe the video card plays a large role with vista performance. What is the highest performance rating possible? 10?
Jon

I've got a gig and a half of RAM and haven't once yet used half of it with Vista. (Although I've been close.) I probably would eat it up with games. With this much RAM, Vista is reponsive. No, it's not as fast as XP, but it is responsive. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

That is your computer's rating, not Vista's. The overall rating is the lowest of any of the ratings (weakest link theory).
"Javan" wrote in message prelude I have installed vista x86 on a P4 2.8, 512MB, ram intel graphic card. I know this is beta and improvements will come.
The specs above probably about an average system. The average user will have somethign close to this maybe a better video card. The eye candy is nice, but the speed with vista is terrible out of the box. I have already adjusted the graphics for best performance but it is still a lot slower than XP pro. I am going to continue to tweak the setting to see what I can get but most users will only see that there computer became a lot slower with Vista.
Windows performance rating gives the system a rating like this. processor 3.4 memory 3.6 hard drive 3.8 graphics 2.0 gaming graphics 1 (not detected) overall rating 1
Odd that the overall rating is 1 when 4 of the 5 rated items are higher than 1. Maybe the video card plays a large role with vista performance. What is the highest performance rating possible? 10?
Jon

Please dont listen to this kerry Vista fanboy!
Its more powerful yeah right!!! slower, unstable, non configurable, moves the tree by its own, has stupid breadcrumbs instead of a decent up button, no way to add a delete button, slower, slower (sorry am I repeating something here?)... and oh..
VERY UGLY with colors that will make you BLIND before you know it.
Because of this stupid windows explorer, third party file managers like xyplorer or xplorer2 are noticing a big increase in downloads!

"Kerry Brown" wrote in message

"PMorgan" wrote in message "Jughead" wrote in news:j4GdncvJS8F7tl3anZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@giganews.com:
"PMorgan" wrote in message I have to purchase a new desktop and Dell will only honor their sale prices if Vista is installed (in other words, they'll give me XP, but they'll charge me more).
Just curious, but how much of a price difference would you be paying if you have them install XP for you? If the price change is more than you would have to pay for XP, you might be better off letting them put Vista on it, then replace it with a self-purchased copy of XP after you receive the machine.
I've just been reading the postings about Explorer and at this point, I don't think I care what the price difference is. I use Explorer much like you do, and if they don't show the parent folder and everything under it, I'm sunk. How can you FIND things? Also used to dragging, the cut-and- paste sounds torturous.
I have the XP disks that were used for my current computer -- perhaps I'll look into how difficult it is to reinstall it. Dell insists on loading a bunch of garbage onto the computer whether you want it or not, so I don't think I can avoid either having them load Vista or paying additional for XP, which I've already purchased twice.

If you haven't used Vista then please ignore Jughead's post and try it for yourself. The folder tree is there. The fact that Jughead didn't know that only points out their inexperience. I spend a lot of time copying files between servers and workstations. The UI is slightly different from previous versions of explorer but once learned I find it more powerful. The breadcrumbs feature in particular saves me considerable time scrolling up and down large directory trees. The context sensitive icons on the tasks toolbar are great. The stacked view is a great way to view directories with many files. Overall it is an improvement, but it is different and you have to learn how to use it.
-- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/