Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears > Gadgets, Computers & Software


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th December 2008, 20:10   #421
Team-BHP Support
 
Akshay1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 9,660
Thanked: 6,085 Times
Default

have had vista since march last year. it seems to have slowed down a bit though im guessing it might be my hardware too. funnily enough its crashed on me twice. yeah you read right, TWICE. seems i have better luck than other members here.
Akshay1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2008, 22:06   #422
BHPian
 
anandtheleo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chennai
Posts: 347
Thanked: 176 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vikram_d View Post
When and if there is a solution it will show up in the Problem Reports & Solutions app. But try to look for updated drivers for the sound card on your system. Try the sound card manufacturers web site. Or tell me which sound card it is or laptop with exact model number.
Hi,

My laptops model is A305-S6857, sound card is by Realtek Semiconductor Corp. will look up the sound car mfgs site for driver updates.

Thanks,
anandtheleo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6th December 2008, 07:38   #423
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Thad E Ginathom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chennai
Posts: 7,613
Thanked: 6,700 Times
Default

Somewhat off the Vista main track, but on the issue of standby or hibernation ---

standby requires power to maintain system memory. Most of us probably use UPSs, but some still want to turn off the UPS and everything attached to it when they are not using their systems.

hibernation does not require power; the system memory is written to hard disk.

This makes hibernation the more robust of the two.

A shutdown and restart is, obviously, giving your system a clean sheet in terms of memory usage. Takes longer!

Personally, I always use shutdown, unless I really need to save the stuff that is open to resume work later.

Back to vista: I see that it is fully compatible with all previous versions of windows in its tendency to occasionally blank out all the desktop icons and spend a few seconds redrawing them.

Last edited by Thad E Ginathom : 6th December 2008 at 07:41.
Thad E Ginathom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th December 2008, 11:04   #424
Newbie
 
PmmPassion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ahmedabad
Posts: 20
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akshay1234 View Post
have had vista since march last year. it seems to have slowed down a bit though im guessing it might be my hardware too. funnily enough its crashed on me twice. yeah you read right, TWICE. seems i have better luck than other members here.
Dear Akshay, Vista uses a lot more ram than the previous versions of windows, whats the RAM running on your comp? Did you install any Antivirus lately, or software after which it got slower? Than there lies your reason, that software or antivirus is using the RAM and in turn your Vista is slow. Try upgrading RAM atleast 2GB DDR
PmmPassion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2008, 04:28   #425
BHPian
 
vinayvtec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 390
Thanked: 8 Times
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by akshay1234 View Post
have had vista since march last year. it seems to have slowed down a bit though im guessing it might be my hardware too. funnily enough its crashed on me twice. yeah you read right, TWICE. seems i have better luck than other members here.
Which computer are you using and who is the Mfg of the computer? what is the error message that you are getting when you turn on the computer? When you say it crashed what exactly happened?
vinayvtec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2008, 09:18   #426
Senior - BHPian
 
aaggoswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vadodara
Posts: 4,629
Thanked: 1,318 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PmmPassion View Post
Dear Akshay, Vista uses a lot more ram than the previous versions of windows, whats the RAM running on your comp? Did you install any Antivirus lately, or software after which it got slower? Than there lies your reason, that software or antivirus is using the RAM and in turn your Vista is slow. Try upgrading RAM atleast 2GB DDR
Apart from RAM, one needs a high powered processor also. Atleast 2.5 GHZ dual core required to run this OS. I feel that Vista is not using the resources ( utilizing the hardware ) in optimum way. It was slow in my machine too, despite overclocking of CPU and RAM. Also the northbridge and southbridge have to be great. For eg, it will work better with AMD 780 and 790 than AMD 690.
Windows 7 is expected in June along with the new series of Graphics card from ATI and NVidia. I would love to wait for that. I bought Vista and now I have literally given it to friend for free of cost. Using my good old XP.
aaggoswami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2008, 15:46   #427
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Thad E Ginathom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chennai
Posts: 7,613
Thanked: 6,700 Times
Default

I doubt that MS will ever backtrack on the needs-more-power-more-ram-spend-more-money cycle, though, whatever the complaints. It's all part of the comfortable hard-/soft-ware manufactures' relationship
Thad E Ginathom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2008, 20:41   #428
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 3,079
Thanked: 251 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom View Post
I doubt that MS will ever backtrack on the needs-more-power-more-ram-spend-more-money cycle, ...
If they don't, there is a very credible threat from the new Macs which are already making serious inroads!
anupmathur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2008, 23:42   #429
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Thad E Ginathom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chennai
Posts: 7,613
Thanked: 6,700 Times
Default

Oh, that's good news!

Not that I have any love for Apple, but MS needs competition.

No, that's wrong. We need MS ti have competition!
Thad E Ginathom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2008, 00:25   #430
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: zxc
Posts: 3,392
Thanked: 654 Times
Default

The Beta version of WIndows 7 is already out. May be its an incremental update OS but i am afraid what happens if the fate of Vista also become like Windows Me.
SirAlec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2008, 21:16   #431
Senior - BHPian
 
aaggoswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vadodara
Posts: 4,629
Thanked: 1,318 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirAlec View Post
The Beta version of WIndows 7 is already out. May be its an incremental update OS but i am afraid what happens if the fate of Vista also become like Windows Me.

The beta version sports very little improvements to kernel as compared Vista. The main new kernel " minWin " is yet to be implemented fully.
Nevertheless, Windows 7 beta is definitely better than Vista. But there are some issues regarding the compatibility specially anti virus softwares.
ESET NOD32 beta version wont install on Windows 7 beta versions.

I am looking forward to fully blown version of minWin in Windows 7. Mostly June 2009 along with new graphics card from ATI and Nvidia.
aaggoswami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2008, 21:57   #432
Senior - BHPian
 
vivekiny2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: cincinnati, jabalpur,chennai
Posts: 1,241
Thanked: 163 Times
Default

I am trying to shrink my primary partition and it says no space available.

it's 80 GB, when I select all under the disk it shows around 55GB. but when I right click the disk, properties show 71 GB used. wondering where did 15 GB go?
vivekiny2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2008, 00:41   #433
Senior - BHPian
 
kuttapan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,155
Thanked: 11 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaggoswami View Post
Apart from RAM, one needs a high powered processor also. Atleast 2.5 GHZ dual core required to run this OS. I feel that Vista is not using the resources ( utilizing the hardware ) in optimum way.
Sorry, but I do not agree. Where did you get this requirement from? Vista is more intensive on RAM as it tries to keep lot of things in memory to speed up stuff, processor speed is not that big a factor(a minimum of 2.5 GHz, you are out of your mind !!). Processing power is required if you use applications that demand it(say, video editing), the OS itself does not consume much power. The CPU indicator should tell u so much.
kuttapan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2008, 01:05   #434
BHPian
 
Ketan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 827
Thanked: 160 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaggoswami View Post
The beta version sports very little improvements to kernel as compared Vista. The main new kernel " minWin " is yet to be implemented fully.
Nevertheless, Windows 7 beta is definitely better than Vista. But there are some issues regarding the compatibility specially anti virus softwares.
ESET NOD32 beta version wont install on Windows 7 beta versions.

I am looking forward to fully blown version of minWin in Windows 7. Mostly June 2009 along with new graphics card from ATI and Nvidia.
The one thats leaked is not the beta version, beta may (or may not) come first quarter next year.

The current release is a milestone release (milestone3) and I found it much quicker though its incomplete on the same notebook which crowls with Vista..

hoping to see win7 beta soon and it should be a better OS. Vista SP2 also on its way (i'm using beta now), but for my low resource notebook, its not been able to make a big difference.
Ketan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2008, 12:20   #435
Senior - BHPian
 
aaggoswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vadodara
Posts: 4,629
Thanked: 1,318 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuttapan View Post

Where did you get this requirement from?



Vista is more intensive on RAM as it tries to keep lot of things in memory to speed up stuff, processor speed is not that big a factor(a minimum of 2.5 GHz, you are out of your mind !!). Processing power is required if you use applications that demand it(say, video editing), the OS itself does not consume much power. The CPU indicator should tell u so much.
From my experience. I have seen vista 32-bit on C2D E4600 ( Pentium dual core ), E6600 ( now mostly discontinued ), E8400, Q6600, Q9300 and on AMD Athlon X2 4800+, X2 5000+ ( I also have one ), X2 5000+ BE, X2 6400+, X2 5600+ Phenom X3 8750, X4 9950 BE.

All the processors that were more than 2.4 GHz, the Vista 32 bit was OK as compared to XP. We tried overclocking on X2 5000+ BE to 3.0 and as compared to stock speed of 2.6, the Vista was much faster, way more than what you expect after 400Mhz OC. Also, while increasing the multiplier, we reduced the FSB:RAM ratio to keep it near 333 MHz.

A faster processor was useful with Vista. Vista 64 bit was faster. Now we tried XP 32 bit on all and the perforamce gain after 2.8 GHz was not very high as in case with Vista.

Hence the argument. Also when we installed 3DS MAX 11 on Vista, it was slower. Yes Vista eats RAM,but also eats processor power. You can go ahead with 3D Work and run anti virus scan in Vista, but I do that in XP.
For good performace nearing XP on any machine, atleast 2 GB of 667 DDR2 RAM and a dual core processor with atleast 2.5 GHZ was my conclusion. My Vista is with my cousin and his friend is not able to run Vista faster than XP on his E4600, 2 GB DDR2 667 MHz RAM and G33TL mobo. He told me XP was faster and more agile. My cousin has P4 3.0 GHz and he did not dare to install Vista. Now Vista is back with me, but wont install it.

And I have 3GB ram. Despite this and having a dedicated graphics card ( no onboard graphics from MCP65 ), the performace was slower than XP. Now any 32 bit OS cannot use more than 4 GB of RAM. I am having 3 GB. So I got the impression that Vista 32 bit is not able to use resources in better way than XP. Also tried the 64 bit as trial, but again it was not as fast as XP and this was the biggest blow to me. I know that 64 bit Vista uses the cores more efficiently but still CPU centric applications like 3DS MAX rendering was not as good as my XP 32 bit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ketan View Post

The one thats leaked is not the beta version, beta may (or may not) come first quarter next year.

The current release is a milestone release (milestone3) and I found it much quicker though its incomplete on the same notebook which crowls with Vista..
May be, but people are already rating it good, including you. I am having high expectations from Windows 7.
aaggoswami is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Copying large number of folders from windows XP to windows 7 laptop tsk1979 Gadgets, Computers & Software 28 18th June 2010 22:47
SOS Richard Burns Rally (RBR) fails to play on Windows Vista 1100D Gadgets, Computers & Software 3 5th December 2007 11:10
Windows Vista Installation Issue gopz Shifting gears 10 4th November 2007 22:25
2 Problems - is it Windows Vista ? normally_crazy Gadgets, Computers & Software 26 17th June 2007 09:59


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 15:11.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks