Stefan

Hello.

Since I installed Vista every application and the OS itself runs approx. at
half the speed it used to. It seems to be a problem of the hardware I use,
because I've seen all those apps und Vista itself running perfectly at two or
three times the speed on comparable hardware running Vista or XP.
Additionally every app worked perfectly on my computer when I was still using
Win2000.

For example: A complete rebuild of a project in Visual Studio 2005 needed 3
minutes before. After switching to Vista this rebuild needs more than 10
minutes.

Another example: Every game is running only at half the frames per second it
ran before.

Aditionally every app in fullscreen mode (games) have heavy slow downs after
a few minutes. Under Win2k or XP some game had 60fps, under Vista it has
30fps or less and after a few minutes the framerate drops to sometimes 2 fps,
sometimes 15 fps and sometime to 0.5fps! It usually recovers back to 30 fps
after 20 seconds or sometime not before 3 minutes.

I profiled my own code to find out what might be the reason. I compared the
results to a profiling session of the same app done under WinXP. The
comparison indicates that every call to any DirectX-function (DirectX 9.0c)
takes at least twice the time as normal, sometimes more. Also every memory
memory allocation/deallocation seems to consume more time than usual.

Hardware: Motherboard ASROCK K7Upgrade-880, AthlonXP 3200+ at 2.2GHz,
Gainward Geforce 7800, 2GB RAM, some Soundblaster Audigy Card, Windows Vista
Business 32Bit.

- every driver ist up to date.
- removing graphics card or sound card didn't solve the problem
- updating BIOS didn't solve the problem
- turing off every unneeded feature in BIOS didn't solve the problem
- turing off AERO completely didn't solve the problem
- all temperatures and fan speeds are ok
- RAM check didn't find any problem
- event log doesn't show any problems or hardware conflicts

Still every software and Vista itself runs slow. I'm out of ideas by now
where I could even begin to search for the reason.

Any ideas are greatly welcome.

Thanks and Bye,

Stefan

John E

"Stefan" <Stefan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE7E9CD9-0F8D-4B15-8664-F3C2CF3BD8C6@microsoft.com...
> Hello.
>
> Since I installed Vista every application and the OS itself runs approx.
> at
> half the speed it used to. It seems to be a problem of the hardware I use,
> because I've seen all those apps und Vista itself running perfectly at two
> or
> three times the speed on comparable hardware running Vista or XP.
> Additionally every app worked perfectly on my computer when I was still
> using
> Win2000.
>
> For example: A complete rebuild of a project in Visual Studio 2005 needed
> 3
> minutes before. After switching to Vista this rebuild needs more than 10
> minutes.
>
> Another example: Every game is running only at half the frames per second
> it
> ran before.
>
> Aditionally every app in fullscreen mode (games) have heavy slow downs
> after
> a few minutes. Under Win2k or XP some game had 60fps, under Vista it has
> 30fps or less and after a few minutes the framerate drops to sometimes 2
> fps,
> sometimes 15 fps and sometime to 0.5fps! It usually recovers back to 30
> fps
> after 20 seconds or sometime not before 3 minutes.
>
> I profiled my own code to find out what might be the reason. I compared
> the
> results to a profiling session of the same app done under WinXP. The
> comparison indicates that every call to any DirectX-function (DirectX
> 9.0c)
> takes at least twice the time as normal, sometimes more. Also every memory
> memory allocation/deallocation seems to consume more time than usual.
>
> Hardware: Motherboard ASROCK K7Upgrade-880, AthlonXP 3200+ at 2.2GHz,
> Gainward Geforce 7800, 2GB RAM, some Soundblaster Audigy Card, Windows
> Vista
> Business 32Bit.
>
> - every driver ist up to date.
> - removing graphics card or sound card didn't solve the problem
> - updating BIOS didn't solve the problem
> - turing off every unneeded feature in BIOS didn't solve the problem
> - turing off AERO completely didn't solve the problem
> - all temperatures and fan speeds are ok
> - RAM check didn't find any problem
> - event log doesn't show any problems or hardware conflicts
>
> Still every software and Vista itself runs slow. I'm out of ideas by now
> where I could even begin to search for the reason.
>
> Any ideas are greatly welcome.
>
> Thanks and Bye,
>
> Stefan


Is the power plan setting set to "High performance"?

Right click computer, select properties, then performance, then adjust power
settings.

If you are on 'power saver', it throttles the cpu to half speed. So check
high performance, and you should get maximum speed. If you click on 'change
plan settings' you can adjust some of the other settings to save power.

John

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]

Well, the resources of the operating system in addition to your choice of
applications can greatly affect the computers performance. Vista is known to
love RAM, the more you give it, the better it performs. Other factors
include the processor speed and the on going improvements to performance.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Stefan" <Stefan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AE7E9CD9-0F8D-4B15-8664-F3C2CF3BD8C6@microsoft.com...
> Hello.
>
> Since I installed Vista every application and the OS itself runs approx.
> at
> half the speed it used to. It seems to be a problem of the hardware I use,
> because I've seen all those apps und Vista itself running perfectly at two
> or
> three times the speed on comparable hardware running Vista or XP.
> Additionally every app worked perfectly on my computer when I was still
> using
> Win2000.
>
> For example: A complete rebuild of a project in Visual Studio 2005 needed
> 3
> minutes before. After switching to Vista this rebuild needs more than 10
> minutes.
>
> Another example: Every game is running only at half the frames per second
> it
> ran before.
>
> Aditionally every app in fullscreen mode (games) have heavy slow downs
> after
> a few minutes. Under Win2k or XP some game had 60fps, under Vista it has
> 30fps or less and after a few minutes the framerate drops to sometimes 2
> fps,
> sometimes 15 fps and sometime to 0.5fps! It usually recovers back to 30
> fps
> after 20 seconds or sometime not before 3 minutes.
>
> I profiled my own code to find out what might be the reason. I compared
> the
> results to a profiling session of the same app done under WinXP. The
> comparison indicates that every call to any DirectX-function (DirectX
> 9.0c)
> takes at least twice the time as normal, sometimes more. Also every memory
> memory allocation/deallocation seems to consume more time than usual.
>
> Hardware: Motherboard ASROCK K7Upgrade-880, AthlonXP 3200+ at 2.2GHz,
> Gainward Geforce 7800, 2GB RAM, some Soundblaster Audigy Card, Windows
> Vista
> Business 32Bit.
>
> - every driver ist up to date.
> - removing graphics card or sound card didn't solve the problem
> - updating BIOS didn't solve the problem
> - turing off every unneeded feature in BIOS didn't solve the problem
> - turing off AERO completely didn't solve the problem
> - all temperatures and fan speeds are ok
> - RAM check didn't find any problem
> - event log doesn't show any problems or hardware conflicts
>
> Still every software and Vista itself runs slow. I'm out of ideas by now
> where I could even begin to search for the reason.
>
> Any ideas are greatly welcome.
>
> Thanks and Bye,
>
> Stefan

Stefan

"John E" wrote:
>
> Is the power plan setting set to "High performance"?
>

Yes. Set to High Performance.

"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
> Well, the resources of the operating system in addition to your choice of
> applications can greatly affect the computers performance.

All applications ran at full speed on the very same hardware when I was
still using Win2000. And the very same applications run at full speed on
performance-wise comparable hardware under Vista. Just on my hardware and
only under Vista everything runs at half or a third of the speed.

This leads me to belief that some hardware is the reason.

Could a System Diagnostics Report shed some light on this issue? If yes, to
whom can I send one?

Thanks for your advice.

Stefan

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]

Windows 2000 uses less resources in comparison to Vista, Vista is newer, so
it requires a little bit more in terms of performance, so you might see a
dip in performance on certain things. Try running XP on machine from 1998,
obviously things are gonna run a bit slower.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Stefan" <Stefan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:464BC238-0B13-4ADD-B28B-3B9D10E2B924@microsoft.com...
> "John E" wrote:
>>
>> Is the power plan setting set to "High performance"?
>>
>
> Yes. Set to High Performance.
>
> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>> Well, the resources of the operating system in addition to your choice of
>> applications can greatly affect the computers performance.
>
> All applications ran at full speed on the very same hardware when I was
> still using Win2000. And the very same applications run at full speed on
> performance-wise comparable hardware under Vista. Just on my hardware and
> only under Vista everything runs at half or a third of the speed.
>
> This leads me to belief that some hardware is the reason.
>
> Could a System Diagnostics Report shed some light on this issue? If yes,
> to
> whom can I send one?
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Stefan

Michael Walraven

A second place to check is in the BIOS. There may be a setting referring to
'speed step' or some such.
As I understand it if speed step is not enabled then Vista / BIOS defaults
to slowest speed available.

Also as a check on how things are working open Reliability and Performance
monitor.
In the Resource overview the CPU graph should have two lines. One for CPU
usage and the second for Maximum Frequency.
On my system for instance the Maximum Frequency sits at 66% when the system
is not busy and rushes up to 100% when doing actual heavy work.

Michael
Vista Home Premium


"Stefan" <Stefan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:464BC238-0B13-4ADD-B28B-3B9D10E2B924@microsoft.com...
> "John E" wrote:
>>
>> Is the power plan setting set to "High performance"?
>>
>
> Yes. Set to High Performance.
>
> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>> Well, the resources of the operating system in addition to your choice of
>> applications can greatly affect the computers performance.
>
> All applications ran at full speed on the very same hardware when I was
> still using Win2000. And the very same applications run at full speed on
> performance-wise comparable hardware under Vista. Just on my hardware and
> only under Vista everything runs at half or a third of the speed.
>
> This leads me to belief that some hardware is the reason.
>
> Could a System Diagnostics Report shed some light on this issue? If yes,
> to
> whom can I send one?
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Stefan

NoStop

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:

> Well, the resources of the operating system in addition to your choice of
> applications can greatly affect the computers performance. Vista is known
> to love RAM, the more you give it, the better it performs. Other factors
> include the processor speed and the on going improvements to performance.

You didn't address the OP's concerns at all, other than to admit that Vista
is a kludge and far too resource demanding. With this, most would agree.

The hardware the OP is running is plenty for any reasonably written
operating system. I guess Vista doesn't fall within that camp.

Cheers.

--
Ubuntu 7.10 ... wow!
http;//www.ubuntu.com

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]

The OP is expecting his machine to fly, obviously there are certain resource
constraints associated with running a much newer version of Windows. Imagine
running XP on a 1997 era machine, it would obviously be slower in comparison
to NT 4.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"NoStop" <nospam@nspam.com> wrote in message
news:Ep0%i.211044$Da.61029@pd7urf1no...
> Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:
>
>> Well, the resources of the operating system in addition to your choice of
>> applications can greatly affect the computers performance. Vista is known
>> to love RAM, the more you give it, the better it performs. Other factors
>> include the processor speed and the on going improvements to performance.
>
> You didn't address the OP's concerns at all, other than to admit that
> Vista
> is a kludge and far too resource demanding. With this, most would agree.
>
> The hardware the OP is running is plenty for any reasonably written
> operating system. I guess Vista doesn't fall within that camp.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Ubuntu 7.10 ... wow!
> http;//www.ubuntu.com

Charlie Tame

Stefan wrote:
> "John E" wrote:
>> Is the power plan setting set to "High performance"?
>>
>
> Yes. Set to High Performance.
>
> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>> Well, the resources of the operating system in addition to your choice of
>> applications can greatly affect the computers performance.
>
> All applications ran at full speed on the very same hardware when I was
> still using Win2000. And the very same applications run at full speed on
> performance-wise comparable hardware under Vista. Just on my hardware and
> only under Vista everything runs at half or a third of the speed.
>
> This leads me to belief that some hardware is the reason.
>
> Could a System Diagnostics Report shed some light on this issue? If yes, to
> whom can I send one?
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Stefan


Is it an NVidia MB? I note they just released new drivers for their
chipset for XP and wonder if this also applies to Vista?

One of mine was real slow without the MB CD drivers (And of course they
have been updated online since) but even without the orginal CD versions
it was pretty dead

Stefan

"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:

> The OP is expecting his machine to fly, obviously there are certain resource
> constraints associated with running a much newer version of Windows. Imagine
> running XP on a 1997 era machine, it would obviously be slower in comparison
> to NT 4.

Am I really that unclear about my problem? If yes, then I would like to know
what I'm explaining wrong. This is not personal or something, that also
applies to all the other answers.

I'll try to rephrase:

My Hardware - WinXP: Speed is normal. Every Software, the OS itself, too
My Hardware - Win2K: Speed is normal. Every Software, the OS itself, too
My Hardware - Vista: Speed is ONE THIRD. Every Software, the OS itself, too.
Comparable Hardware - Vista: Speed Normal. Every Software, the OS itself, too
Comparable Hardware - WinXP: Speed Normal. Every Software, the OS itself, too
Comparable Hardware - Win2K: Speed Normal. Every Software, the OS itself, too

And yes, I know, when Hardware is comparable. I'm quite experienced with
computers. This does not mean that I dont apprieciate your responses. It just
means that is not really about the problem I wanted to describe.

I know, how to setup the BIOS and which BIOS option means what. I know,
where to look for systen logs, system settings and so on.

Furthermore on another post:
>Windows 2000 uses less resources in comparison to Vista,

I completely agree. But not three times as much!

>Vista is newer, so
>it requires a little bit more in terms of performance, so you might see a
>dip in performance on certain things.

Not a dip in performance. Not on certain things. Three times slower! Every
application! The OS itself, every game, Visual Studio 2005, all software
included with Vista, everything!

Does that make my problem a bit clearer? I just have no idea where I could
get a clue where I can analyse more detailed what is wrong with my hardware.

Thanks alot though,

Stefan.