Laptop runs REALLY SLOW!

[Squid_uk]

Hey guys,

My girlfriend was bought and laptop and it seems to run really slow (it has taken me 20mins to make this post), also for example when ripping a music CD into iTunes it takes 10mins...........per track!

These are the specs of the laptop:

Operating System System Model
Windows Vista Home Basic (build 6000) FIC VA250D 01
Enclosure Type: Notebook
Processor a Main Circuit Board b
1.73 gigahertz Intel Celeron M 430
64 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache Board: FIC VA250D 0.1
Serial Number: SN1234567
Bus Clock: 533 megahertz
BIOS: FIC 1.0B-V 08-8A20 10/04/2007
Drives Memory Modules c,d
49.32 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
22.84 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

TSSTcorp CDW/DVD SN-M242D ATA Device [CD-ROM drive]
VJ0230Y TNJ424S SCSI CdRom Device [CD-ROM drive]
VJ0230Y TNJ424S SCSI CdRom Device [CD-ROM drive]

WDC WD600BEVS-22RST0 [Hard drive] (60.01 GB) -- drive 0, s/n WD-WXE207305698, rev 04.01G04, SMART Status: Healthy 446 Megabytes Installed Memory

Slot 'S1' has 512 MB
Slot 'S2' is Empty
Local Drive Volumes

c: (NTFS on drive 0) 49.32 GB 22.84 GB free

Network Drives
None detected

Microsoft XPS Document Writer on XPSPort:

Controllers Display
IDE Channel [Controller] (4x)
VIA Bus Master IDE Controller - 0571
VIA Serial ATA Controller - 0591 VIA Chrome9 HC IGP WDDM [Display adapter]
Generic PnP Monitor (23.0"vis, January 2002)
Bus Adapters Multimedia
Microsoft iSCSI Initiator
SCSI/RAID Host Controller
VIA Rev 5 or later USB Universal Host Controller (2x)
VIA USB Enhanced Host Controller VIA High Definition Audio
Communications Other Devices
Motorola SM56 Data Fax Modem


Marvell Libertas 802.11b/g Wireless LAN Client Adapter
Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface
VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter
Dhcp Server: none responded

Microsoft AC Adapter
Microsoft ACPI-Compliant Control Method Battery
Standard PS/2 Keyboard
Alps Pointing-device [Mouse]
USB Root Hub (3x)
Generic volume shadow copy

What do you think could be causing it to run so slow?

[Video Head]

Could be the 512MB of system memory. That is the minimum requirement for Vista Home Basic and on a 1.73 Cely that could bog quick. I also do not see what graphics the system has and what memory, minimum is 32MB. Could be a DirectX 9 issue?

[freebird73717]

I agree it's probably a memory issue (not enough of it!)

[Webster]

Running Vista on a 512MB RAM, it is a wonder that it run at all. Window Vista required at least 1GB of RAM to function properly. Did you noticed a lot of disk activities when the computer is running? If it does, it means that the computer is using the hard drive as virtual memory (which is really slow compares to physical RAM). That is where the problem is.

446 Megabytes Installed Memory

Slot 'S1' has 512 MB
Slot 'S2' is Empty
Local Drive Volumes

64M of your RAM is already allocated for your video. So that left 446MB of memory for the OS + programs your are running. For Vista, that is not enough.
Your solution is to get more RAM or switch to XP....

[lordsmurf]

Vista

[freebird73717]

What do you think could be causing it to run so slow?

Vista

That's funny. Short and to the point like always LS.

[SmokieStover]

You can't go cheap with VISTA. Adding ram may fix the problem, and then again it may not. But my position would be that the item as sold is defective. Return it and have your friend buy one that works.

[Video Head]

Vista

could you be more predictable?

[classfour]

Vista Looooovvveeees memory.

Under 2GB = non-functional.

Sorry, buy there has to be more RAM, or take it back for an XP model.

[Bjs]

First up is performance from first start, taking 20 minutes just to do that post dose not indicate the fault.

What, if any, antivirus product installed?

It sounds more like other background tasks are draining the system, possibly malware or a heap of utilties loading up at startup which dont actually need to be running at startup time.

512mb is minimum to basically function, 1gig is far better, 2gig and up is complete and utter nonsense unless the system is specifically used in some form a video production level.

Another possibility comes from external devices connected via usb, and as a suggestion, remove all non-essential usb devices, and start the unit up and see how it perform's.

If you have a usb hub for any reason, remove it, and asses system performance.
Cheap, nasty multi port usb hubs are the worst thing anyone can use, as they cause all sorts of system performance havoc.

PS : It dose help if you provide the actual brand / series / model of the laptop involved.

[jman98]

We're all saying the same thing, but perhaps this will still be useful. You don't have enough memory to run Vista. A friend of mine bought a new laptop with Vista pre-installed and it had 512 MB of memory. It was horribly slow. My friend went to some store and bought a 1 GB memory module. He bought the right module for the laptop. He put it in correctly. Vista crapped all over itself once he inserted it and kept giving him a Blue Screen of Death every time he tried to boot it. I couldn't fix it, not even with the Vista repair disc, so I booted from Linux and deleted the disk drive partitions which made Vista not even attempt to boot. Then the rescue DVD would work to completely reinstall Vista. Now his laptop works fine with 1.5 GB of memory. So even if you add memory, don't be surprised if your laptop refuses to work and you have to completely reinstall Vista. Vista is such a piece of crap.

[zargon]

Just to say that I have been working on a laptop with the same BIOS code and spec.
It was badged Hi-Grade (although it isn't - its a flimsy piece of cr4p).
Came with Vista Home Basic and 512Mb RAM
Also running appallingly slow.
Added extra 1Gb Kingston RAM and now runs well and normally.
Judging by other posts elsewhere you should look for SODIMMs with 8 chips per side not 4 (for a 1GB module).
Vista had no problem with the upgrade.
Unlike the last poster I think Vista a very good OS and they obviously don't recognise a one-off problem when they see it.
"Had to reformat with Linux..." er... so why was that necessary?
I suspect you are just a Linux fanboy who has an anti-Microsoft chip on your shoulder.
If you can't even install Vista on a standard piece of kit you shouldn't be offering advice to others.

[lordsmurf]

The 1-post newbie...
Who joins 8 months after the original post...
For the point of insulting a respected member of this site...

Needs to STFU.

Vista blows. It has issues. The world has spoken.
You like it, it works for you. Yippee. You're the minority. Get over it.

[steptoe]

Also plenty of stuff in the systray, my mates laptop isn't slow, but does runs XP Pro though so that helps

The amount of crap that loads into his system and runs in the background is a joke, and the fact its wireless means even more crap loading, I've tried trimming it down to just what he needs to get things running to increase start-up times and keeping it simple, but there is still way to much crap running all the time in the background



I agree with everybody else, 512MB with Vista is a no go really, if you want something that is worth using without falling asleep waiting for it to do anything, like downloading websites with good ol' 14k modems. I used to fall asleep all the time it was that slow


The fact they sell it with 512MB is criminal, 1GB is an absolute minium these days, gone are the 64K computers that will run quite happily, and welcome to bloated, huge memory requirements software that is now written with no real thought for optimization and squeezing as much speed as possible out the software

huh, why bother just get the public to buy a bigger CPU and more memory, thats the problem not our slow memory hogging badly written software

[FulciLives]

I farted.

[zargon]

Yes - OK I confess I am the one post newbie.
I just have a rolling program of "winding-up" the anti-microsoft fanboys.
They are normally very easy targets and need to learn the difference between mass market appeal and geek infested niche tweak-fests like linux.
(See? - there I go again)

Last time I installed linux to give it a whirl there was no driver available for a SB16 soundcard.
Everyone knows that the SB16 is the foundation stone of all sound cards.
I found plenty of posts suggesting I wrote my own driver for it.
Write my own driver? - puh-leez!

So apologies to the esteemed member and your forum generally.
I do have a mischievious side - and that's what internet forums were designed for isn't it?
Har har har

[joytimeday]

Vista Looooovvveeees memory.

Under 2GB = non-functional.

Sorry, buy there has to be more RAM, or take it back for an XP model.

Well so I need to change my os also, I use vista with 1GB memory, I have just bought this new laptop weeks ago, how I wish I had know this before.

[FulciLives]

I don't use Vista ... I use WinXP and Linux ... but I understand that Vista works fine with 1GB without the Aero stuff turned on ... otherwise if you turn on Aero then 2GB is suggested.

This is what I've read *shrugs*

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[edDV]

Last Nov. I got a dual core Vista Premium Compaq laptop with 2x 512MB RAM = 1GB. Not enough.

I immediately replaced them with matched 2x 1GB = 2GB at a cost then of $59. Today that would be less. With 2GB, the laptop preforms well with little obvious virtual RAM disk activity even while encoding MPeg2 plus simple photo editing. I've never seen disk access lags while surfing and encoding.

I must say the problem is equal with a similar dual core OSX Mac. A 1GB RAM Mac can't encode + do much else.

[zargon]

"The world has spoken - Vista blows"

But wait...
http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/

[zargon]

"Well so I need to change my os also, I use vista with 1GB memory, I have just bought this new laptop weeks ago, how I wish I had know this before."

In the UK an extra 1GB of Kingston DDR2 SODIMM RAM costs around the price of a sandwich and a coffee.
http://www.pcworld.co.uk

[jagabo]

"The world has spoken - Vista blows"

But wait...
http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/

Har! Under carefully controlled (by MS) circumstances people like the look of Vista!

Another issue is Intel's integrated graphics. They should never have been rated for use with Vista but Microsoft relented so that Intel could continue selling chipsets.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9882376-37.html

[zargon]

Yes I agree that it was under the control of MS so not objective.
But i reckon there are many people who have been overly influenced by negative press and MS-bashers.
I probably wouldn't have taken the plunge myself if I hadn't needed to keep up with current trends and support issues.
But once I did install it I was pleasantly surprised and went on to install it on my main PC.
Granted I wasn't an early adopter and I understand that many of the bad problems happened in the first few months with drivers etc.

Gotta agree with the intel integrated graphics point tho - many of their GPUs are appallingly bad.
Article linked in post above makes interesting reading...