Speeded up my CoreDuo Acer by over 300% for $80

[rumplestiltskin]

Bought a $600 Acer notebook (CoreDuo 1.6GHz / 512MB RAM) from Tiger Direct. The unit came with Vista Home Basic. I've owned other Acers and been pretty happy with them; a decent computer at a fair price, no cutting-edge stuff but that's a good thing AFAIC.

So, anyway, I fire up this Acer and, to my horror, it takes almost FORTY MINUTES to boot this thing with Vista restarting periodically as it (apparently) is "checking your system". Finally it manages to get booted to the Desktop but it's so slow that it is virtually...no, make that literally, unusable.

Remember that I like Acers because they're not the latest, hot stuff, right? So I dig into my box of discs and find an XP Pro disc with SN I had bought last year for $80. Then I head over to the Acer support website and download all 400+MB of drivers for this machine; and guess what? They're all XP compatible! So I burn 'em all to a CD.

I then changed the boot order, booted from the XP disc, reinitialized all three partitions on the Acer's HD as one, and installed XP Pro. After following up with a few visits to the Device Manager to trigger XP to look in the CD I burned (and a few trips to the Windows Update for the security updates that weren't on the XPSP2 disc I had), the Acer is finally operating at a level I would call optimum. It is at least three times faster than when it was running Vista.

Mark my words: Microsoft will be responsible for killing the PC market in 2007.

[lordsmurf]

This is why I rushed to buy a laptop in November/December and pushed everybody I could to do the same (if they were planning to upgrade in the next 6 months).

[JohnnyMalaria]

Bought a $600 Acer notebook (CoreDuo 1.6GHz / 512MB RAM) from Tiger Direct.

512MB and Vista does not a happy combination make. An extra 512MB - probably for less that $80 - would have been a wise move.

Mark my words: Microsoft will be responsible for killing the PC market in 2007.

More likely, Microsoft will be responsible for increasing the minimum amount of RAM installed on machines. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another matter. RAM is no longer the expensive commodity it used to be - I remember having to pay more than $200 to get an extra 4MB!!!

[jagabo]

RAM is no longer the expensive commodity it used to be - I remember having to pay more than $200 to get an extra 4MB!!!

I remember paying that much for 16 KB!

[rumplestiltskin]

<snip>...512MB and Vista does not a happy combination make. An extra 512MB - probably for less that $80 - would have been a wise move.

I also thought that but (reaching again into my stock of hardware, etc. and) bumping it to 1.5MB made so small a difference that I thought, perhaps, the RAM module was defective and wasn't being recognized. No, XP saw it but Vista just sucks.

The Acer with 512MB and XP is considerably faster than with Vista & 1.5MB.

I should add (and forgot to do so in my original post) that Vista managed to crash about a dozen times in the 30 minutes I managed to do anything with it before I lobotomized the drive. Control Panels are unstable. Put in the wrong user password in the login about a half-dozen times and you'll lock up the system. Can you say "cluster-#&@k"?

The only thing I've seen that sucks more is my Hoover.

[handyguy]

"considerably faster than with Vista & 1.5MB. "

I'm not surprised.

[ViRaL1]

"considerably faster than with Vista & 1.5MB. "

I'm not surprised.

Is it SUPPOSED to take an hour for the splash screen to load?

[garrisonkw]

Vista DOES take a long time to load the FIRST time. This isn't explained well in the documentation, but the first boot can take an hour or more and have the PC turn on and off several times.

[SCDVD]

I don't know about Vista, I haven't tried it yet. I'll start looking at it around the time SP1 comes out. I can't help but recall that every time a new version of Windows is released, the complaints have been remarkably similar - too slow, incompatibility problems etc. The thing that happens every time is that the requirements of new OS's as well as new applications software lead to more powerful hardware to support the performance requirements of new OS's and software.

The point is illustrated a little better if we roll the comparison back a little bit farther to a bit over 20 years ago. People were proud of their new personal computers running at 4.77Mhz. with 64K of RAM. You had party bragging privileges if you had a hard disc with a whopping 6MB of capacity. It has been one long whine every since with people moaning about the problems of the latest OS version each time a new one is released. I guess it will always be the same - such is human nature.

[rumplestiltskin]

SCDVD,

Your contention is only valid to the extent that Vista provides additional functionality that XP does not; furthermore, assuming there really is some improved functionality, to what degree does Vista do so? Is there anything in Vista that extends and improves my PC's functionality to the extent that a new CoreDuo 1.6GHz CPU is no longer adequate??

I'll opine that Vista is nothing more than a means for Microsoft to force users to use it. Consider than it's almost impossible to get a machine with XP on it (unless you build it yourself or wend your way through Dell's Business Notebooks webstore to custom-build one).

What advantage does Vista provide? Security? Sure, if you don't mind the incessant Allow/Deny dialogs popping up like a Jack Russell terrier. Tell me how long it will take for most users to beat that crap down and find a way to permanently disable that stuff? This is great security; make it institutionally abhorrent to permit anything to get done. (Y'know, those Mac ads aren't far off the mark.)

Then, of course, there are the crashing Control Panels. How is it possible that something so essential to the core of how the OS talks to the hardware get so fubar'd? Worse: How could they even release something so patently defective?

[SCDVD]

SCDVD,

Your contention is only valid to the extent that Vista provides additional functionality that XP does not; furthermore, assuming there really is some improved functionality, to what degree does Vista do so? Is there anything in Vista that extends and improves my PC's functionality to the extent that a new CoreDuo 1.6GHz CPU is no longer adequate??

I'll opine that Vista is nothing more than a means for Microsoft to force users to use it. Consider than it's almost impossible to get a machine with XP on it (unless you build it yourself or wend your way through Dell's Business Notebooks webstore to custom-build one).

What advantage does Vista provide? Security? Sure, if you don't mind the incessant Allow/Deny dialogs popping up like a Jack Russell terrier. Tell me how long it will take for most users to beat that crap down and find a way to permanently disable that stuff? This is great security; make it institutionally abhorrent to permit anything to get done. (Y'know, those Mac ads aren't far off the mark.)

Then, of course, there are the crashing Control Panels. How is it possible that something so essential to the core of how the OS talks to the hardware get so fubar'd? Worse: How could they even release something so patently defective?

I don't have any "contention". But thank you for doing such a fine job of illustrating my point. At EVERY release point of a new version of Windows, the general tone of the whine, er uh remarks sounds EXACTLY the same. I remember them as clearly as yesterday. As I said, I haven't looked at Vista yet; I believe it's too soon. If you're looking for someone to defend Vista, you will have to look elsewhere. As for your MAC KoolAid, if that's what moves you, go for it.

[rumplestiltskin]

I don't have any "contention". But thank you for doing such a fine job of illustrating my point. At EVERY release point of a new version of Windows, the general tone of the whine, er uh remarks sounds EXACTLY the same. I remember them as clearly as yesterday. As I said, I haven't looked at Vista yet; I believe it's too soon. If you're looking for someone to defend Vista, you will have to look elsewhere. As for your MAC KoolAid, if that's what moves you, go for it.

For someone who isn't defending Vista, you seem to be cutting M$ a considerable amount of slack. If it's too soon to look at Vista, then what are the thousands of new PC users to do when they can't buy a PC with XP? While you have the luxury of sitting with your current system while M$ thrashes about like a dying fish trying to service-pack Vista into something usable, they've has made it virtually impossible for the rest of us (those who really do need a new PC now) to buy an XP PC (without acrobatics or compromises). I can only blame M$ for this as they've essentially blackmailed the various mfr's.

I also remember a time when there wasn't even a "Windows" (except Apple's MacOS, of course). I also remember a time when new versions of Windows really did provide improvements in a multitude of features: Internet/networking, multimedia, stability, file system.

Yes, I am a Mac user...and also a Windows user...but I don't drink the KoolAid from either Apple or Microsoft. I hold both companies 100% responsible for the operating systems they release and, should they produce garbage, I'll comment most severely on the stink of it. And, no; it's not a whine. Whining is asking for something unreasonable; all I am asking for is that when I purchase a new system, it should work reasonably well, be stable, and not provide substantially less functionality and utility than the system it it intended to replace.

[lordsmurf]

I would only agree with you SCDVD if Vista added something valuable.

The major gripes were with DOS 6, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

DOS 6
CON- flaws in features, like the compression
PRO- it purified DOS

Windows 3.1 (RAM, CPU, graphics)
CON- was just flaky, love those BSODs, required more power
PRO- GUI better than ever

Windows 95
CON- required more power (RAM, CPU, graphics)
PRO- changed the way we work in a GUI (similar to Mac, but definitely NOT the same)

Windows 2000
CON- requred more power (RAM, CPU)
PRO- more stables than the code abortion known as NT4

Windows XP
CON- required more power
PRO- stabilized Windows to near-crash-free existence, best of Win32+WinNT together

However....

Windows Vista
CON- required much more power
PRO- not a damned thing, unless you think video backgrounds are an advantage

[SCDVD]

Lordsmurf, Good point. That's why I haven't looked at Vista. When I see benefits to switching, I will. Until then, I'm all ears.

[Ron B]

Windows Vista
CON- required much more power
PRO- not a damned thing, unless you think video backgrounds are an advantage

You can also add lack of driver support, especially with the 64 bit edition, to the CON list.
Vista is supposed to have increased security, but any power computer user can use Firefox, a decent AV program and firewall with XP that I wager would be just as secure as Vista. For what it costs, I say "Where's the beef?" XP is as worthy an operating system as Microsoft can produce, I don't see a big performance benefit with Vista.
Keeping with the main theme of this post, can you ever have too much RAM or too much CPU? I don't think so. One of my main computer building philosophies is to put your money into horsepower, a decent graphics card and hold off on the neon until later.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I wonder what the root cause is behind the OP having such a poor performance with Vista?

I have a Pentium D 2.8GHz system with 1GB DDR2 RAM and Vista Ultimate (32-bit and 64-bit) is very responsive. Both boot faster than a clean XP installation. I can even run Vista Ultimate in a Virtual PC on Vista Ultimate.

I haven't tried it on a laptop. And, for now, won't.

I'm sure there are a lot of (quiet) users getting good results with Vista. But for a system that is branded as Vista capable, the OP's system certainly falls well short of the Wow.

[RabidDog]

You lied to us! You improved your laptop performance for zero bucks. You admit that the xp had already been purchased. Also I am fairly sure vista needs more than 1.5mb
I wonder if vista is the straw to break the camels back . No advantages and added dis-advantages with the SUper DRm. All the drivers will get sorted out, the hardware will get faster but the drm will remain (maybe even get worse) with sp1

[JohnnyMalaria]

I wonder if vista is the straw to break the camels back . No advantages and added dis-advantages

They said that about XP. Why bother with XP and its activation nonsense when you can use Win2K?

They said similar things about Win95. What's the point of 32-bit?

RE: the DRM - has anyone conducted a survey to find out what fraction of Windows users actually care about the DRM issue?

[SCDVD]

I wonder what the root cause is behind the OP having such a poor performance with Vista?

It's lean on RAM (512K) which is probably aggravated by shared video RAM which is never good on any system because it causes RAM contention with video and when you are already lean on RAM, it can be a problem. His boot time complaint is the "First Boot" when is a setup operation that is performed ONCE, the first time a Vista system is booted. He spins it like that is the "normal" boot time.

The other part of the problem is his Mac bias leaking through. The following quote from an NBC reporter who wrote an article about switching from a Mac PowerBook to a Dell Notebook with Vista on it kind of says it all.

"Say something critical about Microsoft and Windows and no one bats an eyelash. But write anything even faintly judgmental about the Macintosh and in comes a flood of hate mail from Mac users. The worst part is the tone of most, which generally tend toward religious zealotry. So before I begin, let me begin by saying any e-mails of that type that are sent in response to this story will be deleted, with no reply."

[lordsmurf]

"So before I begin, let me begin "

The copy editor was asleep at the wheel.

[rumplestiltskin]

You lied to us! You improved your laptop performance for zero bucks. You admit that the xp had already been purchased. Also I am fairly sure vista needs more than 1.5mb
I wonder if vista is the straw to break the camels back . No advantages and added dis-advantages with the SUper DRm. All the drivers will get sorted out, the hardware will get faster but the drm will remain (maybe even get worse) with sp1

RabidDog (love your handle, BTW):

I valued the upgrade at $80 because I had been planning to sell the XP package to a needy soul ($80 isn't a bad price, right?).

Want to get a real laugh? There's a chart on Dell's website that tells you what you can do with Vista based upon the config of your machine. http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/solutions/en/winvista?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s...dhs&~ck=anavml

They tell you that a 512MB, 800MHz+ machine has enough power for "Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games" yet it takes 2GB and Dual-Core to run it properly. However, a Dual-Core with 512MB is, IMHO, worthless for Vista (although one might argue it's the other way around, eh?).

[TBoneit]

The thousands on new computer users that want XP should go to their local computer store and get a "Good" computer built with XP Home/XP pro installed. I have two used computers sitting with XP on them for sale, what do I hear? They don't have Vista?? Whine??

Scroom

OTOH the copies of Vista OEM we have in stock languish....

I'll build either OS. Last new computer had Vista Home Premium.
Core 2 Duo 6400, 2 Gb ram 20X LiteOn DVD Burner, 300GB HDD, ATI X1300, two tuner NVidia TV Card, Intel Mobo, Dell 5.1 Speakers (What the Customer wanted). Office Home

It wan't that cheap but it ran good. I did have to download the Intel Vista Drivers, ATI Video Drivers, TV Card had Vista drivers, Non Vista Nero with the Burner, oh well.

I didn't find the install to be appreciably longer than the XP installs, slightly longer than XP but then it came on DVD and is larger.

As long as computer buyers go running off to Dell and HP and so on, they'll get the latest OS and deserve the older hardware not working.

Same with the Major brand buyers that buy the cheapo Dells/HPs/Compaqs/Gateways and then come to us looking for adaptors to use their older Printers or serial devices. We sold a fair amount of USB to Serial adaptors to one compamny that needed serial ijn their new Dell laptops for programming either Alarms or PBXs.
In fact we just replaced a AT power supply in a 486-33 Mhz computer today, Used to control a plasma table (cutter?) Hiogh power Win3.1 computer.....

Anyway It was strange this message appeared today as it gave the Boss a reason not to buy the same laptops for someplace in China, and no he didn't want to do it as any problems they'd be back at him for help.

Anyhow I suspect that the laptop was sold without enough memory to meet a price point.

If I were the owner I'd run a thorough memory test as Vista seems more touchy with regards to marginal memory. I'm not a big Acer fan but I don't believe they would deliver it as unreliable as your experience. I've run Vista and while I prefer XP it doesn't run that bad.

Cheers

[mats.hogberg]

Another good Dell laugh: They sell their consumer computers with XP Home installed. In the same ad, they proudly announce they recommend XP Pro for all their computers. How can you ship your products with OS A, but recommend the consumer to use OS B?

/Mats

[rumplestiltskin]

Prior to the Acer I had purchased an HP of similar specs (with Vista) and it ran just as poorly. The RAM (such as it has) is okay. Now that the Acer is running XP Pro, however, it runs very well.

[TBoneit]

mats, it is about meeting a price point that expect will sell a lot of machines. I believe Pro would add approx $60 to the cost of the computer. Of course if you order it with Pro they'll up the cost to cover the cost of the XP Pro plus additional profit.

For many users XP Pro is overkill IMHO.

Simple question: What's the best car?
Price only?
Quality only?
seating?
performance?
fuel economy?

different factors for different people.

As I said before I've run Vista and it runs Ok. Would I use it myself? Nope. Would I sell it? If you want it, yes.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Another good Dell laugh: They sell their consumer computers with XP Home installed. In the same ad, they proudly announce they recommend XP Pro for all their computers. How can you ship your products with OS A, but recommend the consumer to use OS B?

/Mats

OEMs probably get a greater discount from MS by using the "<OEM> recommends blah, blah", or are required to use that tag line as part of the OEM licensing deal.

Dell now use the tag line "Dell recommends Windows Vista™ Home Premium." for their home and home office systems. "Dell recommends Windows Vista™ Business." is used on their small business web pages.

[Ron B]

That's Dell's, and other vendors I suppose, best sales ploy. They advertise a price that's so low you "can't afford NOT to buy it". Then a little RAM upgrade when you find the base memory spec is 256MB, with more RAM you should get a little better processor and of course you'll need a bigger hard drive. $20 here, $50 there, before you know it, that $450 computer is going to cost $1500.

[mats.hogberg]

Dell now use the tag line "Dell recommends Windows Vista™ Home Premium." for their home and home office systems. "Dell recommends Windows Vista™ Business." is used on their small business web pages.

...and what do the have preinstalled? BSD?
Of course different factors for different people, but Dell blankly states that they recommend you to use something they don't deliver (as std). Ah well - that was just a side track. Now back to our regular broadcasts.

/Mats

[JohnnyMalaria]

Interestingly, Dell also sell PCs without an OS installed. They go on to state that the PC isn't licensed to run Windows unless you purchase a Windows license.

Does this mean that the situation of OEMs having to pay MS for a license for each machine they build - even if it doesn't have Windows on it - is no more?

[tekkieman]

Interestingly, Dell also sell PCs without an OS installed. They go on to state that the PC isn't licensed to run Windows unless you purchase a Windows license.

Does this mean that the situation of OEMs having to pay MS for a license for each machine they build - even if it doesn't have Windows on it - is no more?

Did you compare prices with similar options? Dell has offered machines with no OS (FreeDOS) for some time. They usually change the hardware slightly to make direct comparisons difficult, but generally, the machine with no OS is almost $100 more than the one with Windows. It's the "reverse anti-Microsoft tax".