If you want a GOOD PC then get a AMD Processor with 2GB of RAM.

If your computer is Dell/HP it's SLOW because there at so many programs pre-installed and thats slowing it down.

If you want to fix this issue then do this

1) Click Start
2) Click Run
3) Type msconfig
4) Check Startup Tab
5) Disable All
6) Checked Services Tab
7) Disable All (Make sure you RECHECK your anti-virus software)
Restart Computer

------------------------ALSO-------------------------

1) Click Start
2) Click All Programs
3) Point Mouse to Startup
4) Deleted Everything Out

----------------------Finally--------------------------

Go to your Screen Saver----------Check Power Options

Change to High Performace...

WALA! Everything is SO FAST!

I have a five year old Dell Latitude with a 1.7 Ghz Intel M with 2 gigs of memory.

After installing Vista I was dissapointed as my machine was now a dog.

I knew there were going to be a few driver issues, so I rooted through my hardware and found that my Nvidia display adapter was using a Vista driver.

After a little surfing and found out that both Dell and Nvidia did not support Vista for my adapter, I simply forced the XP driver. Upon reboot my Vista had been turbocharged.

I don't think that the Vista drivers optimize the features incorporated with the older display adapters.

Since then, our corporate software including the AutoCad 2007 and 2008 (resource hogs) have run as well as they did in XP.

Additionally, all of the PLC programming softwares have been preforming admirably. As well as they did with XP.

Several have required additional administrative priveledges, and it is a bit tedious to configure them, but now work flawlessly.

Good luck

fl

Given that aside, I have a few more observations. XP took up a huge adoption rate for multiple reasons. It offered a great deal of bling for the consumer. It also offered a lot to enterprise market. Specifically it allowed a reduction in the cost of support by allowing to standardize on one operating system. To do that it took an investment in new systems and upgrades. Mostly hard drives and memory.

Back in 2004, I ran a project to upgrade 4500+ system upgrades. At that time 800mhz and 256megs ram was the minimum requirement. If needed, they got a 40gig hard drive. If they didn't meet the specs, they could get a new system (dell gx60) or they could purchase one of their choosing.

A year later the system specs on new system was 512megs of ram. Finally you began to hit the sweet spot with xp's performance with the right amount of ram and processor speeds.

With every os release from Microsoft, there is always a gap in hw. A period of time when you are "capable" of running it and what it will run it well. Vista is the same way. If I could, I wouldn't recommend anything less than a e6xxx series dual core (desktop) or a 4 series (laptop). For a higher end system you should go with a quad core or 9series.

I run a intel q6600 with 4gigs of ram and 8800gts 640meg video card. My old system is an AMD 4200+, 3gigs of ram, and a Nvidia 7900. Both of them run Vista well.

I think Nvidia has said it well. Intel has hurt itself with integrated graphics. They did well with enterprise. It hurts performance because you have a limited upgrade path.

XP certainly has its place. It has held up reasonably well. Keep in mind its over 5 years old. Vista is just slightly over a year old. Now that sp1 out now, I can't complain about any issues.

I made a post at CoU, which references a blog by Ed Bott of ZDNet, which points out that one particular critic of Vista, extolling the virtues of XP, was saying many of the same things about XP back in 2001. The link for the post is http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&showtopic=17484&view=findpost&p=76173

Basically, the Ed Bott blog, http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382, made me realize that it's the same old stuff all over again. After referencing the blog, I go on to say the following:

"I have been saying much the same thing to a lot of people in a lot of places, including right here at CoU. In fact, I post a few times in that thread, and every time I harp on the ridiculous notion that M$ should even consider continuing to sell XP as a new product. It's time is over. It's well nigh done. Let it go.

Furthermore, that article goes on to show how the blogger that Ed Bott quotes had some very similar things to say about *XP* back in the day....and, just for grins and giggles, let me add my own experience:

I beta tested XP well before it's October 25,2001 release, and I ran it (albeit very very slowly) on a Pentium 200 MHz machine with 96 MB RAM. I learned quickly the limitations of using less than adequate hardware - but it ran and made for a great file server and testing on very very slow machines.

I then, in Jan and Feb of 2002, started building my new computer - dual 20 GB 7200 rpm drives, a GeForce 4 MX 440 (I wasn't *that* much into gaming then) and a sweet P4 2.0(A) GHz (Northwood) CPU - backed by 1 GB of RAM.

XP never complained again. *I* never complained again. Well, not on my own system - because I was paranoid enough to keep myself pretty well protected, as I knew I needed to - because I ran XP the way most end (read: home) users did - as an administrator (or, in my case, as *the* administrator).

Fast forward to 2006 - My P4 2.0 is still kicking, with an upgraded video card (ATI Radeon x1650 Pro AGP 8x), upgraded HDs (120 GB Barracuda, 80 GB WD and 40 GB WD, all 7200 rpm IDEs) and I start testing Vista - again, a bit slow, especially with only 1 GB RAM, ***but not as slow on a P4 2.0(A) GHz machine as XP was on the Pentium200. I then upgrade my mobo and CPU to my current MSI and P4 3.2E (Prescott) CPU, and upgrade the RAM to 3 GB of Corsair XMS 3200 RAM (3 x 1 GB). Vista runs great. On a CPU that is, for all intents and purposes, ***3 generations old*** (after the P4 came the Pentium D, the Pentium 4 numbered CPUs, the Core2Duos and then the Quad Cores). In terms of performance, Vista runs a hell of a lot better, smoother, and jest generally more secure on a 3 generation old CPU than XP did on a 3 generation old CPU (P4, PIII, P2, Pentium). Furthermore, there was a *major* clamor against XP - basically, nobody wants to move forward anymore.

Apparently, change is *not* inevitable."

Thanks, starjax, for making this blog. I am also referencing it in my post at CoU.