Vista question

[aimster]

I remember hearing Microsoft was coming out with a patch to help Vista boot up and shut down faster. Has it been released yet and if not, does anyone know when it will be? Just wondering as I have Vista on my laptop and so far my only complaint is it takes forever for it to load and shut down, which is very annoying.

Thanks!

[NatdRat]

After a quick perusal of the Vista updates site I have found no updates available that addresses this issue, so not yet would be my guess.

[Joe User 99]

Maybe your machine is just not powerful enough?

My Vista laptop takes about 40 seconds from pushing the power button till it gets to the desktop.
And only takes about 15 seconds from clicking shutdown until the power goes off.

[Demigod]

My laptop takes about 1 min to boot up, and about a minute to shut down.

[davewasbaloo]

My new laptop with Vista is much quicker than my old laptop and desktop with XP. So far, I am very happy with Vista.

[tjcjr]

not a new article but it may affer some insight:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378

[Disneylighting]

Vista is a very visual based operating system, it takes forever to boot up and get to the log-in screen and then turning it off it quite the same. One thing that I do a lot of the time on my desktop whci runs Vista Ultimate is that I hibernate the computer so that when I need to turn it on again it doesn't have to go through the whole process of opening up everything and all that jazz. I have not heard of a patch that Microsoft is releasing to speed up windows. But It would be welcome news if they were making one. I use Windows XP Media Center Addition on my labtop but have Vista for it. But I am hesitant to put Vista on it because some of the things that I do like Video rendering and stuff that takes not alot of time on XP takes forever on Vista and it drives me made. So if mircosoft releases a patch I am waiting for it to see if Vista is a keeper or another great idea poorly executed.

[Joe User 99]

Just like every version of Windows before it, Vista requires more resources than the previous version. More processor, more memory, more space.
Why is it a failure or a poorly executed product because of it?

Recommendations:

1) Don't buy the cheapest machine you can get. There is a reason it's that cheap. It means it's either bottom of the current technology barrel, or cannot be upgraded so you will have to buy a new one in a couple of years, or both.

2) Rule of thumb, the machine you bought with XP on it a couple of years ago, most likely is not powerful enough to run Vista very well. Plan ahead.

3) Don't go by the "required" specs on software, go by the "Recommended" specs. "Required" usually means the absolute bare ammount they could get the program to even run on, much less smoothly. (Heck the required specs for Vista Home Premium are 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM. My old laptop had that, but it didn't even run most things on XP smoothly at that spec. I wouldn't even try Vista on it. I would recommend a P4 3GHz or better, and 2GB of RAM.)

[aimster]

Originally Posted by Joe User 99

J
1) Don't buy the cheapest machine you can get. There is a reason it's that cheap. It means it's either bottom of the current technology barrel, or cannot be upgraded so you will have to buy a new one in a couple of years, or both.

2) Rule of thumb, the machine you bought with XP on it a couple of years ago, most likely is not powerful enough to run Vista very well. Plan ahead.

3) Don't go by the "required" specs on software, go by the "Recommended" specs. "Required" usually means the absolute bare ammount they could get the program to even run on, much less smoothly. (Heck the required specs for Vista Home Premium are 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM. My old laptop had that, but it didn't even run most things on XP smoothly at that spec. I wouldn't even try Vista on it. I would recommend a P4 3GHz or better, and 2GB of RAM.)

I got my laptop as a birthday present 2 weeks ago so I didn't pick it out, my guy did as he bought it for me. It came loaded with Vista Home Premium. It's a mid-range model machine so it's not "cheap". After it boots up, it works just fine... it's the slow boot & shutdown that annoys me.

As for the machine specs itself, it has a 2.2GHz processor and 1024GB of RAM (for now... I'll upgrade eventually). My desktop that I got 2 years ago runs XP Media Center Edition, and also has a 2.2GHz processor and 1024GB of RAM.

[Joe User 99]

Originally Posted by aimster

It's a mid-range model machine so it's not "cheap". After it boots up, it works just fine... it's the slow boot & shutdown that annoys me.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that your particular machine was "cheap", that whole reply was a basic generalization aimed at the many people that buy the cheapest machine they can, then complain when it doesn't meet their expectations. And working in the IT field, I hear it all the time.

But getting a gift like that for a b-day present is a wonderful gesture, regardless of it's specs. Happy belated birthday, sorry I missed it.

You know, I had a big long drawn out explination of how Vista shouldn't be compared to XP, and that if you reduced your hardware to meet the minimum "recommended" specs for XP you would see lowsy performance there too, but I don't figure anyone is really interested.

The basic point I was trying to get across, is that Vista, like every "new" release of Windows before it, requires an exponentially greater increase in resources in order to run smoothly, and unless there is some major bug in the startup and shutdown code, no magic patch will change that.

[aimster]

I plan on upgrading to at least another GB of RAM sometime before the year is done (keeping an eye on any sales that might pop up). That should help my issue.