performance 5384

Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

Video and incompatible hardware could be an issue.
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message

Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message

Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

I always use Classic folders. I also have turned UAP completely off.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

The previous 5308 build started out this way, but eventually ran much better. Not sure what changed. 5384 has only been on for about 1 day.
Same system has 98/ME/2000/XP/2003 partitions installed. All the rest run well.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Mike Brannigan" wrote in message

It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

Hey Mike, do you no longer work for Microsoft any more?
Kevin John Panzke (MSDN OS Level Subscriber) Windows Server Code Name Long Horn Beta 2 Microsoft Office 2007 Beta 2
"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message

It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message

It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

Exactly, even Microsoft admits its not reliable. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"AMDX2" wrote in message

"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

The overall rating will be the lowest number rounded down. This makes sense because it would effectively be the bottleneck of your system. They are still adjusting things related to the way hardware is rated, so I expect some of these numbers to change. It is incorrectly stating my video card is a 256MB card when in fact it is a 128MB
Jeff
"AMDX2" wrote in message

"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

Not always true.
Machines are used in many different ways for many different purposes. Video rendering is a very CPU/Disk intensive activity that requires little of things like video card. Having a performance number where the lowest value determine the rating may be completely unrepresentative of resulting performance for the task at hand.
Most common performance rating schemes use a weighted approach, which is more realistic. The current MS approach seems very basic in this approach, something one might expect from an inexperienced programmer who had never done this before. I also seems completely incorrect in some system details, as other posters have pointed out.
There are lots of good performance tools out there. One web site, www.pcpitstop.com, had a web based tool that seems fairly decent and is free.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Jeff" wrote in message

The overall rating will be the lowest number rounded down. This makes sense because it would effectively be the bottleneck of your system. They are still adjusting things related to the way hardware is rated, so I expect some of these numbers to change. It is incorrectly stating my video card is a 256MB card when in fact it is a 128MB
Jeff
"AMDX2" wrote in message
"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

As a test, I checked this system in Vista and XP using pcpitstop.com. In XP the overall performance number was 1236. In Vista it was 183, with complaints about both slow video and memory speed. However video plays a fairly small part in the overall rating
It seems that Vista has some problems with hardware use or something in this area.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Ed Dixon" wrote in message

Not always true.
Machines are used in many different ways for many different purposes. Video rendering is a very CPU/Disk intensive activity that requires little of things like video card. Having a performance number where the lowest value determine the rating may be completely unrepresentative of resulting performance for the task at hand.
Most common performance rating schemes use a weighted approach, which is more realistic. The current MS approach seems very basic in this approach, something one might expect from an inexperienced programmer who had never done this before. I also seems completely incorrect in some system details, as other posters have pointed out.
There are lots of good performance tools out there. One web site, www.pcpitstop.com, had a web based tool that seems fairly decent and is free.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Jeff" wrote in message The overall rating will be the lowest number rounded down. This makes sense because it would effectively be the bottleneck of your system. They are still adjusting things related to the way hardware is rated, so I expect some of these numbers to change. It is incorrectly stating my video card is a 256MB card when in fact it is a 128MB
Jeff
"AMDX2" wrote in message
"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

Try disabling a few things - Windows Search always boosts things up a bit :o)
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "The Dude" wrote in message

Video and incompatible hardware could be an issue.
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

I have disabled all services. Basically no change.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Zack Whittaker" wrote in message

Try disabling a few things - Windows Search always boosts things up a bit :o)
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "The Dude" wrote in message Video and incompatible hardware could be an issue.
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed

Yes - Vista performance isn't up to par by any means, but your machine seems to be even worse. Have you installed any out of box drivers in an attempt to resolve? "Ed Dixon" wrote in message

As a test, I checked this system in Vista and XP using pcpitstop.com. In XP the overall performance number was 1236. In Vista it was 183, with complaints about both slow video and memory speed. However video plays a fairly small part in the overall rating
It seems that Vista has some problems with hardware use or something in this area.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Ed Dixon" wrote in message Not always true.
Machines are used in many different ways for many different purposes. Video rendering is a very CPU/Disk intensive activity that requires little of things like video card. Having a performance number where the lowest value determine the rating may be completely unrepresentative of resulting performance for the task at hand.
Most common performance rating schemes use a weighted approach, which is more realistic. The current MS approach seems very basic in this approach, something one might expect from an inexperienced programmer who had never done this before. I also seems completely incorrect in some system details, as other posters have pointed out.
There are lots of good performance tools out there. One web site, www.pcpitstop.com, had a web based tool that seems fairly decent and is free.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Jeff" wrote in message The overall rating will be the lowest number rounded down. This makes sense because it would effectively be the bottleneck of your system. They are still adjusting things related to the way hardware is rated, so I expect some of these numbers to change. It is incorrectly stating my video card is a 256MB card when in fact it is a 128MB
Jeff
"AMDX2" wrote in message
"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

I agree a weighted system would be much better - but the only real way would be to use all of the numbers. i.e. this game requires 3 on video performance, 4 on RAM, 4 on processor, etc.
I think they performance measurement is more for marketing than anything else.
Jeff
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message

Not always true.
Machines are used in many different ways for many different purposes. Video rendering is a very CPU/Disk intensive activity that requires little of things like video card. Having a performance number where the lowest value determine the rating may be completely unrepresentative of resulting performance for the task at hand.
Most common performance rating schemes use a weighted approach, which is more realistic. The current MS approach seems very basic in this approach, something one might expect from an inexperienced programmer who had never done this before. I also seems completely incorrect in some system details, as other posters have pointed out.
There are lots of good performance tools out there. One web site, www.pcpitstop.com, had a web based tool that seems fairly decent and is free.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Jeff" wrote in message The overall rating will be the lowest number rounded down. This makes sense because it would effectively be the bottleneck of your system. They are still adjusting things related to the way hardware is rated, so I expect some of these numbers to change. It is incorrectly stating my video card is a 256MB card when in fact it is a 128MB
Jeff
"AMDX2" wrote in message
"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

Out of curiosity....how much of that gig of ram is being used? (You can find this in taskmgr or the performance gadget on the sidebar.)
RossB
"Jeff" wrote:

Yes - Vista performance isn't up to par by any means, but your machine seems to be even worse. Have you installed any out of box drivers in an attempt to resolve? "Ed Dixon" wrote in message As a test, I checked this system in Vista and XP using pcpitstop.com. In XP the overall performance number was 1236. In Vista it was 183, with complaints about both slow video and memory speed. However video plays a fairly small part in the overall rating
It seems that Vista has some problems with hardware use or something in this area.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Ed Dixon" wrote in message Not always true.
Machines are used in many different ways for many different purposes. Video rendering is a very CPU/Disk intensive activity that requires little of things like video card. Having a performance number where the lowest value determine the rating may be completely unrepresentative of resulting performance for the task at hand.
Most common performance rating schemes use a weighted approach, which is more realistic. The current MS approach seems very basic in this approach, something one might expect from an inexperienced programmer who had never done this before. I also seems completely incorrect in some system details, as other posters have pointed out.
There are lots of good performance tools out there. One web site, www.pcpitstop.com, had a web based tool that seems fairly decent and is free.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Jeff" wrote in message The overall rating will be the lowest number rounded down. This makes sense because it would effectively be the bottleneck of your system. They are still adjusting things related to the way hardware is rated, so I expect some of these numbers to change. It is incorrectly stating my video card is a 256MB card when in fact it is a 128MB
Jeff
"AMDX2" wrote in message
"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.

The test pcs's that I have used so far with 1G ram usually hovered around 44% mem usage when the system was idle. I think that's pretty excessive for an idle OS and hopefully that number will go down before final release
"RossB" wrote in message

Out of curiosity....how much of that gig of ram is being used? (You can find this in taskmgr or the performance gadget on the sidebar.)
RossB
"Jeff" wrote:
Yes - Vista performance isn't up to par by any means, but your machine seems to be even worse. Have you installed any out of box drivers in an attempt to resolve? "Ed Dixon" wrote in message As a test, I checked this system in Vista and XP using pcpitstop.com. In XP the overall performance number was 1236. In Vista it was 183, with complaints about both slow video and memory speed. However video plays a fairly small part in the overall rating
It seems that Vista has some problems with hardware use or something in this area.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Ed Dixon" wrote in message Not always true.
Machines are used in many different ways for many different purposes. Video rendering is a very CPU/Disk intensive activity that requires little of things like video card. Having a performance number where the lowest value determine the rating may be completely unrepresentative of resulting performance for the task at hand.
Most common performance rating schemes use a weighted approach, which is more realistic. The current MS approach seems very basic in this approach, something one might expect from an inexperienced programmer who had never done this before. I also seems completely incorrect in some system details, as other posters have pointed out.
There are lots of good performance tools out there. One web site, www.pcpitstop.com, had a web based tool that seems fairly decent and is free.
Ed
-- Thanks... Ed Dixon "Jeff" wrote in message The overall rating will be the lowest number rounded down. This makes sense because it would effectively be the bottleneck of your system. They are still adjusting things related to the way hardware is rated, so I expect some of these numbers to change. It is incorrectly stating my video card is a 256MB card when in fact it is a 128MB
Jeff
"AMDX2" wrote in message
"Mike Brannigan" wrote in message It is unlikely that any change in the settings you suggest would significantly alter the performance issues the original poster is seeing. A properly configured and supported machine of the spec quoted should be opening Control Panel from the "start" button in between 4 to 8 seconds. A figure of 30 plus as quoted points to more issues elsewhere in his system.
One immediate thing for all users suffering real or perceived performance issues to look at is there Windows System Performance Rating, accessible on the properties of the Computer object in the UI.
-- Mike Brannigan
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Here is suggestion by Kristan Kenney (http://www.digitalfive.org There are still alot of debug code in Windows Explorer for Windows Vista, as well as other system components. You may wish to try changing some settings regarding Windows Explorer via the Folder Options dialog.
To display this, simply press WinKey+R on your keyboard and type "control folders". If prompted by User Account Control, allow the application to run.
I'd recommend to gain some performance from Windows Explorer that you set it to Use Windows classic folders. You may also wish to turn off thumbnails to lower load times in folders containing large image or video documents. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Ed Dixon" wrote in message Have 5384 loaded on a 2.4 GHz Dell with 1 GB RAM and lots of disk. Performance is dog slow. It takes perhaps 30 seconds just to open Control Panel
Any ideas?
Ed


I'm not sure if the performance rating app is any good because it gives me numbers much higher then 3 for some stuff and more then 3, but less then 4 for some stuff yet only gives a 3 rating which i think is low.