Windows Vista has some great new security and functionality features, as well as cool eye candy, such as Aero transparency, Flip 3D and other graphical tricks. But all this comes with overhead that may lead to a performance hit on anything less than a top-of-the-line computer. If you find Vista’s performance lagging, the good news is that you can make it run faster. Here are some of the steps you can take.
1. Add more RAM
There’s no denying it: Vista is a RAM-hungry operating system. Whereas XP usually runs great on 512MB, you really need a minimum of 1GB to run Vista acceptably — 2GB is even better. And if you turn on all the graphical features and keep a lot of programs open (especially those that use a lot of memory), then 4GB isn’t overkill.
Luckily, RAM is still relatively inexpensive — but it’s rumoured to be on the rise, so get as much of it as you can, while you can. You won’t regret it.
2. Use ReadyBoost
Can’t add physical RAM? Maybe you have a notebook that already has the maximum amount of memory installed. In that case, Vista provides you with a way to fool your computer into thinking it has more RAM than it does. You can use a flash memory card or USB key as a cache, which Vista can access quicker than data stored on the hard disk.
It’s best to use a high-performance flash card or USB drive for ReadyBoost. When you insert it, Windows will ask if you want to use it to speed up system performance, and then you can allocate how much of the card’s/drive’s memory you want to use for that purpose. The rest can be used for storing data.
3: Get a good video card
If you have enough RAM, the most likely hardware culprit on a slow-moving Vista machine is the video card. You need a fairly high-end card to run Aero at all, but some vendors are selling computers with graphics cards that run it badly. You can find out whether your video card is the bottleneck by checking your Windows Experience Index (WEI) score from the Performance Information and Tools applet in Control Panel.
The onboard video adapters in most systems aren’t powerful enough to run Vista properly. If you want to run Aero and be happy doing it, get a card that’s Vista Premium Certified. As with system RAM, the more video RAM you have the better, and if you want to play Vista games, be sure your card supports DirectX 10.
4: Eliminate extra startup programs
You may find that you have a lot of programs loading automatically when you boot Windows, especially if you bought your Vista system from a hardware vendor who added lots of software. Some of these you may want, such as antivirus or anti-spyware programs, but many of them you probably don’t even use or use only occasionally and don’t want to run all the time. Yet they’re all loading into memory and consuming your system resources — and thus slowing down your computer as they run in the background.
Some programs can be prevented from starting automatically by removing them from the Startup folder. Others are configured in the registry to run at startup. Many can be managed through the Windows Defender Software Explorer, which you can access from the Manage Startup Programs link in the left pane of the Performance Information And Tools applet.
5: Turn off visual enhancements
There are a lot of visual enhancements that make Vista look like Vista, such as the animations when minimising and maximising windows, fading or sliding menus, shadows under the menus and mouse pointer, and thumbnails of graphics files instead of dull icons. However, all this bling consumes resources, and if performance is your priority, the operating system will run faster without them.
The Performance Options dialogue box can be accessed through the Adjust Visual Effects link in the left pane of the Performance Information And Tools applet. On the Visual Effects tab, you can customise these settings individually, turning off the ones you don’t want, to help speed performance. Or you can disable all of the visual effects by clicking the Adjust For Best Performance option.
6: Adjust indexing options
Vista has a much-improved search function, but it’s dependent on indexing the files and programs on your hard disk so they can be found quickly. When the indexing process is running, however, it can slightly slow down other programs you’re try ing to run at the same time.
You can select the locations you want to index; fewer locations will result in less indexing and thus better overall performance. On the other hand, you’ll get better search performance by indexing all locations. You can’t turn the indexing feature off completely, but you can adjust locations indexed by selecting Adjust Indexing Options in the left pane of the Performance Information And Tools applet.
7: Clean up and defrag the disk
Fragmented files or a lot of unneeded extra files on the disk can slow down performance. Vista provides a disk cleanup tool, which you can access from Start | All Programs | Accessories | System Tools. Specify a drive you want to clean up, and the tool will estimate the amount of space you can recover by running the cleanup process.
Defragmenting the disk rearranges data on it so that all the parts of a file are together; this allows Vista to access those files quicker. The built-in disk defragmenter is also accessed from the System Tools menu. The defragmentation process itself can slow down your computer, so you may want to schedule it to run at a time when you aren’t using the computer. Third-party defrag utilities are also available.
8: Adjust your power settings
If you don’t mind using more power, you can boost performance by setting your power settings to the High Performance option. Click the Power Options applet in Control Panel and select that choice. By default, this configuration is set to Balanced, which limits the CPU to 50 percent power during normal operation.
9: Turn off the sidebar
The sidebar is a cool feature of Vista, but if you don’t use its applets, you can save some resources by disabling it. First, right-click it and select Properties. Next, deselect the check box to start the sidebar when Windows starts. Then, close the sidebar by right-clicking it and selecting Close.
10: If all else fails, turn off Aero
This is a last-resort option for most Vista users — after all, Aero is what makes Vista look like Vista. But if you don’t care for all the eye candy and/or have a low-powered machine, and you still want the functionality advantages of the new OS (search, security, Explorer enhancements and so on), you can definitely speed things up by reverting to the non-transparent look.
To do so, right-click the desktop and select Personalize, then click Windows Color And Appearance. Now, click Open Classic Appearance Properties For More Color Options. From the drop-down list box on the Appearance tab, select any theme except Aero (Windows Vista Basic, Windows Standard or Windows Classic).
Talkback
Don't upgrade to Vista. XP is much faster and less resource hungry. Simple, problem solved.
If the problem is to increase Vista's performance, using XP does nothing to affect the problem. It's an alternative, not a solution.
"How do we get across this gorge?"
"I know!"
"Great. What's the solution?"
"We should never have come on this trip."
"Brilliant. Thanks for that."
Its called irony, you know 'humor'.
Anyway it was my solution when I recently received a new system with Vista pre-installed. I found that the OS was using so much system resource that I may as well have stuck with my old PC.
Not having days to tweak some better performance out of Vista I simply wiped Vista off the new machine and installed XP. Luckily I had a full license on my old machine so I could install it and get it activated. Now my new PC is fast and efficient to use. I used to think XP was a bit of a resource hog but Vista is just ridiculous. Maybe in a couple of years when Vista SP2 is out I will upgrade but I really can't see the point at the moment, after all it is just an OS and really should use as little system resources as possible. I think what I have learned from all of this is don't think that its Vista ready just cos the salesman tells you it is.
I'm using it on this work PC to test it, but I have no intention of rolling it out across our company until... well, unless something major happens to improve performance, I can't actually see that happening.
However, I always take issue with being told to 'chill out' when I am already perfectly calm - it reminds me of David Brent's reaction when someone challenges him. It's just that I see this sort of comment about Vista a lot.
My advice to anyone buying a new PC/laptop now is to make sure it's capable of running Vista Premium, but to actually get XP installed on it. Some people, on the other hand, already have Vista and would like to know how to improve its performance. Being told 'you should use XP' is unhelpful, unoriginal and, I'm afraid, hardly amusing.
The best alternative to VISTA is to replace it with PCLinuxOS. It is faster, does many more graphical tricks than AERO, easier to use, is compatible with more hardware, is backwards compatible with M$ documents and presentations, and is cheaper. I was a tester for VISTA RC-1 and RC-2 and that was enough to convince me that my windoze machine was not going to be upgraded. I have 2 Linux boxes and the one running PCLinuxOS is preferred by all of my family members, even over XP.
Vista's defrag is good in that it runs reasonably lean on resources. On the negative side, its options are lousy, it has no progress display and it seems to take forever. I 'd rather use Diskeeper for defrag needs. The latest versions are fully Vista 32-bit and 64-bit compatible and defrag fast. Diskeeper's automatic defragment method is also superior to Vista's own..lean resource usage, intelligent tasking and great results.
I see on many Linux and Mac sites people that say the answer to the issue is to change the OS to the one of their choice. Obviously, they use their computer for nothing but surfing myspace. Anybody that seriously uses a computer knows you aren't always given a choice. Many times the apps you run dictate the OS. Office is a poor example. Better examples are VPN clients, business apps, games, etc... that only on on Windows. So to all the people that suggest dumping an OS in favor of an alternative OS (Linux, Mac), perhaps you could pay the $$ to go out and repurchase tens of thousands of dollars worth of programs to get my productivity up to the same speed as using Windows.
Anybody that bases their decision on experiences from BETA apps is not veryu educated. Obviously the new OS is going to take more resources than the last. Can you run XP on your old 386 with 32 MB RAM, like you could with Windows 95? NO. So, if you want to spend the rest of your life using the same exact hardware and complaining how the new OS takes more resources because of the new features you want, then accept the fact you will always have what you have now and stop beta testing new software. Certainy dont tell us you have an opinion on your experience with BETA apps. Thats like saying "I dont like that movie. It sucks. It was too long. I gained that info from watching the preview". That sounds just like your close minded comment.
You'll show up complaining how slow your PC is running, but 8 years ago you skimped on everything when you bought it and probably argued with the salesguy that you dont need more RAM and refuse to spend more than $600 for your PC. So today, you can't upgrade. In 5 years, when all the apps run on Vista and not XP, you'll be whining about having to buy a new PC.
HELLO! THATS THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS!! If you dont want to keep up with whats 'MODERN', then why not but a 286 and run DOS. Compared to DOS, XP is a resource hog. At one point somebody may have suggested to you DOS is better and dont upgrade to Windows because it will use your resources. So, given your 'solution' to the problem, why did you upgrade? If having available resources is your priority, then go install Windows 95 and let the rest of us intelligent, modern users find ways to tweak our OS of choice without comments from the Peanut Gallery. One day when you grow up you will see that avoiding an issue is not a solution. Try your strategy with taxes, speeding tickets, or feeding the kids and you'll see what I mean. AVOIDING THE ISSUE IS NOT A SOLUTION.
You don't know me and if you had read the thread then you would understand a little more about my comment. True my comment was a little abrasive but I think that given the increased functionality within Vista the extra resource foot print is just too high. I think that Vista as it stands today is an undercooked piece of coding that has too many design floors. This is largely due to shoddy design in XP on which much of it is based. Thats not my opinion but that of some of the people that have been involved in creating Vista. In a year or so I think many of these issues may have been fixed with service pack releases but for now I would rather give the extra half a gig of ram that Vista requires to my applications, its as simple as that. I run a lot of very memory hungry software and that is my focus. An OS is simply a set of services for the application software. That philosophy would be one well learned at Microsoft when designing their next operating system. After 7 years in the making Vista should be better than it is, I don't think anyone can argue with that, especially as the competition manages to squeeze more functionality than Vista has into the same foot print as XP. That's a fact not an opinion. I purchased a pretty high end machine, no penny pinching as you suggest, and quite frankly Vista was just to hungry for my liking. That is why I went back to XP. So as you obviously don't know me how can you make that claim to know people like me?
I'm running on an old nVidia GeForce 6200, which gives Aero a somewhat dismal subscore of 2.0. I cannot use the latest nVidia drivers due to a monitor maximum resolution detection bug, so I'm using the default drivers that shipped with Windows. Due to my excessive need for multitasking, I have dual monitors, both at 1280x1024, I run Aero with all the juicy effects enabled (in fact, I've manually enforced even more transparency by patching the Aero system resource files), and I regularly enjoy watching high bit-rate, high definition films (both 720p and 1080p downscaled to fit on one screen) with 5.1 surround sound. Only trouble arises if I'm watching a film and I hit Ctrl+Start+Tab; then things get a little jerky. But I only do that for the sheer thrill of watching the graphics card cry.
Oh, due to Microsoft's inefficient high definition codec, "DreamScene" content doesn't play properly; but I accept that my graphics processor is already working at the end of its tether and that may be a bridge too far. Sometime I will upgrade the graphics card, but probably not until nearer Christmas.
Admittedly, the rest of my computer does much better in the WEI (all the non-graphical subscores are between 5.1 and 5.7), and I do have 2GB of RAM, but according to some people who love to spread FUD about Microsoft and Windows, my computer would be at a crawl because it is so dependent upon the graphics card. Yet this is not the case at all.
Nonetheless, in my opinion it is true that most people probably should not upgrade their existing systems to Windows Vista; instead, when their current computers approach the end of their working lives, they should purchase new ones with Vista pre-installed.
I can not justify buying extra hardware, making sure the system will be able to run Vista for what exactly? Animated windows and some serious security issues.
No thanks, XP does it fine and I'm looking more and more of rolling out Ubuntu (possibly with Beryl) in my company!
Vista doesnt run slow for me. I have had none of the problems that people report. All the bugs that were an issue at one time,simply arent anymore. If Vista is slow for someone,its a good sign that a hardware upgrade is in order(youll be better off in the long run in any case). If your system is slow when running Vista,Im willing to bet your system has the bare minimum resources to turn on,and surf a single web page. Skimping on a decent computer to save a few bucks is only gonna cost you more in the long run(IF you can still find the outdated parts if something FUBARs) My advice is to build your own so you know what is going in it. If you dont have the knowledge to do so,thats fine. But i seriously would advise you NOT to accept the recommendations of Geek Squad or similar. They might have the knowledge but are also SALESMEN. Its pretty safe to double what they recommend in RAM and you would be shocked about how much they really dont know. If you arent willing to upgrade your hardware to run modern apps,then stick with XP and enjoy the "benefits" of saving a few dollars/pounds/eros/yen.