Desktops forum

General discussion

Anyone notice a difference in Windows XP and Vista...

by tele2000 / March 21, 2007 9:44 AM PDT

...as far as overall speed? I just bought my parents a new computer, HP a1720n with Vista. I have a HP a1610n with XP. The Vista seems to lag a little bit, just not as snappy as XP is. Both computers have the same amount of memory, 1.0 GB. However, theirs has the Duo Core processor. Is that the reason for the lag time?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Anyone notice a difference in Windows XP and Vista...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Anyone notice a difference in Windows XP and Vista...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
There are many factors in configuration
by byker49 / March 21, 2007 10:01 AM PDT

But your parents have the minimum amount of memory for Vista. Put another GIG in for them and then test. 1 GIG for XP is just about right. Unless you have checked they probably have a bunch of junk running in the background as well.

Collapse -
Vista
by tele2000 / March 21, 2007 10:09 AM PDT

Thanks for the reply. There wasn't a lot running when I checked it out, no programs other than Vista.

I wasn't aware that 1GB was the minimum requirement for Vista. I figured I should have just gone with the 2GB. Thanks for the info!

Collapse -
Over in the Vista forum it appears that 2GB
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / March 21, 2007 10:06 AM PDT

Is needed for Vista to break even with XP.

Bob

Collapse -
vista optimizes itself after a bit of use
by ramarc / March 21, 2007 11:29 AM PDT

1gb should be sufficient for casual pc use. the e6300 core2duo in the x1720n is a bit faster all around than the x2-4200. you should be aware that vista has a lot more background activity than xp. some of the eye-candy featues along with things like indexing and app/doc preview can sap performance. add-in less optimized drivers and ui performance can suffer.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

The Samsung RF23M8090SG

One of the best French door fridges we've tested

A good-looking fridge with useful features like an auto-filling water pitcher and a temperature-adjustable "FlexZone" drawer. It was a near-flawless performer in our cooling tests.