Why is Vista so sluggish?

I upgraded my xp to Vista and now I regret it. It looks good, yeah, but heck it is a lot more sluggish than xp. I have got a Dell, and now a mac which I also use for Windoes. I can only have a maximum of 512 ram in the Dell... and I have to go up to 2 gig on the mac to speed up Vista. The mac part is lightening fast. Can I ring Windows and ask them to decommission Vista so I can go back to xp?
I can't imagine I'm the only one to have this complaint.

Let me know what you think. Thanks

 

I agree with Mark, if you can find away to upgrade your ram you will find it's faster and better than XP but it does need the ram.

 

Vista is happiest with at least 1gb of RAM, preferably 2gb or more. 512mb is simply not enough. Also, if the Dell maxes out at 512mb, it's an older PC with an older, slower processor. Vista is going to be sluggish on any CPU less than 1.5ghz, especially if it's an older Celeron or Sempron/Duron.

 

Well thanks guys. I thought that would be the case. I have already ordered the 2 gig upgrade for the mac. I'm going to sell the Dell, but I'll ring Windows and decommission the xp for it. I want to keep the xp just in case I need to reinstall it because my Vista is an upgrade version.
I appreciate your help in making me come to the decision. If the mac doesn't work out I'll sell it and get a new Dell.

 

Originally the Dell came with WK2000, but I bought xp, but not a dell oem.

 

You can install a fresh copy of Vista without upgrading from XP by following the guide here. link

 

So you could dual boot xp with vista which is pretty easy for those who know what they are doing this would be the best way if you want to keep both OS'.

Vista is so slow because it is vista.
WAIT FOR WINDOWS 7:cool

 

Because it is vista

this is so because i thought this was common knowlage but the reason for this is because microsoft made this OS to look great and TONS of security and it takes a while to boot up so ye.

 

Well, I would love to disagree here. Vista boots up quicker than XP ever did and on the same rig as in my sig, it manages memory way better than XP, it's actually putting more of itself in memory for better response as opposed to XP which wanted to keep the least amount of itself in RAM.

I don't mind the extra security, better than doing a 'sudo' in *nix everytime. I've been testing Vista since the alpha/beta builds and there's no way that you'll ever get me back into XP, it looks and acts cartoonish now in comparison.

As to W7, I've only tried it in VM so far as I'm waiting for the public beta release in a couple of weeks. Can't say too much yet as MS hasn't been talking like they did with Longhorn/Vista. I doubt they want to ever go through anything like that again!

I guess that I have no 'common knowledge' eh?

 

X2! :highfive

I've been using Vista since its beta stages and I love it. I will never go back to XP and my computer specs aren't the greatest in the world. A common misconception is that Vista is a memory hog. It doesn't hog your memory, it just uses it more efficiently. Whats the point of having all your RAM sitting empty? All your commonly used programs are loaded into the RAM so they load quicker when you need them. When an intensive program opens up, lets say a game, then Vista dumps that other stuff and frees up the space for the game. That's the way your RAM should be managed!

 

well, i think i am running damn good hardware:cool

 

LOL @ hardware Oliver, and you still think Vista stinks? Oh well, to each their own. I'd love to have an employee discount too, nice rig!:drool