Yeah, I suspect so - I have a Thinkpad T60p with a Vista Experience score of 4.6 that was running like crap after having used it with the OEM install for about six months and throwing about five different VPN clients at it. After picking up a new Dell Vostro 300 with a minimal config (Vista Experience = 3.5), doing a clean install of Vista SP1 integrated on it, and seeing how it *flew* compared to the laptop, I redid the laptop, and now it performs fine. The desktop still seems subjectively a bit faster for everyday use, though, which is odd as the scores are so divergent.
-- Durf On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Ken Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine – > carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the > box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, > and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with > its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media – because WMP obviously > can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better > with a clean install. > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed > > > > Check out this story: > > > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 > > > > It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with > unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer > (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost > customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. > > > > I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it > RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D > CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It > ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I > built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that > PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? > > > > > > John > > > > > > *From:* Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed > > > > Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we > can't blame the new OS? > > Oh yes we can. > > --Matt ross > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk > people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is > that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they > released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers > that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or > bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for > users, and the OS gets the blame. > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 > / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM > > > > > > > -- -------------- Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks! ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
