• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I put Vista on my MSI Wind and... it's fast??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Shawn
Everything is stock, except for the ram which I upgraded to 2GB for about $15.

That explains it. Try running it with original 1GB RAM. 😛
 
I'm running Server 08 on a Mini-Itx board with AMD Geode 1.5Ghz. It runs great as well, sometimes it gets bogged down with all the background tasks, but suprisinly well for the low power of it.

Like I've told other people, i think there is alot of bandwagoning on Vista=BAD. About half the machines I manage at work are Vista, no perf issues, only issues with some software not being updated and being able to run on Vista.
 
(I know im bumpin a kinda old thread)
sorry :disgust:

but hey Shawn

have you tried using readyboost via sd card/or usb?
was kinda hopin it does something

im about to pop on vista basic onto my 1000ha 2gb + 2gb sd card (sandisk ultra2)
this weekend

side question is there anyway to get the ms works (you know the xp office lite program that was included) onto vista or do I have to buy vista office?
 
I doubt you'll need it. Readyboost mainly helps start-up time. and its already pretty fast for start-up on netbooks (~20-30secs). No clue about MSworks.. Office is kinda slow though (2007)
 
Originally posted by: SpeedEng66
(I know im bumpin a kinda old thread)
sorry :disgust:

but hey Shawn

have you tried using readyboost via sd card/or usb?
was kinda hopin it does something

im about to pop on vista basic onto my 1000ha 2gb + 2gb sd card (sandisk ultra2)
this weekend

side question is there anyway to get the ms works (you know the xp office lite program that was included) onto vista or do I have to buy vista office?

I haven't tried using readyboost, but with 2GB of ram it's pretty much unnecessary, especially on Vista Basic.
 
Seeing as i've had no issue running Vista basic on 512MB of ram and Vista Home Premium on 1GB of ram, having it as fast if not faster than XP SP3, then I'm not surprised the netbooks are swallowing Vista without issue.
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: SpeedEng66

side question is there anyway to get the ms works (you know the xp office lite program that was included) onto vista or do I have to buy vista office?

You could try OpenOffice.


heard about it just never used it before (always used ms office cause of work)
I will give it a shot one of these days
 
Does the intel chipset accelerate Aero? (DX10 right?). Perhaps that's helping with UI speed? Has battery life been affected?
 
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Does the intel chipset accelerate Aero? (DX10 right?). Perhaps that's helping with UI speed? Has battery life been affected?

maybe shawn and others can chime on that one
Im using vista basic on mine 🙁
 
Yes, the video card is a GMA 950, which sucks, but handles areo just fine.

Battery life seems about the same as XP.
 
Originally posted by: Leros
That's impressive. Faster than my Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz with 2GB ram and 7200rpm hard drive.

That is quite impressive. I figured the Vista kernel would have been too much of a resource hog for a netbook. Now I am tempted to try this out.

Just out of curiosity what is the battery life on the Wind after your Vista install?

EDIT: added the question at the end
 
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Does the intel chipset accelerate Aero? (DX10 right?). Perhaps that's helping with UI speed? Has battery life been affected?

It is true that in Vista, the Aero theme uses more battery life. If you set your theme to Windows Classic, it increases battery life. I've tested this myself. On my laptop it gives me about 30 more minutes.
 
yea i put the same thing on my Asus 900HA.

I actually thought it ran smoother and just as fast as XP. Plus my wireless wasn't as crappy in XP. I think the battery life was better too.

Overall Ubuntu ran the best though.
 
Now you see why people are going apeshit about the performance of windows 7, because Vista is already pretty snappy.

The reason netbooks dont come with Vista isnt because they cant run it well. Its mainly because XP is cheaper, but also people have the impression that XP is faster. They build what the people want. I doubt a netbook with vista would sell well solely on bad impressions of vista.
 
Originally posted by: BD2003
Now you see why people are going apeshit about the performance of windows 7, because Vista is already pretty snappy.

The reason netbooks dont come with Vista isnt because they cant run it well. Its mainly because XP is cheaper, but also people have the impression that XP is faster. They build what the people want. I doubt a netbook with vista would sell well solely on bad impressions of vista.

Well, when you have MicroSoft corporate heads saying, "Windows 7 is like Vista, except that it works," you can understand why people might have some doubts about Vista. :laugh:
 
Actually, I have noticed something; Vista is slow when using legacy XDDM Video drivers. Even though Vista is supposed to be compatible with XP display drivers, it really isn't. Performance is terrible, even with a fast computer. If you install or put in a video card with WDDM drivers Vista runs much faster. I think netbooks are a good example of this. I put vista on my girlfriend's Athlon XP 2600+ which should be faster than the Atom, but it was dog slow. I'm pretty sure the culprit was the video drivers. When I would open a window there would be a delay because the window would take a while to draw.
 
Originally posted by: Shawn
Actually, I have noticed something; Vista is slow when using legacy XDDM Video drivers. Even though Vista is supposed to be compatible with XP display drivers, it really isn't. Performance is terrible, even with a fast computer. If you install or put in a video card with WDDM drivers Vista runs much faster. I think netbooks are a good example of this. I put vista on my girlfriend's Athlon XP 2600+ which should be faster than the Atom, but it was dog slow. I'm pretty sure the culprit was the video drivers. When I would open a window there would be a delay because the window would take a while to draw.

Yep, that is an issue I had with an older laptop of mine with DX7 level hardware that didnt officially support Vista or Aero, even though there were drivers from windows update. The OS itself was generally as fast as XP, but window redraws seemed to be noticeably slower.

On any modern atom netbook, especially with aero on, it should run just fine. Even on 1GB, although obviously that will become an issue if you start loading many applications.

The real issue for a proper SSD based netbook running vista (and Win 7) is disk space. Youll have a 1-2GB page file, a 1-2GB hibernation file, 10% of the drive for the recycle bin, system restore will eat up another chunk, as will WinSXS and update rollbacks. Install MS Office? Thats another 500+mb of dead space for a cache of the install files.

Not to mention the Vista install itself is bogged down by several gigabytes of "junk" itself - GBs dedicated to languages you dont use, programs irrelevant to a netbook (media center).

Better yet, Win 7 will allow for a in-place upgrade to a higher version that doesnt need the disc in the drive, so obviously theres going to be a pretty large cache of install files wasting space.

Basically microsoft's approach is that disk space is plentiful, and its worthwhile to use it for the "just in case" scenario. vLite is an option, but even with vLite I just can't see Vista/Win7 happening on a netbook with less than 16GB of storage.
 
Back
Top