Steven P. Administrators Posted September 30, 2005 Administrators Share Posted September 30, 2005 I clean installed the beta after using Beta 1 almost flawlessly on my 2nd grade hardware. My test PC is as follows: AMD 2400+ Sempron 1GB PC3200 Corsair memory Geforce FX 5950 Ultra SBLive Value 1024 Those are the basic hardware elements of my test system. Now the graphics and system is very slow and jerky overal. The install detected and installed my FX and I skipped installing the Live! because I don't care for garbled sounds Beta 1 was a lot smoother, and I'm finding it difficult to just use at all (as a second machine). Anyone else experiencing this? I did a 2nd partition install on my main PC and hit the same problems. Intel 3.2GHz HT CPU 1GB TwinX Matched Corsair Geforce 6800 Audigy 2 I filed a bug report on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Well to back you on this, I installed it on my spare pc, Celeron 2800 @ 3450, 512mb Generic DDR400, Geforce 6200 256mb, Asus P4PE, Soundmax onboard audio, WD 60gb PATA 7200 8mb cache. It took at a guess, an hour to install, and operating it was at best "reasonable". I let Vista handle its own drivers using the xp compatiblity installer it ran just after install, putting in drivers for the video card. Sound card wasn't operational, it thought I had an onboard Intel codec (Right, But wrong!) And the graphics were "meh" as the drivers were the older ones they had from the XP compatiblity pack - I havent tried using nvidia's beta driver for Vista, yet. Overall I thought it was a bit sluggish - but Im giving them the benefit here, I mean its only Beta 1-2 atm anyway. Although my feeling is we're all going to need 4ghz cpu's with 2 gig of memory, 512mb video cards with 250 gig hard drives to run vista at any sort of decent speed....... Okay exagguration aside, it doesnt seem promising all the same. I'm hoping Microsoft's push for extra speed WILL happen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoochieMamma Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I think it's a known problem with 5219 where it is more sluggish compared to beta 1. All I could say is see in your tak manager and see if anything is eating up you CPU cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted September 30, 2005 Author Administrators Share Posted September 30, 2005 Was Beta 1 quicker for you tho? Thanks for the response (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 30, 2005 I can think of several reasons for this. But the solution to each is "wait for beta 2" =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Max Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 If your problem has to do with DWM, then my only advice would be to stop and restart uxss.exe ! It's kind of weird how it's running so slow on your machine, it's pretty decent and it should be able to run it correctly ... You could also try to play around with the drivers. The only thing that got my NVIDIA Drivers to work was a 77.77 version for XP with EnableMachineCheck set to "0" ... Anyways, good luck to you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 More like the NVidia drivers suck like hell with 5219, because the LDDM changes that happened in that build screw up the drivers. Almost everyone that complained about it had NVidia cards. My system is snappier than with beta 1, and I run an ATI card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemaho Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 Maybe just remember yourself that 5219 is an interim build meaning it is not as polished as Beta 1 was and is just there to show new stuff, and where M$ is heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 I didn't notice too much speed trouble, and I even ran it in VMware. Felt a little more sluggish than Beta 1, but I expected that due to me using Beta 1 "live". - P4 2.6 GHz - 512 MB RAM of 1 GB dedicated to VMware (sorry, don't remember clocking, it's the regular speed for my CPU though) - GF 6600 GT - SB Audigy LS However, it doesn't use my actual vid card, but a virtual one being pretty basic, although moderately 2D accelerated when using the VMware Tools. So the reason I wasn't noticing anything special could either be because I was expecting slowness but it was actually slower than it should've been, or that it's driver related and didn't affect me because I was using mostly VMware emulated stuff that may not have been affected. I obviously didn't use DWM, just the pseudo-Glass UI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalMosher Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 I used Vista Beta 1 (5112) and it worked perfectly on my system: Athlon 64 3000+ s754 AsRock K8 Combo-Z 512Mb DDR RAM Geforce 4 Ti4200 64Mb occasionally it would slow down but i assumed it was my graphics card as i need an upgrade anyway, however, upon installing Vista 5219 it installed the x64 version and not the 32-bit as i would prefer and its unbelivably slow, i will have to get a 32-bit installation sorted and see if the speed is any faster! Regards MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts