Just got Vista. It's slow to play videos

Dell / Dimension c521
June 2, 2009 at 19:49:24
Specs: Microsoft Windows Vista Business, 2.004 GHz / 1470 MB
Hello. I got a Dell Dimension C521. I just installed Windows Vista on a new hardrive. Overall it seems a little sluggish but the main problem I have is when I watch streaming videos from sites like Hulu or AOL video. These videos always stutter as fi the system is struggling to play them.

On XP with this same computer I never had these problems unless I had many other activities going on at once. Any ideas on why this may be?

Also, I have notice that the text and icons in my web browsers seem far smaller than what I had in XP. I have tried changing teh screen resolution and the DPI font size but neither of those seem to pose the proper solution's. Are there any other ways I can make my windows bigger? Text, icons, and all?


See More: Just got Vista. Its slow to play videos

Report •


#1
June 2, 2009 at 20:36:46
Heh, that's Vista for you. I had that problem too when I installed Vista on my PC with 2 gigs of RAM. I really haven't found a way around that except to go back to XP, or upgrade to Windows 7 when it's released. I tried the RC version of 7 and while it's alot like Vista, it seems a lot faster than Vista.

As for the text and image problem in your web browser, which web browser do you use? If you're using Firefox or IE, try this: Go to View>Zoom>Zoom In. If you're using Opera or Safari, the process should be about the same.

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#2
June 3, 2009 at 14:00:09
I agree, it is much slower in almost all cases to XP. Windows 7 still can't compete with XP.

"Best Practices", Event viewer, host file, perfmon, antivirus, anti-spyware, Live CD's, backups, are in my top 10


Report •

#3
June 3, 2009 at 15:14:35
Ok after some struggle I just did a clean install. Now I am happy to have XP back and the text and eveytihing. There are two issues however. I installed service pack 3 and some drives but I notice my web browsing seems really slow. Will that clear up over time? Is that just because I just re-installed this?

Also, I had to make partition space that was less than 130 gigs. Now my hard rive says I only have 100 gigs when really this is a 500 gig hard rive. How can I get those gigs back? Thanks again for the info!


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
June 3, 2009 at 15:23:57
Of course Windows XP is going to be a little bit faster in performance then Windows 7. Windows XP was designed around 9 year old computers. You really can't compare Windows 7 to Windows XP in that department considering Windows 7 requires obv more system resources then Windows XP ever did due to the fact that Windows XP was designed around much slower computers. But with that being said Windows 7 is better then Windows Vista in many areas, which puts it inbetween Windows XP and Windows Vista in performance. So while Windows 7 will never be able to beat Windows XP in overall performance it's close to matching Windows XP performances overall. Which is very impressive considering it's 8 years newer then Windows XP.

Iron Sharpens Iron.


Report •

#5
June 3, 2009 at 18:48:25
I agree with Cobra.

"Also, I had to make partition space that was less than 130 gigs."

The problem with that is that you installed Windows XP using a CD that didn't have any service packs embedded on it. The original version of XP can only see up to 127GB-130GB of hard drive space. There are 2 ways to remedy this. The first way is to slipstream SP3 onto another CD using the XP disc you have, and then reinstalling Windows with that new disc. Click here for how to do that. Your second option is to use a program such as EaseUs Partition Manager to create another partition out of the remaining ~365GB and then merge that partition with the current one already on your system.

"...but I notice my web browsing seems really slow."

How slow? Is there another computer on your network hogging bandwidth? The internet is always the fastest for me after Windows reinstallation.

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#6
June 3, 2009 at 19:01:33
The slow thing is resolved. I went to dell.com and downloaded a bunch of drivers. Now everything seems normal. I also went and made a new partition through windows. I have never done this before.

Can I run my machine with two partitions and disc spaces without any problems? If I save some files on one as opposed to the other can I still access them and use them like normal? Would I be better off merging the partition into one big one?


Report •

#7
June 3, 2009 at 19:57:00
Either way you want to do it. Some others here on CN like OtheHill suggest creating one partition for the OS and another one for files, but for me I don't care either way.

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#8
June 3, 2009 at 20:39:28
Alright nice. I just wanted to make sure that doing this wouldn't inconvenience or hinder me in anyway. I kind of like the idea of having to separate drive files. thanks again for the great and speedy advice! I'm learning alot due to my misfortunes.

Report •

#9
June 3, 2009 at 21:04:43
You're very welcome.

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#10
June 3, 2009 at 21:31:39
I've mentioned this a few times now & I'll state it again: Vista is NOT for everyone; same thing with Windows 7.

Heck, even XP wasn't isn't for everyone, as there are folks still happily running Windows 9x on their productivity machine(s) because they're simply not ready nor prepared for the code shift. Sadly, I'm acquainted with two or three individuals that fit that profile to a tee. They are content with the expansive world of 9x & have no need nor desire for a machine that offered more ... pretty scary if you ask me, but I'm ok with their logical reasoning. Moreover, I have long since quit helping them fix their machines, because "upgrading" seem to always find its way into the discussion & it isn't an option, which in my opinion made my support withdrawal decision a win-win for all :-)

What's the point to all this? Truth be told, XP is in the PAST -- no matter how good it WAS & how religiously people want to latch on to it for years to come -- it is NOT the FUTURE. Now, regardless of the subtle or dramatic positive/negative differences between Vista & Windows 7, it is a bit of a stretch to strongly claim that XP is BETTER OVERALL than these two heavyweights are or ever will be ... the insinuation is arguably beyond ridiculous that it is borderline laughable.

BTW, Sisko, what is the actual specs of this machine & what OS came preloaded on it - Vista Basic, HP, Business or XP? I seem kinda lost on that one. Your OP indicates you loaded Vista on it & in the same vein suggests that you had XP on the same machine (perhaps at some point) before you loaded Vista on there & possibly removed it before finally going back to XP ... which is which?

At any rate, your choppy playback might be codec or driver related, but it's tough to say since you didn't seem to troubleshoot the issue at length. Reloading the OS on a machine might solve most software issues short-term, but it is a band-aid fix for something that goes a little deep in nearly every situation. And without a clear attempt at unraveling the issue at hand & isolating the cause, you lose whatever potential you may have at understanding the problem ... but hey, if reloading works for you, I guess that's good enough for the folks likely to help you in terms of time & energy saved on your issue.

But make no mistake about one thing: This is 2009 & XP is NOT the better best OS, overall, among the three.

Jabbering Idiots: Everywhere You Look!


Report •

#11
June 3, 2009 at 21:52:17
"Now, regardless of the subtle or dramatic positive/negative differences between Vista & Windows 7, it is a bit of a stretch to strongly claim that XP is BETTER OVERALL than these two heavyweights are or ever will be ... the insinuation is arguably beyond ridiculous that it is borderline laughable."

I strongly disagree. I hardly find it laughable. Which one will you find that is faster, XP, Vista, or 7? Ummm, I think you'll find that XP is faster, which to me is better. Can Windows Vista or 7 with all of its features fit into 3GB? No, but XP does, which, to me is still better.

Why wouldn't XP be the best OS overall? After all, it loads way faster than Vista or 7, it only takes 3 to 4 GB of space after an install and the entire OS is faster. What more could you do with 7 or Vista that you can't do in XP?

I think it's a matter of opinion. I think XP is the best M$ OS ever, while you may think it's Vista or 7, and the other users you mentioned favor Windows 9x.

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#12
June 3, 2009 at 22:10:58
Using the speed & size logic, it can be conclusively argued that DOS is actually the best OS overall: It loads tons faster than XP & the footprint is by far smaller.

Jabbering Idiots: Everywhere You Look!


Report •

#13
June 3, 2009 at 22:35:30
"Using the speed & size logic, it can be conclusively argued that DOS is actually the best OS overall"
I agree I had Lotus 123 spreadsheet booting of a 360kb floppy disk in a few seconds using 128kb of ram and still had room to save files on the same disk.
It was very fast, but I wouldn't want to use it now, nor would it work with anything I have now.
Time will soon come when there will be no XP drivers for new hardware.

Report •

#14
June 3, 2009 at 23:14:19
My PC came loaded with XP when I bought it 3 years ago. I had purchased Vista through my college about 9 months ago because I could get it dirt cheap and I was looking forward to upgrading. Because of my limited HD space I never installed Vista.

Last week my hardrive died and I needed to get a new one. Since I was starting over and got a much larger HDD (500 gigs) I decided to finally put on vista. Besides the text problem and the poor video play back I enjoyed it. I figured that my machine wasn't powerful enough to run Vista smoothly so I decided to go back.

In the near future I plan to install Vista again after my computer is better equipped and I can find some way to handle this text/size issue. It really bugged the hell out of me.


Report •

#15
June 3, 2009 at 23:22:11
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

"Using the speed & size logic, it can be conclusively argued that DOS is actually the best OS overall: It loads tons faster than XP & the footprint is by far smaller."

That's right. But I'm not talking about DOS. I'm talking about XP vs. Vista/7. I think a fast OS would be better than a slower one that took up more room on the hard drive, especially when I'm in a hurry and the faster one did just as much as the slower one.

You never answered my question on how Vista/7 is better than XP. If you're going to mention security, I think SP3 and my firewalls take care of that pretty well.

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#16
June 4, 2009 at 10:46:45
Plurium interrogationum - eh? Nice try!

For me to answer your question; you need to answer mine, which is: Are you still beating your wife? Y/N

Jabbering Idiots: Everywhere You Look!


Report •

#17
June 4, 2009 at 13:03:59
I'd never beat my wife. What does that have to do with which version of Windows is better?

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#18
June 4, 2009 at 14:45:28
I EXPECT things to improve. Not get slower like I do.


MS ought to take notice of Fedora's boot time improvement and overall speed improvements.

"Best Practices", Event viewer, host file, perfmon, antivirus, anti-spyware, Live CD's, backups, are in my top 10


Report •

#19
June 4, 2009 at 14:56:52
Rayburn,

You should understand that Sabertooth is a fan boy and probably a paid MS plant.

He was bragging on Vista long after almost everyone else in the world knew that Vista was basically a bust.

So don't worry too much about what he says.

A man can be happy with any woman as long as he does not love her.
> - Oscar Wilde


Report •

#20
June 4, 2009 at 16:50:29
I don't agree with most things he says so it doesn't really bother me anyway. I think he's trying to impress people with his fancy lingo too. ;)

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#21
June 4, 2009 at 20:24:15
XP as-is is pretty good, but it was & is a bust if you exclude the numerous fixes implemented in the service packs released for the OS over the years. And it is this selective amnesia in some XP users that leaves me scratching my head when I see folks blaming just about everything on Vista, regardless of the type of problem at hand. But, ironically, the same bullsh!t was thrown around about XP when the OS debut years ago ... it's bloated ... klunky & slow & pretty much crap when compared to Win2K.

In fact, most IT environments did not even give it a serious consideration, as they preferred rather to stick with Win2K. A report from mid-2005 even showed that Win2K remained the de facto OS on nearly half of corporate desktops back then. So, again, nice try with the XP is simply perfect rhetoric. It might work on the uninformed sheeps out there, but you ain't fooling me. Trust me, a LOT of M$' time & resources went into making XP as popular as it is today - it simply did not happen overnight.

Admittedly, Vista debuted with it's own set of weaknesses, just like XP did. Unfortunately, the gap between Windows 7 & Vista isn't the same as the one between XP & Vista, thus making the backlash against Vista much more pronounced. And might I add that, contrary to your unfounded claim: the security level on a machine running XP w/ SP3 does not compare to what is implemented in Windows 7 or Vista sans SP.

I usually try not to dignify you with a direct response, because your arguments are usually based on flawed logic & aren't typically well articulated. But if you care to know, I'm glad you do not agree with me on most things: Quite frankly, if you did, I'd be mostly embarrassed.

Jabbering Idiots: Everywhere You Look!


Report •

#22
June 4, 2009 at 22:33:27
You always seem to twist everything I say.

I will agree that Windows XP without service packs really isn't all that good, but slap SP2 or SP3 on it, and I'll take that over Vista any day. Besides, XP will do anything Vista will do, surf the web, check e-mail, burn DVDs, do programming, etc.. You always scurry around that part of the story.

"....your arguments are usually based on flawed logic & aren't typically well articulated."

Well I feel the same about your arguments too, regardless of how fancy you try to word things. :D Truth be known, I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just giving my opinion as nice as I know how.

I think if someone's opinion disagrees with another's, that person that disagrees is usually considered wrong and mistaken, which is probably why you think my arguments are based on flawed logic.

WinSimple Software
CompTIA A+ Certified


Report •

#23
June 9, 2009 at 01:30:50
I think it's safe to say that Windows 7 will not be suitable for pc's 4 years old or older or for first gen netbooks or ultra budget netbooks. The system performance for these computers simply can't match Windows 7 system requirments to run Windows 7 smoothly. I mean, Windows 7 is an improvment to Windows Vista but it still pretty much requires the same hardware requirments as Vista did to run smoothly.

Iron Sharpens Iron.


Report •


Ask Question