I have a new Dell laptop with Windows Vista. I'm not too impressed. When the laptop boots up, then windows is eating up my memory: 850 MB out of 1 GB ram gone and everything seems to be a bit sluggish. When Vista installed the latest update, my sound was gone completely. I tried Dell support who in the end recommended to restore my laptop to factory standard which i did. Updated again and guess what? Right, no sound. So at this point I'm quite fed up. My friend is telling me to install Ubuntu but I don't like Linux, I prefer Windows XP which i have on my old Laptop.

My question is: can i install my old Windows XP and register it with Microsoft instead of Vista?

EULA usually states that XP lives and dies on the PC/Laptop, especilly if it is a name brand, HP, IBM, Gateway OEM install....

You need to buy a Full Version of XP and before installing need to wipe the drive with KillDisk, bear in mind it may void any support you get from DELL!

Yes but make sure you download all the 3rd party XP drivers first from the vendors website like sound cards, video cards, eithernet, chipset, Then just install XP and install all of those drivers after that.

"Windows Me II aka Windows Vista."

You might try asking Dell if they will swap you XP for your Vista.

Bryan

The other questions you raised have been addressed, but if you do want help with Vista, here are some things that may help you.

"When the laptop boots up, then windows is eating up my memory: 850 MB out of 1 GB ram gone and everything seems to be a bit sluggish."

Couple of things to keep in mind. Some of the increased RAM usage is because there is more code Vista runs. If you have a sidebar running with numerous gadgets for example, that's something XP didn't do, so you're doing more in Vista in that scenario, and you can always turn off the sidebar. As with any OS, turn off the things that you don't need for better performance if that's your goal.

Also, Vista uses more memory by design. It tracks what apps you run and when, precaching program files that you use on certain days and times.

When you say it's sluggish, is it just after a boot?

For example, in my experience on the same hardware, same machine in fact (I dual boot), Vista boots faster than XP does. However, once booted in, programs run a bit slower than XP does at first. As time goes on, most of my apps actually begin to run faster in Vista as it gets the cache built compared to XP.

More information about Superfetch:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/ar...

The important thing to remember whether or not you like the resulting performance of Vista is that increased RAM utilization is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is not necessarily the reason why your performance isn't what you want.

"Updated again and guess what? Right, no sound."

I have seen some sound drivers when updated mute the main volume or key volume selections on install. Did Dell walk you through checking that?

Also, not specific to XP or Vista, but it's usually better to get drivers directly from the manufacturer when you can, not from Windows Update. With Dells, better to get them from Dell.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

"My question is: can i install my old Windows XP and register it with Microsoft instead of Vista?

Yes you can, insofar as all of your components are compatible with XP & the drivers are accessible.

Thank you all for your replies, very much appreciated.

I found all XP drivers for my Laptop on Dell's support page. I'm after installing XP Pro. It updated and activated itself without a glitch. My Laptop is flying it. What a difference!

I was on to Dell support and asking them about replacing Vista with XP. The agent said they would, but there is a fee involved, because XP wasn't an option when I bought the laptop (from what I understand it is now).

And no, the sound was not muted, it went just dead. No, wasn't a driver update, it was a Windows update that killed it, twice. I am using 3D modeling software and also work simultaneously with several presentations, some of them quite huge. So I really prefer XP which now leaves me 80% of memory for my applications rather than a modest 15%.

Glad to hear you are back in business Karla.

I actually pointed out the causality of your "not so palatable" experience with Vista in another thread. Unfortunately I can't link to it at this time because the applicable post has been expunged by the staff here.

I attributed problems like yours to the many flavors of Vista & the inherent weakness in folks relying on the M$ disclosed "minimum hardware requirements" to run Vista in general.

The best way of staying ahead of the curve when upgrading to a newer version of Windows is to anticipate the need for substantial hardware scaling because the newer version will in virtually all cases obsolesce contemporary configurations & hoping for an exception to that rule is a recipe for dissatisfaction.

1GB of RAM is the defacto now with even a showroom install of Vista. If you are planning on accomplishing anything that requires a modicum of expediency you better load up the machine with at least 2GB & seeing that you are running some 3D modeling software you would have needed to load that thing with much more than 2GB of RAM for optimum performance in Vista.

Even though this is sorta like an after the fact medication, at least if you decide to switch back to Vista so as to maintain your software warranty with Dell - you know what to do to get the most out of your Vista installation.

Good luck!

At the risk of getting my post deleted again for bashing Vista, my thoughts very much parallel that of Sabertooth. In brief, Vista isn't yet ready for the mainstream.

i_XpUser

Just to point out a few things here.

We don't know what has caused this issue. It may very well have been the patch (we don't even know which patch actually caused the issue to surface), bad drivers for the sound card that makes it stop functioning once the patch was installed, if the user tried to update her sound drivers after the patch which could very well have fixed the issue, if some other program with a programming flaw that is not part of Vista caused the issue to happen such as a bad codec, etc. There are many reasons why this could have happened that may have had nothing to do with Vista.

The vast majority of Vista users don't have this problem. Based on this, claims like "Vista isn't yet ready for the mainstream" are questionable at best.

http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/...

http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/...

http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/...

http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/...

(I stopped looking after that.)

I don't think those threads prove XP isn't ready for the mainstream either.

There is nothing about what I said above that is blindly advocating Vista. All I'm saying is let's stop the editorializing and help people, and that goes for me, too.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12...

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

The concept that it is good to have free RAM is flawed. On any OS RAM is there to be used.

I'm no Vista expert but even back on W98SE the system would grab as much RAM as it needed for good performance then release it if it was required for programs. I can't imagine Vista is unable to do this when necessary.

DerekW

The thing about Vista is it performs qualitatively differently, and the old ways of judging performance very often don't apply anymore.

With the aggressive caching behaviors of Vista in Superfetch, it is completely invalid to judge how efficient the OS is based on free memory available, as you're pointing out. Free RAM sitting around not being used does no app any good, aside from reduce the time it takes to remove data from RAM and replace it with the data that needs to be worked with.

The advantage of Superfetch is that because it is intelligent about what it pre-caches judging from your computing usages and patterns, the majority of the time in most applications, it does end up saving memory and disk i/o compared to XP for most users.

In other words, it does more good than bad more of the time.

That bugs people very often because they're not used to it. You also will see people using traditional forms of "benchmarking" that don't apply.

Case in point - I've seen sites that benchmark Vista compared to XP by doing a fresh install of Vista, boot it up, run through a set of applications, and then shut it down. They then do XP the same way. If you understand SuperFetch, you would know that's not going to give you valid results. How could Vista have learned what your usage tendencies are in that scenario?

People also tend to notice performance of applications starting up, and when you first get going in it, not if it's improving in performance over time. If for example you open an app at a day and time that outside the ordinary, with Superfetch this is obviously going to cause the app to run slower than in XP as the cache gets swapped out. However, once that happens, Vista would then catch up in performance, but those few extra seconds are what the user remembers, and therefore often has a sour taste in their mouth.

People also tend to be bothered far more by bouts of poor performance than they are pleased with better performance.

Hypothetically, if 2/3 of launching apps open faster in Vista by let's say a factor of 5 seconds at the cost of that one instance it takes 15 seconds to open, where as in XP it only took 10 seconds every time an app is opened, a user is more likely to remember that one time it was slower even though the math clearly shows Vista in that scenario is a better performer.

XP = 10 + 10 + 10 = 30
Vista = 5 + 5 + 15 = 25 seconds

Honestly, I did the same thing.

When I first installed Vista, I felt disappointed. It was sluggish. My apps seemed to take longer to start. Superfetch began learning my usage tendencies; I stuck with Vista, all the while I didn't notice Vista was becoming increasingly faster.

When I finally booted back into XP after days of using Vista, it was definitely a bewildering moment for me. XP was now slower than Vista for everyday apps! At first, I thought ridiculously that somehow Vista had done something to my XP install, despite the fact I had the two on completely separate hard drives.

I didn't put it together until I read in depth about Superfetch, and did an experiment on my wife's machine, which I setup like mine with independent hard drives in dual boot manipulating which OS I booted into by changing the boot priority in the BIOS.

XP hadn't been slowing down; Vista obviously had been speeding up!

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

"The concept that it is good to have free RAM is flawed. On any OS RAM is there to be used"

Well, try running a *real* Vista version on a machine with only 512MB of RAM & try to play GRAW or try working on a couple of large 3D modeling files & report back with your findings.

It is not a secret that one of the cheapest & fastest means of speeding up a computer is by adding more memory especially in situations where a system is in dire need of those resources. Even when a system is not in critical need of RAM, the additional RAM buffer will help optimize disk i/o by reducing unnecessary HDD paging & swapping.

I think I know where you are going with your line of thought, but the problem with that assertion is how to universally define & quantify what will consequently be deemed as "free" RAM - when no two systems are configured & deployed in identical environments. Even Windows 9X needed a conservative amount of RAM to run although it may not be no where near what is typical with NT Kernel & upward versions of Windows.

heropsycho2177 - Re #11

Thanks for your detailed explanation about the workings of Vista - very readable and crystal clear. It was an education for me and most welcome, especially having not even experienced XP's more basic Prefetch for very long.

Hankering after free RAM never made much sense to me and it seems that, generally speaking, this is still the case.

DerekW

Sabertooth - Re #12

No, I am not saying for a minute that one shouldn't have a decent size RAM. Indeed, even on older systems extra RAM would get gobbled up as soon as it was installed (which often seemed to unduly worry people).

What I am saying is that it is wrong to think that using it is in some way bad. It is installed in order for it to be used, whether by the system or programs, rather than sit around for some rainy day.

The poster was complaining that "windows is eating up my memory". Well so it should if it's going to perform decently. That is the point I was trying to make. I fully appreciate the need for RAM and the reasoning behind it.

DerekW

"Well, try running a *real* Vista version on a machine with only 512MB of RAM & try to play GRAW or try working on a couple of large 3D modeling files & report back with your findings."

That's a bad idea whether it's Vista or XP.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

"The poster was complaining that "windows is eating up my memory". Well so it should if it's going to perform decently. That is the point I was trying to make. I fully appreciate the need for RAM and the reasoning behind it"

Are you therefore suggesting XP is not performing decently since it isn't devouring as much magnitude of RAM at idle? I am of the opinion that the OP's memory concern stems not so much from the consumption quantity but reserve index & it does make sense. I am not sure I'd be happy too if 85% of my RAM is tied up right at boot regardless of the prevailing OS.

On the other hand though, the 85% claim just doesn't seem right & normally this would have implied an exaggeration (haven't ruled that out). But then again, it was a Vista install based on a Dell factory image - so that might give credence to the plausibility of such an occurence.

For instance, on this Vista (Ultimate) machine, I have had the "Multi Meter (S)" gadget since it was released by SFKilla (this is not the dual core or quad core version) in addition to a couple of other teenie sidebar gadgets, and at idle the system typically hovers at 450MB which is close to half of what the OP has claimed in her earlier input. Who knows ..... maybe just running something like the infamous Dell De-crapifier could have helped her Vista experience if the program was Vista compatible - too late now anyway.

"Are you therefore suggesting XP is not performing decently since it isn't devouring as much magnitude of RAM at idle?"

I wouldn't say that, but I'd also say that unused RAM is inefficient if the RAM can be used in a manner that yields higher system performance.

The point here is that available RAM is not indicative of a better or worse performance, despite conventional wisdom that states otherwise.

And actually, what the original poster said seems more indicative of Vista in general as far as RAM consumption. Even now with an IM client, one Firefox window, and Outlook open, I'm using 914M of RAM, although I do have 2GB of RAM in my machine. My father's machine has 1GB, and it was using about 900M. Both systems perform fine.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

"And actually, what the original poster said seems more indicative of Vista in general as far as RAM consumption. Even now with an IM client, one Firefox window, and Outlook open, I'm using 914M of RAM, although I do have 2GB of RAM in my machine."

Give or take that the number you posted isn't from an idle state - your RAM utilization is still in the sub 50% while mine is in the sub 60% range - still a far cry though from the 85% - 90% utilization that you said is the norm with Vista.

In this situation where your machine & mine seem to be the exception to that phenomenon & good or bad as that may seem since the unused RAM could very well be used in a manner that yields higher system performance.

Do you by any chance know why Vista isn't doing that on both our machines? Especially since our machines are on either extremes of the 1GB threshold. You've got 2GB & I have 768MB.

"Give or take that the number you posted isn't from an idle state - your RAM utilization is still in the sub 50% while mine is in the sub 60% range - still a far cry though from the 85% - 90% utilization that you said is the norm with Vista."

That's why I provided the example of my father's machine which has 1GB of RAM using 900M of RAM, which is roughly 90%.

Do you have SuperFetch disabled? It can be disabled using the Services MMC. That would be the most logical reason I can think of.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Nope - SuperFetch is enabled :-(

My brother is running Vista with 512M of RAM, I'll check how his machine runs the next time I'm talking to him.

(FYI, yes, it's kinda slow, but it's not much worse than XP for him.)

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Sabertooth

"Are you therefore suggesting XP is not performing decently since it isn't devouring as much magnitude of RAM at idle?".

For the second time in this post you are putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything of the sort, nor was I making a comparison between XP and Vista.

I was simply making the general point (whatever OS) that RAM is there to be used in order for the system to perform decently and folk shouldn't necessarily be expecting unused RAM. I've seen this expectation on these forums (particularly when adding extra RAM) since 1999 and will always refute it. When you add RAM the OS will take what it needs, releasing it if there is a demand from programs for further RAM.

Moving now to the point you made, in the same way that XP requires more RAM than W98SE it does not surprise me that Vista needs more than XP. It is a well publicised fact that Vista requires a higher order of hardware, in the same way as you couldn't put W98SE on a 486 with 8MB of RAM and expect any sort of performance.

Like it or not this has always been the case with the evolution of MS OS's. As it happens, for time being, I prefer to soldier on with XP for this and other reasons.

DerekW

It's also worth mentioning that the increase of system requirements from 64M/128M to 512M of RAM from XP to Vista is pretty reasonable considering that XP was released five years ago.

To put that in historical perspective...

Windows 95 min required RAM = 8M

Windows 2000 min required RAM = 64M/128M depending on which Microsoft documentation you read.

Even if you take the 64M number, that's an 800% increase in even the minimum. XP to Vista is also 800% (if you actually think XP can run with 64M).

Something else I find interesting is I hear people complain Microsoft is lying about the minimum requirements for Vista as if this lying is a new phenomenon. Honestly, it actually is realistic to run Vista on 512M of RAM, although it will be pretty darn slow, it's still usable.

Try running Windows 95 on 8M of RAM! LOL!

Or 2000 or XP on 64M...or even 128M!

The minimum specs for Vista are more honest than they were for prior OS's, although that honesty is still a little suspect.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

In case anyone consults this thread, I checked my brother's Vista machine running 512M of RAM. His ram usage is 500.

97.6% consumption.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html