Horrible Windows Vista download/browsing performance

Visit your Vista systems Network Connections and disable dialup and enable a
Local Area Connection.
Sorry, it's not Vista. It's your settings.
"John Hanley" <jphanley@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:O22D3P35HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Sorry you are having problems. Just as a comparison, my results on that
> bandwidth measurement is 5230.8 Kbps. I am running Vista Home Premium
> with IE7 and Earthlink/Comcast cable modem.
>
> "Tigger" <Tigger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ED7B18A7-CA20-4285-A1D5-39D5B9097ADD@microsoft.com...

>> Like many people I've been stunned by how slow my Vista machine is. I
>> have an
>> emachines 6805 running Windows XP Home, talking to my wireless Dlink
>> router
>> DI-604. When I go to the CNET Bandwidth measurement page, I see about
>> 2000
>> kbps for my Windows XP machine (3 years old, Opteron processor in that
>> thing).
>>
>> The link for the bandwidth tester is
>> http://webservices.cnet.com/Bandwidth/
>>
>> I have Comcast cable by the way.
>>
>> So I try the same thing with my brand-new Lenovo R61 Core 2 Duo 4MB
>> cache, 2
>> GB ram machine... and I get 56.8 kbps!! That's like a dial-up modem. This
>> is
>> PATHETIC! Microsoft you really screwed up. If this isn't fixed in a jiffy
>> this will be my last Windows machine for personal use! I have Windows
>> Vista
>> Basic, and almost everything else is out of the box.
>>
>> I tried futzing around with "netsh interface tcp" with advice found using
>> Google searches, setting auto-tuning to "disabled" and to
>> "highlyrestricted"... no help there. I tried uninstalling Norton/Semantec
>> crapola that came with the machine, and turning off the phishing
>> filter... no
>> help there. But -- and this is the real important point -- ordinary
>> people
>> should NOT have to futz around like this with your flagship Microsoft
>> product. You are BEGGING the world to stop buying your software. I know
>> that's how I feel, really really angry that I've already wasted half a
>> day
>> tweaking a new computer that is basically worthless on arrival.

>

Actually it *is* Vista because the default settings cause horrible
performance. The question is whether the OEM (Lenovo) or Microsoft made it
that way.

It made a huge difference, as it turns out, to go to

Control Panel > Mobile PC > Power Options > Energy Star > Edit Plan Settings

> Change advanced power settings > Wireless Adapter Settings > Power Saving

Mode > Plugged in: MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

(was set to "MAXIMUM POWER SAVING")

Now I have an Intel PW 3945A/B/G wireless network adapter, with the latest
driver installed (after receiving the machine).

Either Intel makes a shitty wireless network adapter that is only capable of
dial-up speeds when trying to save power, or the settings for Windows Vista
for saving power are too aggressive, or both.

Either way, it amounts to a crappy user experience to have to waste an
entire day and a half trying to get my download speeds to be better than
dial-up (Now getting 1600 kbps, which ain't that great...)

This is the kind of stuff that needs to work out of the box, every time.
"Charles W Davis" wrote:

> Visit your Vista systems Network Connections and disable dialup and enable a
> Local Area Connection.
> Sorry, it's not Vista. It's your settings.
> "John Hanley" <jphanley@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:O22D3P35HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > Sorry you are having problems. Just as a comparison, my results on that
> > bandwidth measurement is 5230.8 Kbps. I am running Vista Home Premium
> > with IE7 and Earthlink/Comcast cable modem.
> >
> > "Tigger" <Tigger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:ED7B18A7-CA20-4285-A1D5-39D5B9097ADD@microsoft.com...

> >> Like many people I've been stunned by how slow my Vista machine is. I
> >> have an
> >> emachines 6805 running Windows XP Home, talking to my wireless Dlink
> >> router
> >> DI-604. When I go to the CNET Bandwidth measurement page, I see about
> >> 2000
> >> kbps for my Windows XP machine (3 years old, Opteron processor in that
> >> thing).
> >>
> >> The link for the bandwidth tester is
> >> http://webservices.cnet.com/Bandwidth/
> >>
> >> I have Comcast cable by the way.
> >>
> >> So I try the same thing with my brand-new Lenovo R61 Core 2 Duo 4MB
> >> cache, 2
> >> GB ram machine... and I get 56.8 kbps!! That's like a dial-up modem. This
> >> is
> >> PATHETIC! Microsoft you really screwed up. If this isn't fixed in a jiffy
> >> this will be my last Windows machine for personal use! I have Windows
> >> Vista
> >> Basic, and almost everything else is out of the box.
> >>
> >> I tried futzing around with "netsh interface tcp" with advice found using
> >> Google searches, setting auto-tuning to "disabled" and to
> >> "highlyrestricted"... no help there. I tried uninstalling Norton/Semantec
> >> crapola that came with the machine, and turning off the phishing
> >> filter... no
> >> help there. But -- and this is the real important point -- ordinary
> >> people
> >> should NOT have to futz around like this with your flagship Microsoft
> >> product. You are BEGGING the world to stop buying your software. I know
> >> that's how I feel, really really angry that I've already wasted half a
> >> day
> >> tweaking a new computer that is basically worthless on arrival.

> >

>
>

New computers are worthless upon arrival because of all the "freeware" and
"trial ware" that the manufacturers install upon them.

If you were to get the machine stripped bare of all of this, you would see
what the actual capabilities of your machine (using Vista) are. Then, as you
load each individual item, you would see the impact that it has on the
computer and operating system.

I "always" load clean. The initial boot is fast beyond my expectations. Then
I install my antivirus. System slows down. Then I install some anti-spyware
programs. System slows down more.

After about three hours of installing and rebooting - the initial lightning
bolt now takes 2 1/2 minutes to reach the desktop.

But because your computer came with all of this crapware already installed -
you were not privileged to see the individual slow downs that each
successive application install adds to the boot time.

So, start fresh. Get rid of everything. Install Vista and the necessary
drivers. Then, make an image of your system (you do use TrueImage, don't
you). Install your antivirus of choice. Reboot a couple of times. How is the
boot time? Not happy? Revert back to your image and install a different
antivirus program.

It's all trial and error.

Many have found that there are some antivirus programs that are just more
efficient than others. These include Avast and NOD32.

Most have found that anything from Symantec or McAfee bring your computer to
it's knees. The same goes for anti-spyware programs. Some are good, and slow
the machine. Some are good, and don't slow the machine much at all.

But if you blindly stay with what was delivered on your computer, you will
never know!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)


"Tigger" <Tigger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ED7B18A7-CA20-4285-A1D5-39D5B9097ADD@microsoft.com...

> Like many people I've been stunned by how slow my Vista machine is. I have
> an
> emachines 6805 running Windows XP Home, talking to my wireless Dlink
> router
> DI-604. When I go to the CNET Bandwidth measurement page, I see about 2000
> kbps for my Windows XP machine (3 years old, Opteron processor in that
> thing).
>
> The link for the bandwidth tester is
> http://webservices.cnet.com/Bandwidth/
>
> I have Comcast cable by the way.
>
> So I try the same thing with my brand-new Lenovo R61 Core 2 Duo 4MB cache,
> 2
> GB ram machine... and I get 56.8 kbps!! That's like a dial-up modem. This
> is
> PATHETIC! Microsoft you really screwed up. If this isn't fixed in a jiffy
> this will be my last Windows machine for personal use! I have Windows
> Vista
> Basic, and almost everything else is out of the box.
>
> I tried futzing around with "netsh interface tcp" with advice found using
> Google searches, setting auto-tuning to "disabled" and to
> "highlyrestricted"... no help there. I tried uninstalling Norton/Semantec
> crapola that came with the machine, and turning off the phishing filter...
> no
> help there. But -- and this is the real important point -- ordinary people
> should NOT have to futz around like this with your flagship Microsoft
> product. You are BEGGING the world to stop buying your software. I know
> that's how I feel, really really angry that I've already wasted half a day
> tweaking a new computer that is basically worthless on arrival.

While in general I agree with you about crapware -- Norton/Semantec products
in particular -- in this case it turned out the there is a setting in Windows
Vista for power savings that does not work with the hardware I purchased from
Lenovo. Specifically the Intel wireless adapter Pro Wireless 3945 a/b/g runs
at dialup access speeds if the power savings mode (for the wireless adapter)
is set to save power, which is how it was set by default. Setting that to
"max performance" when the computer is plugged in causes the bandwidth to go
up by a factor of 40 to 50, back to where it should be.

So my problem turned out to be something the OEM (Lenovo) should have
diagnosed and fixed, such that the default settings for this computer would
not require a bunch of exploration.

What added further confusion are all the articles I easily found online that
say the fix for this kind of slowness is "delete Norton", "get rid of
McAfee", set the tcp auto-adjustment to such-and-such, etc, etc... none of
the solutions worked but it takes a huge amount of time to go through them
all. Deleting crapware like Norton does speed the machine up, but in this
case not by a factor of 40. I am glad Norton is gone, nevertheless.

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> New computers are worthless upon arrival because of all the "freeware" and
> "trial ware" that the manufacturers install upon them.
>
> If you were to get the machine stripped bare of all of this, you would see
> what the actual capabilities of your machine (using Vista) are. Then, as you
> load each individual item, you would see the impact that it has on the
> computer and operating system.
>
> I "always" load clean. The initial boot is fast beyond my expectations. Then
> I install my antivirus. System slows down. Then I install some anti-spyware
> programs. System slows down more.
>
> After about three hours of installing and rebooting - the initial lightning
> bolt now takes 2 1/2 minutes to reach the desktop.
>
> But because your computer came with all of this crapware already installed -
> you were not privileged to see the individual slow downs that each
> successive application install adds to the boot time.
>
> So, start fresh. Get rid of everything. Install Vista and the necessary
> drivers. Then, make an image of your system (you do use TrueImage, don't
> you). Install your antivirus of choice. Reboot a couple of times. How is the
> boot time? Not happy? Revert back to your image and install a different
> antivirus program.
>
> It's all trial and error.
>
> Many have found that there are some antivirus programs that are just more
> efficient than others. These include Avast and NOD32.
>
> Most have found that anything from Symantec or McAfee bring your computer to
> it's knees. The same goes for anti-spyware programs. Some are good, and slow
> the machine. Some are good, and don't slow the machine much at all.
>
> But if you blindly stay with what was delivered on your computer, you will
> never know!
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
> "Tigger" <Tigger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ED7B18A7-CA20-4285-A1D5-39D5B9097ADD@microsoft.com...

> > Like many people I've been stunned by how slow my Vista machine is. I have
> > an
> > emachines 6805 running Windows XP Home, talking to my wireless Dlink
> > router
> > DI-604. When I go to the CNET Bandwidth measurement page, I see about 2000
> > kbps for my Windows XP machine (3 years old, Opteron processor in that
> > thing).
> >
> > The link for the bandwidth tester is
> > http://webservices.cnet.com/Bandwidth/
> >
> > I have Comcast cable by the way.
> >
> > So I try the same thing with my brand-new Lenovo R61 Core 2 Duo 4MB cache,
> > 2
> > GB ram machine... and I get 56.8 kbps!! That's like a dial-up modem. This
> > is
> > PATHETIC! Microsoft you really screwed up. If this isn't fixed in a jiffy
> > this will be my last Windows machine for personal use! I have Windows
> > Vista
> > Basic, and almost everything else is out of the box.
> >
> > I tried futzing around with "netsh interface tcp" with advice found using
> > Google searches, setting auto-tuning to "disabled" and to
> > "highlyrestricted"... no help there. I tried uninstalling Norton/Semantec
> > crapola that came with the machine, and turning off the phishing filter...
> > no
> > help there. But -- and this is the real important point -- ordinary people
> > should NOT have to futz around like this with your flagship Microsoft
> > product. You are BEGGING the world to stop buying your software. I know
> > that's how I feel, really really angry that I've already wasted half a day
> > tweaking a new computer that is basically worthless on arrival.

>
>

SPECIFICALLY, for those of you out there who purchase a Lenovo ThinkPad with
Windows Vista and an Intel PW 3945a/b/g wireless adapter:

Go to:
Control Panel > Mobile PC > Power Options > Edit Plan Settings (for Energy
Star plan, which is the default) > Advanced Settings.

Then change:
Wireless Adapter Settings > Power Saving Mode > Plugged in
to "Maximum Performance" from its default value of "Maximum Power Saving".

My bandwidth using the CNET tester was at dialup speeds yesterday. With this
one change it is now up to 2900 kbps. That was way more important than
getting rid of Norton, which you should also do since it is a dog.


"Richard Urban" wrote:

> New computers are worthless upon arrival because of all the "freeware" and
> "trial ware" that the manufacturers install upon them.
>
> If you were to get the machine stripped bare of all of this, you would see
> what the actual capabilities of your machine (using Vista) are. Then, as you
> load each individual item, you would see the impact that it has on the
> computer and operating system.
>
> I "always" load clean. The initial boot is fast beyond my expectations. Then
> I install my antivirus. System slows down. Then I install some anti-spyware
> programs. System slows down more.
>
> After about three hours of installing and rebooting - the initial lightning
> bolt now takes 2 1/2 minutes to reach the desktop.
>
> But because your computer came with all of this crapware already installed -
> you were not privileged to see the individual slow downs that each
> successive application install adds to the boot time.
>
> So, start fresh. Get rid of everything. Install Vista and the necessary
> drivers. Then, make an image of your system (you do use TrueImage, don't
> you). Install your antivirus of choice. Reboot a couple of times. How is the
> boot time? Not happy? Revert back to your image and install a different
> antivirus program.
>
> It's all trial and error.
>
> Many have found that there are some antivirus programs that are just more
> efficient than others. These include Avast and NOD32.
>
> Most have found that anything from Symantec or McAfee bring your computer to
> it's knees. The same goes for anti-spyware programs. Some are good, and slow
> the machine. Some are good, and don't slow the machine much at all.
>
> But if you blindly stay with what was delivered on your computer, you will
> never know!
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
> "Tigger" <Tigger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ED7B18A7-CA20-4285-A1D5-39D5B9097ADD@microsoft.com...

> > Like many people I've been stunned by how slow my Vista machine is. I have
> > an
> > emachines 6805 running Windows XP Home, talking to my wireless Dlink
> > router
> > DI-604. When I go to the CNET Bandwidth measurement page, I see about 2000
> > kbps for my Windows XP machine (3 years old, Opteron processor in that
> > thing).
> >
> > The link for the bandwidth tester is
> > http://webservices.cnet.com/Bandwidth/
> >
> > I have Comcast cable by the way.
> >
> > So I try the same thing with my brand-new Lenovo R61 Core 2 Duo 4MB cache,
> > 2
> > GB ram machine... and I get 56.8 kbps!! That's like a dial-up modem. This
> > is
> > PATHETIC! Microsoft you really screwed up. If this isn't fixed in a jiffy
> > this will be my last Windows machine for personal use! I have Windows
> > Vista
> > Basic, and almost everything else is out of the box.
> >
> > I tried futzing around with "netsh interface tcp" with advice found using
> > Google searches, setting auto-tuning to "disabled" and to
> > "highlyrestricted"... no help there. I tried uninstalling Norton/Semantec
> > crapola that came with the machine, and turning off the phishing filter...
> > no
> > help there. But -- and this is the real important point -- ordinary people
> > should NOT have to futz around like this with your flagship Microsoft
> > product. You are BEGGING the world to stop buying your software. I know
> > that's how I feel, really really angry that I've already wasted half a day
> > tweaking a new computer that is basically worthless on arrival.

>
>

Generally the references you found are correct.
Unfortunately as you just discovered, the number of possible solutions
is countless since the variations of hardware/software are nearly
infinite.
Hopefully someone with your model can learn from your experience.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Tigger" <Tigger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C949709E-361A-4929-AE64-0806DD5D559B@microsoft.com...

> SPECIFICALLY, for those of you out there who purchase a Lenovo
> ThinkPad with
> Windows Vista and an Intel PW 3945a/b/g wireless adapter:
>
> Go to:
> Control Panel > Mobile PC > Power Options > Edit Plan Settings (for
> Energy
> Star plan, which is the default) > Advanced Settings.
>
> Then change:
> Wireless Adapter Settings > Power Saving Mode > Plugged in
> to "Maximum Performance" from its default value of "Maximum Power
> Saving".
>
> My bandwidth using the CNET tester was at dialup speeds yesterday.
> With this
> one change it is now up to 2900 kbps. That was way more important
> than
> getting rid of Norton, which you should also do since it is a dog.

"Tigger" <Tigger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ED7B18A7-CA20-4285-A1D5-39D5B9097ADD@microsoft.com...

> Like many people I've been stunned by how slow my Vista machine is. I have
> an
> emachines 6805 running Windows XP Home, talking to my wireless Dlink
> router
> DI-604. When I go to the CNET Bandwidth measurement page, I see about 2000
> kbps for my Windows XP machine (3 years old, Opteron processor in that
> thing).
>
> The link for the bandwidth tester is
> http://webservices.cnet.com/Bandwidth/
>
> I have Comcast cable by the way.
>
> So I try the same thing with my brand-new Lenovo R61 Core 2 Duo 4MB cache,
> 2
> GB ram machine... and I get 56.8 kbps!! That's like a dial-up modem. This
> is
> PATHETIC! Microsoft you really screwed up. If this isn't fixed in a jiffy
> this will be my last Windows machine for personal use! I have Windows
> Vista
> Basic, and almost everything else is out of the box.
>
> I tried futzing around with "netsh interface tcp" with advice found using
> Google searches, setting auto-tuning to "disabled" and to
> "highlyrestricted"... no help there. I tried uninstalling Norton/Semantec
> crapola that came with the machine, and turning off the phishing filter...
> no
> help there. But -- and this is the real important point -- ordinary people
> should NOT have to futz around like this with your flagship Microsoft
> product. You are BEGGING the world to stop buying your software. I know
> that's how I feel, really really angry that I've already wasted half a day
> tweaking a new computer that is basically worthless on arrival.

I tried that bandwith tester and got terrible results- 1682.7 Kbps. At
http://www.pcpitstop.com/ I got 4556 Kbps and at
http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ I got 4918 Kbps, at
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest I clocked 4556 Kbps. I would not trust
the results at the cnet site!
Bob