Ken wrote:
KenK wrote:
I have an old Compaq Presario 5000 running XP I got as a gift. It did not
include the XP install disk.
This system is extremely slow. I DLed and printed several web sites'
suggestions to speed up XP with no results. I'm thinking about installing
Ubuntu Linux as dual-boot as I can't reinstall XP.
To determine whether the problem is the XP OS or the hardware I'd like
any suggestions on something I can run on it as a test to see if it
operates at a normal speed. If so, it's XP, if not I can abandon the
computer; it's the hardware and I have no idea how to fix it - probably
not worth the expense and time for this very old computer.
I ran an equally old copy of Spinrite to see if the HD was ok and as I
recall it took several days to cycle. I don't recall how long it usually
takes but I suspect that was VERY slow, indicating a hardware problem.
TIA
https://www.cnet.com/products/compaq...b-10-gb/specs/
If your computer matches the specs above, no wonder it is slow. About
the only thing I can think of that MIGHT help, is more RAM and a larger
HD. Other than that, it may not be worth messing with.
WIMs BIOS shows there were several different models in the 5000 series,
so knowing the "sub-model", like 5000T or 5321 would help. There
should be a label or a serial number of some sort on it, with
more information as to the exact model. Look for a sticker or a plate
on the back.
https://www.wimsbios.com/biosupdates/compaq.jsp
It's worth upgrading the RAM... if you have the RAM sitting around.
I found some of the RAM from a couple of machines could be
shared here, so if I needed to run a "max RAM" test, I could
grab sticks out of one, to put into another.
If you have 512MB installed, that allows around three programs
to be open at once. It's a little tight that way, but usable.
If you drop down to smaller amounts, yes, that'll make it slower.
The machine had different motherboards, depending on that model
number, and knowing more about that, tells you what will fit
and so on.
If you adamantly refuse to open the case (and some old cases had
pretty cranky packaging so I wouldn't blame you), you can try
disabling "full screen graphics" in the BIOS when the machine
starts, and have it show text. At one time, there would be
a "BIOS string". Pushing the Pause/Break key just after the
BIOS string appears, but before the machine "takes off and boots",
you would write down that string and use it as additional evidence.
When you see this, the "splash screen", this is the option you
want to turn off, to see the text that is underneath.
https://support.hp.com/doc-images/74/c00109516.jpg
Some of the Compaqs, they seemed to have some scheme where
a portion of the BIOS was on the hard drive, rather than in
Flash on the motherboard. Like, take a look at the corny
looking screen shots here. I can't tell what's hiding under
this one.
https://www.computerforum.com/thread...series.217435/
It might or might not have a setup screen like this.
https://support.hp.com/doc-images/139/c00216897.jpg
*******
One problem with a machine that vintage is:
1) Won't boot from a USB stick.
2) Will boot a CD-R. Won't read a CDRW (laser not strong enough).
And if you replace the optical drive with a DVD drive,
the BIOS doesn't actually know how to boot from a DVD.
I couldn't believe it, when I took some old stock I had here,
a spare motherboard that had never been used, and it wouldn't
even blink the light on the IDE DVD drive I gave it. To run
Linux, I had to install the target OS while the hard drive was
on a "better machine", then walk the drive over... and it booted
off the hard drive OK. Linux can be moved from one machine to
another.
So while it might not have seemed like it at the time, these
things can be a wee bit crippled on "boot-ology".
And that gets us to the topic of Linux.
Ubuntu comes on a DVD or can be placed on a USB stick. "double boo" :-)
That's for the modern stuff. Modern Ubuntu needs a lot more RAM
now. Maybe 1.5GB for a hard drive install, would be a nice
number. And the Xorg I've seen on some distros, has discarded
support for a few of the older graphics cards.
For lesser hardware, we look to Puppy. Now, when I
tried Puppy on an old machine, it was a perfect match.
Kernel was 2.4 or 2.6 or so. It had *all* the drivers (because
it takes a conservative approach on video, and the video
driver is a type that works with *everything*). It uses the
video card as a "frame buffer" with zero acceleration. That
is an aid to compatibility, but not performance. The desktop
then should not use fancy animation, and Puppy avoids that.
Now, the newer version of Puppy, is called FatDog64 (a separate distro).
It runs on my newest machine, and is a 64-bit OS. Whereas the original
Puppy had *no* drivers for my new computer, and would barely
boot, FatDog64 is a perfect fit. And had drivers in-box. The
kernel in FatDog64 might have been 3.1 or so. Modern kernels
are 4.1 or 4.4 or so.
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=puppy
One benefit of Puppy, is it should fit on a CD. If you have
a really old CD drive, one that doesn't read CDRW, you can use
a CD-R (burn once disc) and that might work. The CDRW is harder
for the laser to pick out, on the older drives. I have quite
a few older CD drives here, which is why my "floater IDE DVD" drive
gets to live in different PCs when called on. I can't afford
to put modern drives in every old clunker I've got :-)
Where would the fun be in that. Some day, they'll be
collector items. Maybe. Hoping.
I have an 845 motherboard here, so I can kinda simulate
some of this stuff. If needed. But it's not an 845G with
the built-in graphics. Mine has a separate video card.
A weak video card.
If you can get CPUZ to run, it will give more info
on what's inside the computer.
https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html
If the newest version won't work, the very bottom
of that page has slightly older versions.
And archive.org could find even older stuff, if it's
really needed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040401...d.com/cpuz.php
Paul