A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Slow XP?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old January 7th 18, 02:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,843
Default Slow XP?

KenK wrote:
Shadow wrote in
:

On 2 Jan 2018 16:39:39 GMT, KenK wrote:


I have an old Compaq Presario 5000 running XP I got as a gift. It did
not include the XP install disk.


Specs ?

Download Speccy portable

https://www.piriform.com/speccy/builds

And tell us what it says.
RAM could be anything from 64MB to 1GB, CPU from a 600 Celeron
to a 1.6 Pentium ....
Video will also impact performance.
[]'s


My Computer sez:

Internal C - 133G
Internal D - 17G
Extenal G - 1 T

Oddly, My Computer in this system only provides drive info. System in
Control Panel sez:

Speed 1.59 GHz
512 MB RAM
XP Home Version 2002


I think if you added another 512 MB you'd be fine even with XP (with a 1.6
GHz CPU), and wouldn't have to go to Linux, unless you really wanted to (but
why?). I also found it curious that D: was only 17GB. I wonder why it's
that low (or maybe its just the partition size, and not a separate HD)?


Ads
  #17  
Old January 7th 18, 05:14 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,819
Default Slow XP?

Bill in Co wrote:
KenK wrote:
Shadow wrote in
:

On 2 Jan 2018 16:39:39 GMT, KenK wrote:

I have an old Compaq Presario 5000 running XP I got as a gift. It did
not include the XP install disk.
Specs ?

Download Speccy portable

https://www.piriform.com/speccy/builds

And tell us what it says.
RAM could be anything from 64MB to 1GB, CPU from a 600 Celeron
to a 1.6 Pentium ....
Video will also impact performance.
[]'s

My Computer sez:

Internal C - 133G
Internal D - 17G
Extenal G - 1 T

Oddly, My Computer in this system only provides drive info. System in
Control Panel sez:

Speed 1.59 GHz
512 MB RAM
XP Home Version 2002


I think if you added another 512 MB you'd be fine even with XP (with a 1.6
GHz CPU), and wouldn't have to go to Linux, unless you really wanted to (but
why?). I also found it curious that D: was only 17GB. I wonder why it's
that low (or maybe its just the partition size, and not a separate HD)?


C: and D: could be sharing a 160GB IDE drive (GiB versus GB etc).

When a person makes a selection like that, they may be attempting
to avoid the "137GB address rollover problem" on WinXP Gold and
so on. We went from 28 bit LBA to 48 bit LBA sometime around that
time. I went through that on Win2K SP2 and "carefully" selected
partition sizes for a whole year, without corrupting anything,
until it came time to update to SP4+Rollup1Ver2. Back in that
era, if you partitioned the entire 160GB drive as C: and it "spanned"
the magic 137GB dividing line, one write past the 137GB mark
on the large partition, and it would corrupt. And potentially
not be recoverable either. A partition can sit on either side of
the line, but it's not a good idea for a partition to straddle
the line. For partitions fully above the line, the OS knows it's
not supposed to touch them (Win2K SP2 wouldn't make a partition out
there, if you asked it to).

So that's why there's a lonesome 17GB partition sitting there.
It doesn't want any parts of its anatomy sliced off by the
28 bit LBA.

(The proposal to move from 28 bit to 48 bit...)

https://web.archive.org/web/20041024...l/e00101r6.pdf

Now, if you use a modern enough SP of Win2K or WinXP, you
no longer have to worry about that. If you installed WinXP SP3
from a CD you purchased last week, you can make the partitions
any size you want, including making joking references to
the (old) 28 bit limit.

Paul
  #18  
Old January 7th 18, 09:41 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,179
Default Slow XP?

On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:55:41 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

KenK wrote:
Shadow wrote in
:

On 2 Jan 2018 16:39:39 GMT, KenK wrote:


I have an old Compaq Presario 5000 running XP I got as a gift. It did
not include the XP install disk.

Specs ?

Download Speccy portable

https://www.piriform.com/speccy/builds

And tell us what it says.
RAM could be anything from 64MB to 1GB, CPU from a 600 Celeron
to a 1.6 Pentium ....
Video will also impact performance.
[]'s


My Computer sez:

Internal C - 133G
Internal D - 17G
Extenal G - 1 T

Oddly, My Computer in this system only provides drive info. System in
Control Panel sez:

Speed 1.59 GHz
512 MB RAM
XP Home Version 2002


I think if you added another 512 MB you'd be fine even with XP (with a 1.6
GHz CPU), and wouldn't have to go to Linux, unless you really wanted to (but
why?). I also found it curious that D: was only 17GB. I wonder why it's
that low (or maybe its just the partition size, and not a separate HD)?


If he adds 512 MB it would describe my PC.
Dual booting XP and Devuan ....
No, it's not slow.
OTOH the OP's HD is probably PATA and video on-board ? That
would slow things down ....
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #19  
Old January 7th 18, 10:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,819
Default Slow XP?

Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:55:41 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

KenK wrote:
Shadow wrote in
:

On 2 Jan 2018 16:39:39 GMT, KenK wrote:

I have an old Compaq Presario 5000 running XP I got as a gift. It did
not include the XP install disk.
Specs ?

Download Speccy portable

https://www.piriform.com/speccy/builds

And tell us what it says.
RAM could be anything from 64MB to 1GB, CPU from a 600 Celeron
to a 1.6 Pentium ....
Video will also impact performance.
[]'s
My Computer sez:

Internal C - 133G
Internal D - 17G
Extenal G - 1 T

Oddly, My Computer in this system only provides drive info. System in
Control Panel sez:

Speed 1.59 GHz
512 MB RAM
XP Home Version 2002

I think if you added another 512 MB you'd be fine even with XP (with a 1.6
GHz CPU), and wouldn't have to go to Linux, unless you really wanted to (but
why?). I also found it curious that D: was only 17GB. I wonder why it's
that low (or maybe its just the partition size, and not a separate HD)?


If he adds 512 MB it would describe my PC.
Dual booting XP and Devuan ....
No, it's not slow.
OTOH the OP's HD is probably PATA and video on-board ? That
would slow things down ....
[]'s


If the motherboard has AGP, you can add a video card.

However, the market doesn't have a lot of AGP cards for sale.

For a while, they were using PCI Express GPUs and gluing Rialto to them,
and making an AGP card. This required a custom driver, and a side effect,
was you didn't get a lot of driver releases to choose from. Both NVidia
and ATI ran out of their "glue" chip, so they could no longer make hybrid
video cards.

That leaves products such as the NVidia 6200, which was one of their last
chips with native interfaces (no glue needed). But the price of these has
shot up a lot, so it's best to go looking locally for a surplus one.

https://www.amazon.com/ECS-nVidia-Ge.../dp/B003JBHLQI

The best primer on mix-n-match AGP is here. At least you'll see some
product numbers, even if the list isn't complete (you won't see an
HD3450 AGP hybrid here with a Rialto). *If you're new to AGP, start here*

http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

*******

The x1950 in the list, was available mainly as a PCI Express.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages...-review,1.html

This is the AGP version. The Rialto is on the back - the giveaway
is the "pink goo" around it :-) That's how you know it's a Rialto.
A custom driver is likely to be used with this. The PCI Express
one would use a "standard" driver, but of course the PCI
Express one wouldn't fit in KenKs computer. These are fun to
look at, like a muscle car you can't afford.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...pgrade/?page=4

So if you did manage to find a hybrid card, the (missing) entry
on Playtool would make it similar to the x1950 entry.

Paul
  #20  
Old January 7th 18, 10:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Slow XP?

In message , KenK
writes:
Paul wrote in news
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'

[]
Here's a simple place to start.

http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

[]
Is the graph a nice curve, like the promotional picture

[]
The curve from the HD Tune is very jagged, far up and down close spaced
excursions, not wide smooth steps as it should be, Yellow dots very
scattered. So HD is shot. Now to decide if system is worth putting in a
new HD. No XP install disk so will only be able to run Linux, etc.

[]
If it's working, however slowly, you don't need an XP install disc to
save it with a new HD, only imaging software (Macrium 5 - or, probably,
later - will do fine). [Assuming you've got somewhere you can put the
image, of course, such as an external HD, and something to read the
Macrium boot CD you make.] Whether worth doing is up to you.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.