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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
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 -- I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 11:37:49 -0600, 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. I agree, that is a W/98 machine someone loaded XP on. I bet it moves right along with W/98. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
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 Here's a simple place to start. http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe Download that, install it, then make sure the correct disk drive you want to check is selected in the menu. Then click the "benchmark" button. Is the graph a nice curve, like the promotional picture on the HDTune web site ? The following is a good hard disk drive (blue line). http://www.hdtune.com/images/screenshot.png The yellow dots are seek time, and a bad drive will have "lots of dots floating way high, away from the main body of yellow dots". A few yellow dots outside the main pack, isn't all that bad, but lots of them is a bad sign. There should be a two-to-one ratio between the rate seen at the outer edge of the platter, versus the transfer speed near the hub of the platter. The blue line in the example screenshot, starts at 170 and ends at 85 or so. There is such a thing as a short-stroked drive (I own one), but they're not that common, and they have a different ratio between outside and inside diameters. If the graph is a flat line at 4-5MB/sec, you're stuck in "PIO Mode". This happens when the disk is sick and throwing errors. Windows responds by attempting to reduce the cable transfer rate, in an attempt to reduce the error rate. There is a procedure for correcting PIO Mode and returning to DMA mode. If the hardware problem is still present, the interface will end up in PIO Mode again, within a day or two. While the correction procedure can permanently fix a transient problem, when a drive is sick it will soon return to the "bad setting". This condition is the one that makes the OS slow. ******* Of secondary interest in HDTune, is the Health tab. Some brands of drive, no matter how new and shiny the drive is, the Health display shows two yellow marks. You should ignore those yellow marks. Adherence to S.M.A.R.T standard isn't all that good, and there is a difference between the HDTune analysis and what the disk drive is doing. The main entry to worry about in Health is "Reallocated Sectors". There are plenty of interesting other ones, but that's what I use as the simplest health indicator. The "Benchmark" curve is *the* most sensitive test. You can tell a lot from the curve shape. The "Health" tab is also important, for example, if the Reallocated indicates you're running out of spares. However, I've had pretty sick hard drives, where the Reallocated data column still read "zero", so Health is not my only choice when I use HDTune. I rely on the read benchmark as an early indicator of trouble. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
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' 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 Here's a simple place to start. http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe Download that, install it, then make sure the correct disk drive you want to check is selected in the menu. Then click the "benchmark" button. Is the graph a nice curve, like the promotional picture on the HDTune web site ? The following is a good hard disk drive (blue line). http://www.hdtune.com/images/screenshot.png The yellow dots are seek time, and a bad drive will have "lots of dots floating way high, away from the main body of yellow dots". A few yellow dots outside the main pack, isn't all that bad, but lots of them is a bad sign. There should be a two-to-one ratio between the rate seen at the outer edge of the platter, versus the transfer speed near the hub of the platter. The blue line in the example screenshot, starts at 170 and ends at 85 or so. There is such a thing as a short-stroked drive (I own one), but they're not that common, and they have a different ratio between outside and inside diameters. If the graph is a flat line at 4-5MB/sec, you're stuck in "PIO Mode". This happens when the disk is sick and throwing errors. Windows responds by attempting to reduce the cable transfer rate, in an attempt to reduce the error rate. There is a procedure for correcting PIO Mode and returning to DMA mode. If the hardware problem is still present, the interface will end up in PIO Mode again, within a day or two. While the correction procedure can permanently fix a transient problem, when a drive is sick it will soon return to the "bad setting". This condition is the one that makes the OS slow. ******* Of secondary interest in HDTune, is the Health tab. Some brands of drive, no matter how new and shiny the drive is, the Health display shows two yellow marks. You should ignore those yellow marks. Adherence to S.M.A.R.T standard isn't all that good, and there is a difference between the HDTune analysis and what the disk drive is doing. The main entry to worry about in Health is "Reallocated Sectors". There are plenty of interesting other ones, but that's what I use as the simplest health indicator. The "Benchmark" curve is *the* most sensitive test. You can tell a lot from the curve shape. The "Health" tab is also important, for example, if the Reallocated indicates you're running out of spares. However, I've had pretty sick hard drives, where the Reallocated data column still read "zero", so Health is not my only choice when I use HDTune. I rely on the read benchmark as an early indicator of trouble. Paul 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. Already have Ubuntu Linux on the other Compaq machine. I suspect I'll junk it. However, open to suggestions. -- I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
KenK wrote:
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' 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 Here's a simple place to start. http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe Download that, install it, then make sure the correct disk drive you want to check is selected in the menu. Then click the "benchmark" button. Is the graph a nice curve, like the promotional picture on the HDTune web site ? The following is a good hard disk drive (blue line). http://www.hdtune.com/images/screenshot.png The yellow dots are seek time, and a bad drive will have "lots of dots floating way high, away from the main body of yellow dots". A few yellow dots outside the main pack, isn't all that bad, but lots of them is a bad sign. There should be a two-to-one ratio between the rate seen at the outer edge of the platter, versus the transfer speed near the hub of the platter. The blue line in the example screenshot, starts at 170 and ends at 85 or so. There is such a thing as a short-stroked drive (I own one), but they're not that common, and they have a different ratio between outside and inside diameters. If the graph is a flat line at 4-5MB/sec, you're stuck in "PIO Mode". This happens when the disk is sick and throwing errors. Windows responds by attempting to reduce the cable transfer rate, in an attempt to reduce the error rate. There is a procedure for correcting PIO Mode and returning to DMA mode. If the hardware problem is still present, the interface will end up in PIO Mode again, within a day or two. While the correction procedure can permanently fix a transient problem, when a drive is sick it will soon return to the "bad setting". This condition is the one that makes the OS slow. ******* Of secondary interest in HDTune, is the Health tab. Some brands of drive, no matter how new and shiny the drive is, the Health display shows two yellow marks. You should ignore those yellow marks. Adherence to S.M.A.R.T standard isn't all that good, and there is a difference between the HDTune analysis and what the disk drive is doing. The main entry to worry about in Health is "Reallocated Sectors". There are plenty of interesting other ones, but that's what I use as the simplest health indicator. The "Benchmark" curve is *the* most sensitive test. You can tell a lot from the curve shape. The "Health" tab is also important, for example, if the Reallocated indicates you're running out of spares. However, I've had pretty sick hard drives, where the Reallocated data column still read "zero", so Health is not my only choice when I use HDTune. I rely on the read benchmark as an early indicator of trouble. Paul 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. Already have Ubuntu Linux on the other Compaq machine. I suspect I'll junk it. However, open to suggestions. You need enough RAM for Ubuntu. The page here smacks of elitism and I think the actual RAM minimum is less than the 2GB value listed here. It used to be, that 512MB would have worked. I would guess it would behave with 1GB today, but I haven't done any "squeeze" tests to see when it begs for mercy. When the graphics don't appear, it can be for two reason: No graphics driver or broken driver situation (needs edits of config file), or not enough RAM left to start Xorg. Xorg has automated startup, but it doesn't always parse things properly, and can take a dump on you. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/In...emRequirements Puppy uses less RAM. ******* Given the vintage of the computer, it's also possible there's nothing wrong with the drive, and it was behaving like that years ago too :-) It hadn't occurred to me, but thinking back, my 4GB WDC hard drive could only do reads at something like 5MB/sec. A benchmark curve for it would hardly look impressive. But, it still runs, and probably runs as well as it did in 1999-2000 or so. ******* The Compaq 5000 series had a number of different motherboards, so you'll need to narrow down the hardware information, to see what's possible. I can't really be sure the 5000 series info I'm looking at, is complete in terms of how many different sub-models were made. And what hardware they had. Even if you could get CPUZ running, it would give some idea what hardware was in there, for CPU and RAM. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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)Ar@T+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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
On 2/1/2018 08:39, 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. I'm assuming this an early 2000 model Presario that originally came with XP. Sounds like RAM is being used up and the system is using Virtual Memory. Also, run Task Manager to see if anything is hogging the CPU. Check RAM/Virtual Memory usage at the same time. I had a similar issue trying to restask an old system (Windows 95 originally) for a friend for web browsing, email and word processing. Lack of sufficient RAM was the problem. IIRC it only had 64MB. I max'd it out to 512MB (used sticks off eBay -- $25 total) and gave them a larger, but used hard drive I had laying around (the original one had died), and it worked fine. I wouldn't go with Ubuntu on a system that old. Ubuntu is designed to run on a modern system. Look for a Linux distro designed specifically for old systems. Not all are. VectorLinux comes to mind. Use a lightweight desktop like LXDE or XFCE, or just a window manager. http://distrowatch.org/ lists and has evaluations for just about all the 300+ Linux distributions. Good Luck Stef |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
Il giorno mar 02 gen 2018 05:39:39p, *KenK* ha inviato su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: I have an old Compaq Presario 5000 running XP I got as a gift. It did not include the XP install disk. use produkey by nirsoft to get the serial number, then use any proper xp install disk with that code -- /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=- ............ [ da casa ] ........... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
Ammammata wrote in
.112: Il giorno mar 02 gen 2018 05:39:39p, *KenK* ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: I have an old Compaq Presario 5000 running XP I got as a gift. It did not include the XP install disk. use produkey by nirsoft to get the serial number, then use any proper xp install disk with that code I didn't know you could change the serial number. I thought that was hard- co0ded into the install disc. -- I love a good meal! That's why I don't cook. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
On 4 Jan 2018 18:15:18 GMT, KenK wrote:
I didn't know you could change the serial number. I thought that was hard- co0ded into the install disc. Not really, any code for that version will work, at least these days but if you have an OEM code it will not work on a retail version, Home and Pro are not the same etc. Most Pro codes I have to seem to work on the HP disk I have tho. Dell seems to be the weird one. The HP version will run on a Dell with a HP/Compaq code. It appears MS is not doing any of that hardware matching that was so troublesome in the past. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
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 -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Slow XP?
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 love a good meal! That's why I don't cook. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 That's enough RAM for WinXP. You can keep three programs open with that much. Three older programs. Once Firefox gets on there, that much RAM will handle one tab... maybe. You'll need more than that for Ubuntu. I would think 1GB would be a start (a measurement yesterday showed it idling at around 700MB or so). Ubuntu DE is "molasses slow" unless the video driver helps provide acceleration. I'm working on a little experiment right now to test that. Some of the other distros (Lubuntu or Xubuntu and so on), may use a DE with "less Compiz". At one time, Compiz could be turned off, and Compiz started as an animation system. Without animation, or using a DE that doesn't rely on buttery smooth crap, you could easily use your setup. But Ubuntu itself, burns up a lot of CPU, just when rendering these graphical animations of windows opening and closing. (I have this running on the P4 2.8GHz test machine which is up on deck for another experiment. The P4 machine broke and I got it running again... two dead video cards later. And windows opening and closing, is just as slow as when I run Ubuntu in VPC2007 on this machine.) Compiz can rail the CPU all by itself, and is a pig. Once a "native" video card driver is installed, it can be a bit better, but not by much. For compositing, a general rule of thumb acorss several different OSes, is 128MB to 256MB of video card RAM, makes for good Compositing, which is part of what Compiz does. (Compositing is supposed to allow windows to be moved around the screen with a mouse, with hardly any CPU input - as long as the video card provides the acceleration.) If the video driver is missing in action, things like MESA3D or whatever came after it, use your CPU instead of the video card. And that's where the molasses comes from. In other words, these ideas are predicated on a "minimum hardware configuration" which not all users have access to. Puppy by comparison, will "run on a rock" - any old piece of older crap would do for Puppy. Compiz is just a bad idea. A waste. Which cannot be turned off on modern Ubuntu (dunno why). Puppy should work fine. It doesn't need a lot of RAM. And that's a funny CPU clock rate. The older Intel processors, the EIST would "idle" at 1200MHz and the multiple would go up when the OS "called for more steam". Actually, I do have a P4 which is that slow. It was a Mobile one, which back in those days, used the same socket (S462 or S478). Mine only runs 1.5GHz. So they did make some damn slow processors back then. That mobile wouldn't have Hyperthreading either. CPUZ cab show you more details. https://s17.postimg.org/8c07b8u6n/I_...Geek_Squad.gif To post images to that site, the address today is: https://postimages.org/ Paul |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|