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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Blake" wrote in message ... In , There's always going to be some bottleneck, obviously. But given the choice of underpowered cpu with lots of ram, or a fast processor with not enough ram, the one with more ram will win the race. Yes. It's almost criminal that there are new system being sold with only 128Mb of ram for xp, for example. Yes. On the other hand, the ram issue is more easily remedied. And yes again. I don't think we disagree at all. Once again, my point is in the nature of a clarification; it has to do with someone who might be misled into thinking that if he has a choice between buying a computer with more RAM or with a faster processor, the right choice is getting more RAM. That's *sometimes* correct, but not necessarily. It depends on how much RAM the base computer has. If it's 512MB, that's more than enough for most people, and it would be better to get a faster processor than to add RAM above that (unless he runs memory hungry apps, such as PhotoShop). -- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup I'm not disagreeing, just muttering. :-) I seldom disagree with anything you say. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
If the original poster is still following -- one problem that often causes XP to run slow on older PCs, besides a lack of memory, is that your hard disk may not be using DMA. (Direct Memory Access.) It almost certainly is DMA-capable, but if Windows is not aware of it, it won't even try to use it. If upgrading to at least 256 megs of ram does not help, go into control panel/system/device manager and click on the "+" besides your IDE controllers. Click on primary IDE channel and check to see if DMA is enabled. (You may have to go through another tab to get to this setting, sorry I can't remember and I'm using a Win98 machine here at the moment.) If not try to enable DMA and if it seems possible then reboot and go back in to make sure the setting "took." If you can't enable DMA then XP probably was installed with the HAL for "standard PC" rather than "ACPI." If that's the case I suggest finding a forum for your brand of PC or motherboard, to get instructions on getting into the BIOS and enabling ACPI there. ACPI -must- be enabled in BIOS -before- installing Windows XP. If not, the only way to get DMA working is to set the BIOS correctly, then do a repair install from your Windows CD. The good folks here can help you with that. One further warning -- some motherboards of your vintage do not implement ACPI well enough to be recognized as such by XP even though they are set up correctly prior to installation. If that is the case then your computer/motherboard forum will likely know about it. Your choice in that case is to accept slow performance or revert to an earlier version of Windows. -- DaveM59 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DaveM59's Profile: http://www.msusenet.com/member.php?userid=2000 View this thread: http://www.msusenet.com/t-1871020622 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the suggestions, folks. The only thing more amazing than my
ignorance in this area is the expertise others possess, especially with the proliferation in this area. Many thanks. - Bill "DaveM59" wrote: If the original poster is still following -- one problem that often causes XP to run slow on older PCs, besides a lack of memory, is that your hard disk may not be using DMA. (Direct Memory Access.) It almost certainly is DMA-capable, but if Windows is not aware of it, it won't even try to use it. If upgrading to at least 256 megs of ram does not help, go into control panel/system/device manager and click on the "+" besides your IDE controllers. Click on primary IDE channel and check to see if DMA is enabled. (You may have to go through another tab to get to this setting, sorry I can't remember and I'm using a Win98 machine here at the moment.) If not try to enable DMA and if it seems possible then reboot and go back in to make sure the setting "took." If you can't enable DMA then XP probably was installed with the HAL for "standard PC" rather than "ACPI." If that's the case I suggest finding a forum for your brand of PC or motherboard, to get instructions on getting into the BIOS and enabling ACPI there. ACPI -must- be enabled in BIOS -before- installing Windows XP. If not, the only way to get DMA working is to set the BIOS correctly, then do a repair install from your Windows CD. The good folks here can help you with that. One further warning -- some motherboards of your vintage do not implement ACPI well enough to be recognized as such by XP even though they are set up correctly prior to installation. If that is the case then your computer/motherboard forum will likely know about it. Your choice in that case is to accept slow performance or revert to an earlier version of Windows. -- DaveM59 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DaveM59's Profile: http://www.msusenet.com/member.php?userid=2000 View this thread: http://www.msusenet.com/t-1871020622 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In ,
D.Currie typed: "Ken Blake" wrote in message ... In , I don't think we disagree at all. Once again, my point is in the nature of a clarification; it has to do with someone who might be misled into thinking that if he has a choice between buying a computer with more RAM or with a faster processor, the right choice is getting more RAM. That's *sometimes* correct, but not necessarily. It depends on how much RAM the base computer has. If it's 512MB, that's more than enough for most people, and it would be better to get a faster processor than to add RAM above that (unless he runs memory hungry apps, such as PhotoShop). -- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup I'm not disagreeing, just muttering. :-) I seldom disagree with anything you say. Kind words, and thank you. -- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
New installation of Window's xp Home edition. Computer is running
-- I filled this forms already. Richard Dow "Walter" wrote: I use to have Window's ME, I had purchased Window's XP and I had tried to do an upgrade from Window's ME but computer would not allow me to do so. So I did a new installation from Window's xp and now my computer is running really slow at start up, shut down, and even at diferent web sites. Could someone PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS PROBLEM. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
New installation of Window's xp Home edition. Computer is running
-- I filled this forms already. Richard Dow "Walter" wrote: I use to have Window's ME, I had purchased Window's XP and I had tried to do an upgrade from Window's ME but computer would not allow me to do so. So I did a new installation from Window's xp and now my computer is running really slow at start up, shut down, and even at diferent web sites. Could someone PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS PROBLEM. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
New installation of Window's xp Home edition. Computer is runn
-- I filled this forms already. Richard Dow "D.Currie" wrote: I find that ram is vastly more important than CPU speed. One of my computers is an 800Mhz Duron with 512Mb of ram, and it's quite peppy running XP pro. I wouldn't run games on it, but for mundane tasks, it's just fine. "Richard Urban [MVP]" wrote in message ... The operating system is "up and running" so whatever version he got - it installed in a usable form. The computer, upgraded from Windows ME, is likely just under powered for this robust operating system. To the O/P. Does your computer meet, and surpass, the minimum system requirements for CPU and installed RAM? In my opinion, if you don't have at least 256 meg of RAM and a 2 gig CPU you may not be totally happy with the machines performance. 512 meg of RAM is even better. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User Quote from: George Ankner "If you knew as much as you thought you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!" "Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote in message ... Apparently, you purchased the wrong version (OEM, right?) You now need to perform a "clean install". You should have purchased a "Retail Upgrade Version" of Windows XP. Clean Install Windows XP http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html -- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User Microsoft Newsgroups ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Walter" wrote: | I use to have Window's ME, I had purchased Window's XP and I had tried to do | an upgrade from Window's ME but computer would not allow me to do so. So I | did a new installation from Window's xp and now my computer is running really | slow at start up, shut down, and even at diferent web sites. Could someone | PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS PROBLEM. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
New installation of Window's xp Home edition. Computer is runn
Use this big white space to ask your Question
Your partial post makes no sense "Richard Dow" wrote in message ... -- I filled this forms already. Richard Dow "D.Currie" wrote: I find that ram is vastly more important than CPU speed. One of my computers is an 800Mhz Duron with 512Mb of ram, and it's quite peppy running XP pro. I wouldn't run games on it, but for mundane tasks, it's just fine. "Richard Urban [MVP]" wrote in message ... The operating system is "up and running" so whatever version he got - it installed in a usable form. The computer, upgraded from Windows ME, is likely just under powered for this robust operating system. To the O/P. Does your computer meet, and surpass, the minimum system requirements for CPU and installed RAM? In my opinion, if you don't have at least 256 meg of RAM and a 2 gig CPU you may not be totally happy with the machines performance. 512 meg of RAM is even better. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User Quote from: George Ankner "If you knew as much as you thought you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!" "Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote in message ... Apparently, you purchased the wrong version (OEM, right?) You now need to perform a "clean install". You should have purchased a "Retail Upgrade Version" of Windows XP. Clean Install Windows XP http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html -- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User Microsoft Newsgroups ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Walter" wrote: | I use to have Window's ME, I had purchased Window's XP and I had tried to do | an upgrade from Window's ME but computer would not allow me to do so. So I | did a new installation from Window's xp and now my computer is running really | slow at start up, shut down, and even at diferent web sites. Could someone | PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS PROBLEM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
scan for file corruption | ms. greenhorn | New Users to Windows XP | 10 | July 7th 10 08:11 PM |
creating boot disc for windows xp home edition | Big Bearded Buddy | Performance and Maintainance of XP | 28 | September 7th 05 06:56 PM |
Dual Boot Question | Ken Roberts | General XP issues or comments | 21 | July 26th 05 05:59 PM |
Installation of Windows XP Home Edition | Cragburn | General XP issues or comments | 6 | April 2nd 05 11:50 PM |
Differences between XP Home and XP Pro? | KunK | General XP issues or comments | 13 | November 9th 04 05:08 PM |