XP running sloooooowwww

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 9 Jan 2005 9:29 pm

I installed the XP upgrade to my computer last week, I had Win98SE on it and of course when upgraded to XP it still had the FAT32 filing system and everything ran fine.

Since the NTFS filing system has so many advantages I converted the filing system to NTFS and now when accessing the hardrive, it's about like a 133 with 16 megs of RAM, unbelievably slow, which is strange since one of the advantages of NTFS over FAT32 is supposed to be speed. It takes almost 2 minutes just to open Outlook Express completely. This isn't right.

I'm not totally ignorant with computers, during a period when I quit playing music I did tech support for Dell but that was before XP and I'm not too up on XP.

The computer is a Dell Dimension XPS B800 with 128 meg RAM and 40 gig hardrive and 64 meg video RAM. Yes it's old now but has worked fine until the NTFS conversion and it should be more than adequate to run XP. The system tests all show everything working fine, PCtuneup didn't find anything wrong. Turning off the fancy goodies like dialog-box fade-ins etc. makes no difference. The CPU is working fine but since the NTFS conversion it takes forever when accessing the hardrive for program or virtual memory. There's no spyware or adware and I've already defragged the drive.

Anyone out there know what's up with this thing? I'd sure appreciate it.
[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 09 January 2005 at 10:16 PM.]

Everett Cox · Post by **Everett Cox** » 9 Jan 2005 11:40 pm

I'm still runnung Win98SE but couple things come to mind.
1. drive cache. I use Wintune - one of its diagnostics reports cached/uncached drive performance.
2. 'compatability mode'. Maybe you've got some kind of driver problem. With 98 you'd go to control panel/system and open the Performance tab. XP probably has something similar to check.
Good luck --Everett

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 10 Jan 2005 3:54 am

The first thing I see is the amount of RAM. Although Microsoft says 128 MB is minimum requirement, actually 256 MB is "real world" minimum and more is even better. Although Windows XP handles memory and resources better, it is a memory hog. Changing to NTFS shouldn't have affected your overall operation. I have an old Compaq Presario with a 350 Mhz PIII that I've updated. It's s l o w, but I mainly use it for testing, backup, etc so it's not an issue. But I do have the memory maxed out (384 MB). On the Dell user's forum the most often noted item is the amount of memory.

Depending on the CPU and speed, it can be slow, even with more memory. Also, do you have all the Win XP drivers for the various hardware modules? (video, audio, etc). Go to the Dell support site and download any BIOS updates and if they have any Win XP drivers for your model get them, too.

Finally did you do a "clean" install? or just an upgrade over the existing OS installation? A clean install is preferred and the most trouble free.

Lou[NE] · Post by **Lou[NE]** » 10 Jan 2005 11:27 am

I agree with Mr. Stoner, from personal experience. 128mb will let XP run itself, but is not enough to do any useful work. I would increase memory first, and then go from there.

Al Marcus · Post by **Al Marcus** » 10 Jan 2005 1:28 pm

I am not a computer guy, but I found that memory is what makes it run faster as it loads up and doesn't have to access the hard drive as much.

So Jack has the right idea and he should know.

I have 512 mg Ram and XP 80GB drive and I am thinkg of adding another 512mg in memory. All these songs and pictures , etc, might load faster. I hope...al

------------------
My Website..... www.cmedic.net/~almarcus/

Ben Slaughter · Post by **Ben Slaughter** » 10 Jan 2005 1:54 pm

Jim, this may be a silly question since it sounds like you know your way around a bit, but did you format the HD and do a clean install or did you do a "warm" reinstall (leaving '98 and all your files intact)?

I just upgraded from 98 to XP at home, and did a warm install, 'cause I was in a hurry at the time. BIG mistake. There are so many bugs in 98, then with XP on top and all the FAT32/NTFS issues it was a nightmare.

I did a format and clean installiation, and bingo, smooth as glass. Had to back up all my files and reinstall programs, but well worth the time.

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 10 Jan 2005 4:16 pm

Thanks for all the good advice, guys.

I did learn enough from my training with Dell to know my way around a bit and handle most common problems but haven't been able to identify any issues in this box, which is why I gave in and asked for your help.

There are no driver or incompatibility issues I can identify. I think you've hit it on the head with more RAM and a clean install, although when you say 128 megs of RAM is "not enough to do any useful work", I hope you're talking about when running Windows XP, as I and plenty of others have certainly done much "useful work" with much older, slower computers with much less RAM than 128 megs. There are a lot of people nowdays who think if your computer doesn't have a clock speed of 3 ghz and 1024 megs RAM, it's useless... kinda like saying if your car isn't a 200 mph Lamborghini, it's no good....

Remember also that this same box worked great even with XP and its' 128 meg of RAM until I ran the FAT32 to NTFS conversion. That seems to have triggered whatever problem(s) it's having now.

I did a "upgrade" installation and expected that would be sufficient as even at Dell we knew better than to re-install Windows 95 or 98 over itself, we called that a "dirty re-install" and it was NEVER to be done, but installing software upgrades was never an issue.....guess with XP, it is!

Hearing of Ben's similar problems after doing the upgrade installation (thanks a lot, MicroSoft!) I'll back up the hardrive and do a clean install and see if that works better. The upgrade is supposed to not actually go in "on top of Win 98", but it does sound as if a fresh install works better than their "upgrade" process.

Al Marcus, there is a practical limit for how much RAM is going to help you and after that it's just a waste. If you've already got 512 meg of RAM, depending on your CPU speed, bus speed, video card and video RAM, adding more RAM might not do anything for you. Talk to someone knowledgable (and not in a position to sell you anything), give him the specs on your computer and ask him if more than 512 megs RAM is really going to do anything for you before you buy any more.

Thanks again for the help, looks like for this XP I should start pricing RAM and do a clean install. Might just get a newer computer....

[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 10 January 2005 at 04:23 PM.]

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 10 Jan 2005 5:13 pm

For clarification, there are two distinct variants of WinXP install CDs. One permits "upgrading" from a previous Windows version only, and the other can do a clean install of WinXP from a formatted HD.

I didn't see this mentioned, but it definitely places limits on what can be done with the CD that has "Upgrade" printed on it.

Jim Peters · Post by **Jim Peters** » 10 Jan 2005 5:29 pm

You can use the upgrade XP on clean install as long as you have your original windows disk(98 or Me or whatever), During installation, XP will ask you to put your disk in your CD player, it's no big deal. Do a clean install, I have heard of lots of problems the other way. JimP

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 10 Jan 2005 5:37 pm

Hi Dave, how've you been?

My XP installation instructions say it can be used to upgrade win 95, 96, or ME, or as a fresh install on a formatted hardrive. It seems to imply that it should work fine either way... but experience is showing otherwise... I'm starting a new backup and going to format the drive and try it fresh as JimP and Ben advise... will let you know when it's back up..... Tnx again all.

PS BTW this is XP Professional.[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 10 January 2005 at 05:38 PM.]

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 11 Jan 2005 3:30 am

Jim, 128 MB may be sufficient for older DOS based Operating systems, it is not for XP. XP is based on the NT/2000 OS and with it's
different approace to handling/assigning memory and system resoruces more memory is needed. On the Dell users forum there is general agreement that even 256Mb is not enough for "good" operation of XP. Whenever someone makes a post about a "slow computer" the first thing that is recommended, if they have less than 512 Mb on an XP system, is more memory.

XP has specific hardware and software requirements and will even "tax" some older systems that have it installed. I have upgraded several older PIII systems (and that is what I see is in the XPS B800) in the 6 to 800 Mhz range and with at least 384Mb of RAM they seem to run fairly well, considering the CPU capability. None that I've worked on had any issues with NTFS vs FAT32 on the hard drive.

One other issue, along with memory, is the Video card. The Video card can have an overall effect on speed and is one thing to consider for upgrading since you have gone to XP. If you system has an AGP slot, consider a new AGP video card (but make sure it's compatible with your AGP speed). There can be power supply issues with some cards but that is probably more the newer high end cards and you don't need that much capability. Also with the Dell's proprietary (not standard ATX) motherboards, power supplies and cases you are limited on what you can use.

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 11 Jan 2005 11:10 am

Hi, Jim.

Hangin' in there.

<< My XP installation instructions say it can be used to upgrade win 95, 96, or ME, or as a fresh install on a formatted hardrive. It seems to imply that it should work fine either way...

Sounds like it should. I own both kinds of the WinXP install CDs - the "upgrade only" one has "UPGRADE" bolded on the CD itself, so if yours doesn't, you have the full install version.

<< but experience is showing otherwise...

It should've worked OK as an "upgrade". There's something going on there besides just the upgrade, since as you noted earlier, it ran OK till you switched file systems. That has me scratching my head too, because that alone should not have caused it all to go south. I've used NTFS a long time with no problems (with that).

<< I'm starting a new backup and going to format the drive and try it fresh as JimP and Ben advise

We can all agree on that one - it's always better to do that.

Trying not to get too verbose here, because I can't add a lot to what others have said (Jack summed it up pretty well), but I'll just echo that XP brought with it a lot of radical departures from the way all its predecessor OSes did things, and it's VERY cpu, memory, and harware intensive.

We used to have to download and install DirectX to run 3D kinds of things, but it's part of the OS now, and places heavy demands on audio, input, and video sub-systems, which goes right to the AGP comments Jack made.

You may or may not know MS has a published "hardware compatibility list" for XP that shows what they've tested with XP for functionality. A lot of folks had to dump older hardware when they went to XP because it simply would not work with it.

Good luck with the reinstall.

Sure wish you were coming to the Dallas show in March. It would give me a chance to sidetrack you on the way and show me how you do some of that stuff on steel.

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 11 Jan 2005 1:32 pm

My video card is a NVIDIA GeForce Ultra 64, a little old nowdays but still a decent card, it is an AGP card. I've checked the system over and all the hardware is working fine. It just runs the hardrive forever whenever accessing it, and didn't do this until the file conversion. I'm sure more RAM would help everything, but my point is that even with 128 megs it should be doing better than this, as it was before the NTFS file conversion. Something happened in the conversion.

Now I've also discovered that my old version of Adaptec doesn't work in XP and I can't make a backup. I downloaded CDBurner XP Pro 3, a free CD-Burning program like Adaptec's CD Creator, and it seemed to be working fine, until the CD was finished and doesn't read. It just gets better and better, doesn't it? Now I remember why I quit Dell.....this isn't really that much fun.

Gonna try that CDBurner again, hate to lose all my data but if need be...

Yeah Dave, that would be a ball and wish we could make it up there for the show. What with the price of gas and plane tickets these days, can't make it this time. I'm sure you'll have a great time and there'll be plenty of better steelers than me to listen to. You ever get down this way you gotta drop in.

Thanks again for the help guys. I guess I'll have to get a 512 meg stick or RAM in this box asap too, I priced some of the new computers and it's amazing how cheap they are, Dell has one for $500 with 2.8 Ghz CPU and 512 megs RAM, but it has integrated video and sound which I don't like and by the time I pay import tax on it, it would be ridiculous. Guess we're back to a fresh install and adding RAM to this old box. [This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 11 January 2005 at 01:36 PM.]

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 11 Jan 2005 3:26 pm

Jim, you can download a 7 day trial version of Nero. It has almost all the features of the retail version and should allow you to make backup CD's. I'm not sure about the URL but try www.nero.com and see if that gets you to it.

Yes, the old Adaptec Easy CD Creator (v4 and earlier) are not XP compatible. Roxio Easy CD creatror V5 and later are XP compatible. That should have been flagged in the Windows XP Upgrade Advisor, the first thing that runs when you do the XP install. Actually the Upgrade Advisor is very critical to a successful and problem free Windows XP upgrade and any hardware or software issues flagged by the Upgrade Advisor needed to be addressed BEFORE continuing with the upgrade.

The NVIDIA card shouldn't be an issue, but if you haven't done so, go to the NVIDIA site and download the Windows XP updates.

I don't remember if you mentioned it, but if you don't ahve the latest BIOS update from Dell for your PC, get that too. The BIOS update (if one is available) may help the Disk issue.

Jim Phelps · Post by **Jim Phelps** » 11 Jan 2005 3:47 pm

Thanks Jack, really appreciate all the help. For some reason the compatibility advisor didn't flag my Adaptec until I tried to open it and of course I didn't try to open it until I needed it!... oh well. It did flag my DSL software, I re-installed it and it worked fine, still does except for just the hardrive being so slow and hanging up the computer since the cursed file conversion. As soon as I get the backup made I'll start fresh and when that's finished, I'll run it and I might just put the 128 meg RAM from our other computer in with this one and see how it works with 256 M Ram, if the other stick will work in here, havin't been inside it in quite a while and don't remember everything about it. Come to think of it, this model had RAMBUS or some kind of special RAM, probably won't work with another regular RAM stick...shoot. It is a full-size tower though and I'm pretty sure it's all ATX, but I might be wrong about that. Haven't been into computer-teching in a while.....

Thanks again! [This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 11 January 2005 at 03:48 PM.]

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 11 Jan 2005 3:51 pm

Jim,

Sounds like something went wrong with the NTFS conversion, from the way you describe things.

I'll admit I don't have any magic bullets for you, except I'd just like to add to the mix that I carried Roxio Easy CD Creator 5 into my XP experience and had it a long time on my system, because I didn't know any better.

But here's the kicker - I discovered by accident one day that WinXP has CD-burning support built in. I only have XP Home, and even it has it. I uninstalled all that 3rd party burning junk - don't need it. Using XP alone, I'm even burning files to CD-RW discs.

I'm not sure if you're counting on something to do a big turnkey backup or if you just need to transfer a few critical files, but if the latter, and your burner is still functional, XP will do the trick without help from any outside software. If you need any help doing it, just ask here, or email me. Just a thought. Sorry if it's irrelevant.

And, sorry you can't make the show.[This message was edited by Dave Potter on 11 January 2005 at 03:53 PM.]

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 12 Jan 2005 4:51 pm

With XP you can easily monitor how much physical memory you're actually using. Hit Ctrl-Alt-Del and select the "Performance" tab. My experience is that if you simply start up XP with a few tasks, such as Norton AntiVirus installed, and Outlook Express running, you're using about 256MB if you have that much available. If you don't have that much available things will be page-swapped from disk to memory as needed. I think the guys are right that say 256MB is the real minimum requirement, and even then there's going to be lots of swapping.

I ordered this new box with 512MB and then added the 256MB board out of my old one just for good measure.

You can select the "Processes" to see what's running and taking up that memory. The "Applications" tab will show just the user programs you are running.[This message was edited by Ron Page on 12 January 2005 at 04:53 PM.]

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 12 Jan 2005 5:02 pm

<< My experience is that if you simply start up XP with a few tasks, such as Norton AntiVirus installed, and Outlook Express running, you're using about 256MB if you have that much available. If you don't have that much available things will be page-swapped from disk to memory as needed.

I think that's exactly what's happening in Jim's case. He didn't mention running Outlook Express, but obviously, there are some TSRs running, and lack of RAM is causing the excessive HD activity he reports.

<< I ordered this new box with 512MB and then added the 256MB board out of my old one just for good measure.

I do a lot of digital graphics, video and audio editing, etc, as well as, dare I admit it, GAMING

and, although my video card has 256MB onboard, I have 1GB RAM installed as well. XP is happy.[This message was edited by Dave Potter on 12 January 2005 at 05:28 PM.]

Ben Slaughter · Post by **Ben Slaughter** » 12 Jan 2005 5:45 pm

I do quite a bit of recording, full audio and MIDI. I've got 512MB and am in serious need of an upgrade. For $100 I can double it.

Mickey Adams · Post by **Mickey Adams** » 12 Jan 2005 10:44 pm

Slow computerXP- All the software in the world sometimes wont clean the OS. I have some good advice for you:
Always back up your necessary files: If the machine becomes a headache, reformat it and start over with a clean OS. As for the difference between XP upgrades VS full versions, theyre both the same disc, the full versions are on the upgrade disc. As for Microsoft giving you grief about reactivation?....Its not an issue: get a CSR rep on the phone during your activation and tell them your computer HAD to be reformmatted. Unlike some protected programs, windows does not give you a means of "deactivating " an active copy. Face it...you own a defective product with bugs out the wazoo...I do this on a regular basis..with my network machines, recording machines, and my surfers....I will be happy to walk any forum member through the entire process from reformatting, updating, reinstalling new drivers and setting up all peripherals...... a new OS is like a breath of fresh air.....

Jody Carver · Post by **Jody Carver** » 18 Jan 2005 3:50 pm

Hey guys
My monitor was hit by a surge..what is a good replacement for me to consider? Jack?
Everett??

Viewsonic?? anyone? My surge APC didnt do the job.[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 18 January 2005 at 03:53 PM.]

Al Marcus · Post by **Al Marcus** » 18 Jan 2005 9:19 pm

Hi Jody-I am going for one of those new lightweight flat LCD monitors about 17 inch. The prices are getter down pretty good...Good to see you on the Forum again...al

------------------
My Website..... www.cmedic.net/~almarcus/