What can make a 2.4GHz run like a 486?

The answer would be XP SP2!
Seriously, I just got a new cheapo hp computer from wal-mart, right? And even though I've used every trick I know of (turn off all effects, use the 'classic' windows style instead of the playskool style) the version of XP home runs like shit on it.

A great example of this is when shutting down GTA 3, the computer routinely slows to a crawl, and whatever windows I have open are painfully, slowly re-drawn.

It will take in the neighborhoood of fifteen to twenty seconds for everything to re-draw itself.

I've tried replacing the video card (with an nvidia one), installing windows 2000 isn't an option...so has anyone else had to deal with speed issues on windows? Any suggestions ("omfgbbq run linux!!!1one" isn't on the table, neither is *BSD) on what I can do to make my 2.9GHz respond like a machine which is >99mhz?

>>1 btw, it's xp home running SP2, and as far as I can tell, I can't simply un-install SP2.

>>1 Could you tell me why is Linux not a good solution to you? I have a 450MHz and absolutely no problem to play games. You didn't explained why you "can't" uninstall XP.

>>1 How much memory does it have?  The behavior you're describing is exactly what I'd expect from trying to run Windows XP in 128MB of memory, regardless of CPU speed (I bet you've got a Celeron, though, and Celerons are lame even at 2+ GHz).  Go up to at least 512MB.  1GB won't hurt, either.  See if that helps.

Also, what nVidia card have you tried?  I'd not expect an old TNT2 or GF2-MX to perform significantly better than the crappy integrated graphics on the motherboard.  And does the motherboard have an AGP or PCI-X slot, or do you have to use a PCI video card whose performance is cut off at the knees by the slow PCI bus?

>>4
Probably 256mb. My mom bought one of those PCs.

"Probably"? Meaning you don't know? Look, cheapo supermarket computers are cheap for a reason; they're no fucking good. They're put together with the cheapest possible components and sold on their MHz figures rather than their actual performance. Why is 2000 not an option? It would probably solve a lot of your problems; most of the functionality of XP, equally (or more) stable, and less of the memory-hogging crap (yes, even compared to XP's classic theme).

>>6 I've tried it. I installed 2000 on this machine and I had no audio, since I don't have a cd-rom with the drivers, that leaves me SOL. Another point is that after I run windows update, I would be stuck at the same point (with the equivalent of SP2) anyway; so it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

>>3 I use some ameteur 3d programs (daz3d, bryce) which don't run on Linux; so that makes Linux not a good choice either. I'd also like to run the games I bought when I bought the computer. They won't run on Linux.

>>5 I have 256 megs of ram.

>>4 The nVidia card I've tried is an XFX/Geforce with 64 megs of ram. It's from 2002, so that should be newer than the TNT2; or would that be the same as the GF2-MX? From what I'm reading, it looks like I'm screwed by the fact I am using a Celeron, when I can afford to, I'll just get more RAM.

Add more memory, first and foremost.  Go up to 512MB or a full gig.  Then look into video cards.  The nVidia chipsets go something like this, though I'm not 100% sure of the dates:

1998 Riva, usually with 8 or 16MB
1999 TNT, then TNT2, with 16MB or 32MB
2000 GeForce, usually with 32MB
2001 GeForce2, usually with 32MB or sometimes 64MB
2002 GeForce3 (usually with 64MB or occasionally 128MB), GeForce2-MX (cheap, low-performance version of GeForce2 usually with 32MB)
2003 GeForce4 (with 64MB or more)
2004-present GeForce FX, GeForce 5000 series, GeForce 6000 series (with 64MB or more, up to 256MB)

You can find a used GeForce3 AGP card for around $50 if you look around online and it'll still get the job done.  And you can get a gig of PC3200 DDR memory (normally PC3200 is what they put in an all-integrated cheap Celeron box but I can't be 100% sure without either reading the documentation or opening up the case to look) for under 90 bucks, delivered.  Likewise, you can get a GeForceFX 5600 AGP card with 256MB of memory for under $90 delivered if you shop around, or a Radeon 9600 XT for around $130, either of which is quite adequate for gaming.

Oh, does this system you have, have a CD burner?  If you want to put Win2K on it, just find the drivers for the hardware online and burn them to CD before you wipe the hard drive and install Win2K, then install the drivers from the CD you burned.  Easy, right?

Frankly, you don't need 2k or anything like that. Windows XP is made to be run with a minimum of 256MB of RAM. Note, I said windows XP, not windows XP with anything else.
The reason your computer crawls so much after exiting GTA 3 is because it is reading all of the information about the windows on the screen from your page file into your RAM, and freeing that space in the page file.

I would say that upgrading your computer to 512 MB will add an exponential performance increase, but an upgrade to a gig of RAM will likely even alleviate that crawl after exiting GTA3.

Either way, despite the lack of quality if most items you find in the lower-end computers they sell at retail scores, with a little bit of money put into them, you can get a pretty decent machine.

>>3
Not everyone feels like learning a new operating system and compiling a new kernel. The odds of me wanting to do all that work for a self-proclaimed cheapo HP system are little to none. Especially with the crappy driver support HP gives even on windows.

>>9 That makes sense. Is there any filesystem tweaks I can run for windows to make the filesystem faster? Under Linux you run hdparm -d <device> to enable DMA mode, and under NetBSD you enable softdeps to enable speedups (and journaling)...is there any equivalent to that under XP?

I think Windows XP is set to use DMA if it's avaliable. You could always check though. You do that by going to the Device Manager (Right click "My Computer", then "Manage" and go to "Device manager"), it should be under the Advanced tab of the IDE controller properties.

>>3
linux is shit, really, as a desktop environment. and for games.

>>12

lots of people do all there work on linux just fine. I think you are complaining about xwindows and the windows manager or whatever, not the actual OS. You are right about games though.

>>12 Linux is just fine as a multimedia desktop; I can play videos, surf the web and play cds and mp3s...the same as XP. The only thing I personally miss is the games and the graphics programs I listed.

Just one question to XP users: do you have Windows' source code and can you study it in order to understand how an OS works inside?

>>12 Computers are NOT made to play stupid games. I use Linux to write code everyday and I have all the tools I need. If you want to play, just by yourself a game console, the GameCube is a very good one.

>>15 Y Halo Thar RMS!!!
>>16 Y HALO THAR ANDY TANENBAUM!!!111

>>15
Why the fuck would anyone want to study and understand how their OS works?

Why the fuck not?  Intellectual curiosity is a powerful motivator, for a lot of us.  Computers can be a hobby, not just a tool.

>>17 moron.

>>18 Why the fuck would you want to use your brain? At least, I know that I'm using mine, most people don't.

>>20
This is not the 1980's, and computers are no longer limited to just a few CS majors. Since the sarcasm of my post obviously eluded you let me state things more clearly:

An interest in computer internals -- or even computer programming -- is not required to own or run a computer. Nor does it have to be.

The whole "omg you don't have teh sauce for XP!!!111" is a lame, crappy troll which should only be responded to with flame of equal lameness ... a flame such as >>17

>>21
Where did you saw "omg you don't have teh sauce for XP!!!111" here? WindowsXP is very good if you restrain yourself to games and Office stuff. If you want to get seriously involved in CS, you have to see outside of the Microsoft world and Minix is a very good way to entertain yourself.

The ONLY solution to >>1 is to either buy another more powerful computer or get a game console. If you want more and XP is not what you need anymore, get another OS (for x86 here).

>>22

Who said they want to get "seriously" involved in CS? I (the poster of >>1) didn't.

However, that doesn't mean that I don't want to use my computer for rendering graphics (on an ameteur level -- using daz3d and bryce) or for playing with the source to NetBSD in bochs/vmware/qemu.

CS isn't the only reason to have a powerful computer, and hasn't been since the dot-com boom, if not before. Nor is it the *only* serious use for computers, either (movie and audio editing also come to mind, tho I do niether).

As far as getting a game console goes -- why would I want to? that's assuming I'm so hardcore that I want to plop down $150/system Plus >$80/games for something I'm only going to use for a couple hours after work? That makes no practical sense for those of us who have a budget we have to keep ourselves to.

You are probably right about the solution with regards to the hardware; however I disagree with the statement that changing from XP is what you do if you "want more". My 7 years using free unices have shown me that someone who is a home user (such as myself) actually gets *less* (less games, less graphics programs, less office suites, etc).

As much as I'd like to have the source code for XP to see the internals, as it's over 32k lines of code, I dunno if I'd want to learn it all.

Frankly, I think the reasons to have windows closed-source far outweigh the pros of having it open source.

Can you imagine the living HELL it would be having to help people who "lol tried to recompile mai kernel32 to go fastar but i think i fuked up lololo u help plz/1" ?

Anyways, I assume >>1 has already turned off system restore, as that will slow the computer down a lot, disabled startup programs he doesn't need through the system registry, and gotten rid of the miscellaneous fadein/outs XP likes to leave as a default setting that just love to waste CPU cycles. Other than that, I still think getting another 256 meg stick will show a major increase in performance without being too pricy. :P

On all the other comments, not even going to go there. I just reccomend not trying to convert people to another operating system unless you want to help them, and their family, to understand it.

>>24 two out of three aren't bad. ;) I didn't know about turning off system restore; the first thing I do on *any* XP system is turn off the fade in/fade out visual effects crud. I'll poke around and see if I can find my mcaffee utils and attack the registry. Thank you. *starts saving pennies for a 256 meg stick*

It's kind of pathetic that we need 512MB of RAM just for the OS to run nicely. :'(

>>24
32k lines of code for XP? more like 100 million lines of code. Wasn't the archive at least 10Gbytes big?

Ok, I solved the entire problem by nuking XP home, and installing 2000 (after finding where to get the drivers for my sound card). I'm steering clear of SP4 though. o_O

>>1

I know! I know! Have a fucktard browse the intarweb with Internet Explorer for a week.

By the way, Windows XP isn't as much of a hog as everyone makes it out to be. Windows XP Home that ships with HP/Gateway/Dell/Whatever-The-Fuck computers is. A clean version of XP, either Home or Professional, purchased legally or just torrented, will run very smoothly on 256mb memory... Until you do something stupid like load the thing up with spyware or some shit.

Being someone who received XP Pro on a laptop from HP, let me be the first to say it ain't so. Yes, it's usable, but there's a lot of disk activity too.

XP is a fucking hog, even if you kill most of the useless services and eyecandy. It's not Hell, but it sure ain't Heaven.

I've come across plenty of laptops that are good enough spec, but have a really shitty install of XP from the factory, clogged up with all kinds of unnecessary crap, and even de-activating most of it doesn't help. I did a clean install of XP Pro on my HP laptop and it runs like a dream.

You can get XP to run like 2000 (which is, after, the core of XP), but why bother if you have the option of simply _installing 2000_?

Running 2000 the only feature I honestly miss is the zip files as folders feature, but I'm coping without it fairly well.

Try to locate a 'vtec inside' sticker and replace the stock intel whatever sticker on the front of your box. You should notice a major fps boost at around 3000 cpu cycles per second and a much louder revving from the back of your case generally.

>>34
But only when you say the words "VTEC JUST KICKED IN YO."

"make a 2.4GHz" "make my 2.9GHz respond"

ZOMG, windows error!

MY solution!! NIX!!! IM SERIOUS Running enlightenment http://enlightenment.org/ only using about 60 megs of ram!

USE LINUX U FGOT

what cracks me up is how most gamer retards only focus on clock speeds

dude its 5ghz! so what.

what matters more is how much is processed per cycle, not how fast the cycles are only

this shows itself when architectures differ, its fine to compare absolute cycle speeds when you are comparing the same types of architectures but otherwise its simplistic foolery

ANY number you want to measure something as complex as a computer is, is gay.

OMG my PC is 23740 megahetrz!!111lolol

>>39

why don't they just make up something like amount processed per unit time.

What the fuck? This thread has been [I]dead[/] for almost 3/4 of a year. Good job, buddy!

>>1
whatever windows I have open are painfully, slowly re-drawn.
You shouldn't have other applications running in the background when playing newer games. You don't want background applications, nor you want system tray bullshit or Internet Explorer-installed malware.

P.S.: Speed is not measured in megahertzzlolol

>>41

How do you define amount processed?  Instructions per cycle?  Which instructions?  In what order?  How frequently are you flushing the pipe?

Use average values?  Average for what?  Games?  Office applications?  Scientific/mathematical simulations?

Average those together, you say?  What percentage of each? 

The point is that >>40 has it right.  There's no practical way to use a single measure as a universal concept of computer performance/throughput.

MIPS

this really needs a threadstop

Bogomips are more fun than plain old boring mips.

Is there any filesystem tweaks I can run for windows to make the filesystem faster? Under Linux you run hdparm -d <device> to enable DMA mode, and under NetBSD you enable softdeps to enable speedups (and journaling)...is there any equivalent to that under XP?

Windows will use the fastes DMA mode available automatically. Check your cables and BIOS configuration. Windows has a journaling filesystem (NTFS5).


Just one question to XP users: do you have Windows' source code and can you study it in order to understand how an OS works inside?

Hay RMS. Do you have to? What does this do for you? Do you really need to read the source code to understand how the OS works and develop for it?

If you unreligiously think you need to read the source code, get ReactOS, which implements a Win32-compatible system with fair success, from which you can learn.


Computers are NOT made to play stupid games.
Computers are made for anything you fucktard.


I'm steering clear of SP4 though. o_O
Why? SP3 has some bugs you definitely want fixed. Some modern chipset drivers need SP4 to be stable.


>>29
>>40
Total winners

>>43
Ok, how do you measure performance then? What do you use for benchmarks?

>>9
I'm sick of this "just get more ram!" bullshit. My 286 did almost as much functionality-wise as my current multi-ghz machine. Yeah, really. Sure, there was no multi-tasking, but I did the mostly the same things as I do today.
Hello, fuckers, just because you can eat ram doesn't mean you should. It costs money and also reduces the number of programs you can run.
I can see it now: in another ten years programs will have minimum footprint of 1GB, but they'll just do more of the same

>>50
Well, just use DOS 5.0 again. No one is stopping you.

My friend, I have a rapidshare link to an amazing copy of XP which has many patches to speed shit up.
XP Platinum SP2 is its name.

>>50
why'd you resurrect this 2 year old topic?

>>53
because you are a stupid annoying dick man

god fucking damn dont revive dead threads just let it sie