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?

>>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