Monse, Tell Me Why My Computer Sucks So Bad?

Dr_ShaggyDr_Shaggy Join Date: 2002-09-26 Member: 1340Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Others welcome to help out</div> I did everything he said, separate partition for virtual drive (my second hd is too slow i think), separate partition for os, extra services turned off.... etc etc. I made the big switch from win2k to xp pro, and although it was okay at first, its really falling apart on me here.
Lately my computer is really showing its age, moreso than it ever did on win2k, moreso than it did 3-4 months ago when i switched os. I regularly make use of the registry cleaner, I run ad-aware (although i dont seem to pick up much spyware stuff now that i've been using firebird to browse).
It seems every time my box does a HD access my computer freezes and waits for it. First thing i did was ensure my HD was in DMA mode (dma 100), and it was. I've done experiments, leaving the task manager open to see if the cpu spiked during these freezes (it does not, <10%). I've been playing a bit of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory while waiting for 1.1, and I can really see the trouble there. Any HD access pauses the game, its very annoying.

Heres some specs, i know its not the best computer around, and I will be building a new one around september (hl2), but I used to be more than adequate for what i was doing.

AMD Duron 800
ECS mobo
320 megs sdram 133 (64 + 256)
Maxtor 30GB hd (main drive, partitioned into c (os, ntfs), e (progs, ntfs), and f (swap, fat16)) operates at dma100
Western Digital (?) 6GB hd (just storage, its noticeably slower than the maxtor, ntfs)
nvida geforce 2 ti, overclocked a bit


Please help me, september is so far away.

Comments

  • MonsieurEvilMonsieurEvil Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    edited June 2003
    Well, it might not have been in your best interest to go with XP, to be honest. On older hardware like Duron, Win2000 would probably have been a better choice due to its lower memory use.

    <s>You are tweaked out really well though. Is your page file on the second slower drive or on the primary? It may be that the old maxtor is really starting to breakdown and if your swapfile is on that drive it would explain the longer HD thrashing times.

    If so, try moving your page file back to your 30GB for a while and seeing if things improve. If so, you might want to consider ditching that 6Gb and dropping $50 on a new secondary drive (they are soooooo cheap now it's like getting a free drive). That will put some longer legs on this old pony...</s>

    Nice work though, it's great seeing someone who takes the time to really love and carress their OS <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->

    EDIT: Dang, I'm so tired, I just read that you keep the swap file on the 30GB. Have you tried disabling the 6GB drive for a short time (just unplugging the IDE cable)? It could be causing issues which grind everything to a halt. That combined with XP using a lot more memory could be causing more disk thrashing (although with more than 256MB it should not be excessive ordinarily).
  • Just_AyaneJust_Ayane Join Date: 2002-11-06 Member: 7317Members
    320 megs sdram 133 (64 + 256)

    XP takes 256mb to run...................you'de do better with win98SE who takes 128mb, unless you buy 2 strips of 512mb.
  • DOOManiacDOOManiac Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
    Listen to Monse, not Just Ayane. XP only uses about 96MB ram, which isn't much considering 2000 took 75MB, according to the Task Manager system stats thingy. Don't go back to Windows 98. Monse has already previously shown (with that little thing called "evidence" too!) that for newer systems, newer OSes (2000, XP) are faster than the 9X based ones.

    Did you install XP from a fresh format? Or did you foolishly "upgrade" from your 2000 installation? Really, if you turn off the bells and whistles of XP (including the theme support, and then it looks just like windows 2000) it really shouldn't be that much slower than win2000...

    But of course, Monse is really the most knowledgeable person on the forums when it comes to operating system/maintainence stuff like this, so really just listen to whatever he has to say. Except that "DOOM is a clueless nub" part, he doesn't know what he's talkin about then. ;)
  • Just_AyaneJust_Ayane Join Date: 2002-11-06 Member: 7317Members
    edited June 2003
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->XP only uses about 96MB ram, which isn't much considering 2000 took 75MB, according to the Task Manager system stats thingy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    If you want it 2 run smooth..............*rolls eyes*, a 30 gb swapfile? whats that for......, try converting fat16 to fat32

    i bet he did upgrade, then just format cd, boot with a bootfloppy boot with cdsupport, insert xp cdrom goto the i386 dir type: winnt and install XP (pref. Pro) again. After install defrag in XP and make a restore point.
  • MonsieurEvilMonsieurEvil Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    edited June 2003
    Errr, he said that he has his swap file <b>on</b> a 30GB drive. There is no such thing as a 30GB swap file in NT-land, only 4GB. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Unless I am misunderstanding you, as I am dead tired from being at work the past 48 hours. Thanks to my server OS knowledge making me too busy consulting... -_-

    /me sleeps at desk...
  • DOOManiacDOOManiac Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
    <!--QuoteBegin--Just Ayane+Jun 8 2003, 06:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Just Ayane @ Jun 8 2003, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->XP only uses about 96MB ram, which isn't much considering 2000 took 75MB, according to the Task Manager system stats thingy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    If you want it 2 run smooth..............*rolls eyes* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I'm saying the memory hit of the OS itself to load itself into ram, only is a 96MB load, and windows 2000 loaded into ram was 75MB. I'm not saying you only need 96MB on the computer, I'm talking memory footprint. :P
  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    im nto entirely sure, but id say your computer is simply too crap to play it

    !
  • Dr_ShaggyDr_Shaggy Join Date: 2002-09-26 Member: 1340Members, Constellation
    Thanks to most of you, I might try cutting the 6gig if i can find the time. I love quotes like this
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->im nto entirely sure, but id say your computer is simply too crap to play it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    No its not, I played the map test since it came out and had some nice performance (its quake 3 based)
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i bet he did upgrade, then just format cd, boot with a bootfloppy boot with cdsupport, insert xp cdrom goto the i386 dir type: winnt and install XP (pref. Pro) again. After install defrag in XP and make a restore point.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    i have no idea what that means, but no i did not upgrade. Installed on a freshly formatted disk, no upgrade.

    So yeah, i'll unplug the 6gig'er at some point, maybe i'll swing the IDE from the CD drive and put it on the secondary channel. Thanks again.
  • AezayAezay Join Date: 2003-04-19 Member: 15660Members
    edited June 2003
    Some time ago I had a Western Digital Caviar 34000 4GB, it was the same as you explain, it slowed my system down when it was reading.
    Try running this tool <a href='http://www.tcdlabs.com/htach261.exe' target='_blank'>HD Tach</a>, it needs to be registered to run on WinNT/XP, you could buy it, but I'm sure a serial could be found somewhere.

    Here are the graph screenshots of two of my hard drives using HD Tach:
    <a href='http://users.cybercity.dk/~bfy1097/upload/imgs/western-digital-caviar.png' target='_blank'>Western Digital Caviar 4 GB</a> Look how close it is to zero at the end of the disk. Yours will properly look like this.
    <a href='http://users.cybercity.dk/~bfy1097/upload/imgs/ibm-deskstar.png' target='_blank'>IBM DeskStar 45 GB</a> Not the best disk, but it works.

    Btw, does you bios give you a smart warning when you boot?

    <b>Edit:</b> Added graph screenshot of my Western Digital.
Sign In or Register to comment.