Windows 2000 == Huge performance hit?

[SlingBlade]

Hi, I recently decided to switch over to windows 2000, so I chose a clean install and converted from Fat32 to NTFS. I have an Athlon Classic 850, GF2, 128 MB of memory, and an Asus K7V motherboard. What has really surprised me is how sluggish the system is now. At first it would take so long for a map to load in half life that it would time out with the server. After making sure all the drivers were installed and reformatting the hard drive it isn't nearly as long, but still longer than it was before. I also went from having a constant 99 FPS in 800X600 to topping out at 60FPS. I know all my settings are identical because I used the GF2 tweak utility to set them exactly the same. I made sure FSAA was off, and even shut vsync off, which only managed to push it up into the upper 80s, where as before I could have vsync on (which I really like) and have 99 FPS. I've installed all the drivers I could think off for my motherboard, video card, and sound card (yes the ones specifically for win 2000). Everything seems to be functioning properly other than that the hard drive always churns a lot more than it used to whenever I do anything. Does anybody know what I'm doing wrong? Is this just the performance difference between windows 98 and 2000? Should I get more memory? What is going on?

 

[dave127]

one of the things about loading that map could be your ram...its really cheap now and you will get better performance if you add more (win 2k loves it!!!) the problem with your fps is that 2k has something that it wont let it go past 60fps....do a search on a tweak site and download the fix...it should solve your problems!!!! hope this helps!!!

Dave

 

[Dean]

I see 3 problems with your setup:

1. increase your ram to at least 256 megs

2. do you have sp2 installed to enable ata 100 on yours?...also do a defrag as converting to ntfs from fat can scramble your files

3. 2000 has a vsync problem on radeon cards, it may also do it on nvidia, not sure as i use the radeon and it always runs at around 60 fps

 

[bigbootydaddy]

<< fps is that 2k has something that it wont let it go past 60fps >>


unless you are talking about the amd win2k patch, i have no clue where you got that from.

256mb ram is pretty much the golden rule for MINIMAL ram in win2k. you have to do a couple days worth of tweaking to get everything to 98 specs, but once you do, you will NEVER go back to 98, trust me.

here is a god read

 

[Diesel21]

When you install the nvidia drivers under windows 2000 it will default to 60 hz in opengl games. The solution to this problem.

You can download a program to change the refresh rate or you could manually edit the nv4.inf file and install the drivers again.

 

[duragezic]

It's caused by the win2k refresh rate bug. The refresh rate is always 60hz so therefore the max fps you can get is 60. If vsync is working properly and disabled however, you can go as high as normal. I'd search for a 60hz refresh rate fix or you can just get the nvFix (something like that) to fix it for you.

Although having more memory would speed things up in general in win2k.

 

[SlingBlade]

Thanks a lot guys! I appriciate it. I installed the SP2... but now the &quot;Advanced&quot; tab under my IDE controlers isn't showing up, so I don't know if it is set to &quot;Ultra DMA if Available&quot;. Anyone know how to get the tab back?

 

[bigshooter]

also create a power user account for games, use this when you are playing instead of an administrator account. It shuold help a little.

 

[SlingBlade]

OK I've tried everything you guys have suggested and the FPS is solved! Thanks a lot! The only problem remaining is that my hard drive seems slower and chursn a lot. Half Life also routinely freezes while playing a sound, repeating it over and over for a sec, and then resumes. How can I be sure Ultra DMA is on if I can't see it in the Device Manager? Thanks!

 

[MrHelpful]

Try defragmenting...

 

[SlingBlade]

Ya, as I mentioned in the first post in this thread, that was one of the first things I tried Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[Lord Gwynz]

Do you know what cluster size your drive is using? I think when you convert from FAT32->NTFS it defaults to 512 byte sized clusters. 4k sized clusters I hear would give much better performance.

 

[SlingBlade]

Hmmm. I have NO idea how big my cluster sizes are. I would be surprised if the cluster size was 512 tho... that is huge. It SHOULD depend on my HDD size, course who knows what they did. But I did not see anyway through the setup process to specify the cluster size.

 

[SlingBlade]

Hmmm. I found out something interesting for those of you who would like to know. Apparently Asus (the site I dl the 4 in 1 drivers from) Is supplying the 4in1 v4.28 drivers. These drivers (I beleive) have a problem with their IDE support. On Via's site they suggest using Microsoft's IDE drivers instead, which they provide a broken link for :/ However the latest version of the 4in1 drivers (4.32) is suppose to have a fix for it. I'm going to install them and see how they work. I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[SlingBlade]

Well WHADDAYAKNOW... It fixed it So for now on, when ever you have a n00b coming in here complaining they can't get DMA support to work on VIA hardware in win2000, just tell them to go dl the latest version of the VIA 4in1 drivers from the VIA hardware site, NOT their motherboard manufactuer's site. The via site is http://www.viahardware.com It has definantly speed things up a bit, and I temporarily stole 128 MB from another computer in the house to see how that would help, and that helps a lot too. Between having DMA support and plenty of memory, it should solve the churning problem.

 

[bacteria]

fat32 i think has a cluster size of 4kbytes. the only file system in which you cluster size depends on the size of the partition is fat16. 512bytes for cluster size is small.

 

[RSI]

Looks like most of your trouble is solved. The hard drive chewing is because you have only 128MB ram. Don't you know that Win2K is far more demanding in that aspect? I used to have 96MB PC66 SDRAM, now I have 256MB PC133, and the difference is astronomical. 96 is pretty close to 128, so I suspect you would witness a very similar performance increase with upping to 256, or maybe 384. I have a Quantum LM hd and it doesn't crunch much.

 

[ToBeMe]

Like most others have said.........invest in some more ram and 2K will be happy!

 

[HansXP]

<< fat32 i think has a cluster size of 4kbytes. the only file system in which you cluster size depends on the size of the partition is fat16. 512bytes for cluster size is small. >>



Both FAT16 and FAT32 have a cluster size that depends on how big your drive is. NTFS by default uses 4 KB clusters, but they can be set as low as 512 bytes if you want (like if you were working with a lot of really small files)