Windows XP can't do.....

[Hammbone]

hey guys, i am running athlon 1.4, 512mb ram, winxp, office xp, and i love it. only problem is that it is slower then when i had 98 on here. i got a dual boot setup, win98se on the fat32 partition and winxp on ntfs. is this slowing it down??? is it my sound blaster live??? what can i do to speed it up????

edit: the only lag i really mind is when i open up word and office xp apps. any suggestions????

 

[Maggotry]

I think scotters hit on something.......

 

[MrCoyote]

AMD 1.33/512MB DDR

With all eye candy on, it still didn't slow down for me. But I personally don't like all the animation effects so I went back to the classic desktop. It seems to load just as fast or faster than WinME did. But shutdown seems a little long sometimes. odd...
Anyway, I'm glad I haven't seen a BSOD yet!

 

[ricerx]

AMD Athlon 800 T-bird with 256 pc 133, Asus A7S w/ on board video, sound, network(messed up my A7V board), 40 gb Seagate 5400 RMP running on Win XP 2600 and is considerably faster and much more stable than my previous OS's (98, ME, 2K pro and Adv Server). My guess is there's something wrong with either your hardwar, drivers, or software.

It takes me only 22-24 secs to get into windows when previous versions took close to or over a minute. Apps open much quicker and pictures pop-up almost instantly. Like all the previous posters, mine is running better than before.

 

[dszd0g]

<< My philosophy on Microsoft OS's is don't get it until they're just about to release the next one. >>


That is pretty much the same approach I take. I am about to make the jump to 2000 if it can run all my games. I will probably dual boot if it can't.

I honestly can't see the reason that people have to run the latest Microsoft OS for a desktop. For a server I can understand it. However, for a
desktop there really aren't any new features that are worth the stability problems. Besides, Microsoft does not really seem to come up with their
own ideas. Almost any new feature in their operating systems you can find in a standalone product. I would rather have the stability.

 

[KentState]

<<

<< My philosophy on Microsoft OS's is don't get it until they're just about to release the next one. >>

That is pretty much the same approach I take. I am about to make the jump to 2000 if it can run all my games. I will probably dual boot if it can't. I honestly can't see the reason that people have to run the latest Microsoft OS for a desktop. For a server I can understand it. However, for a desktop there really aren't any new features that are worth the stability problems. Besides, Microsoft does not really seem to come up with their own ideas. Almost any new feature in their operating systems you can find in a standalone product. I would rather have the stability. >>



How many people are actually having stability problems? I have not run into any problems with all of the MS upgrades going back to Win3.11 even being an early adopter. I actually think most people ran out because they wanted to gain stability over their previous OS. Plus there are a ton of games that I can now play in XP since 2000 seemed to have problems with them.

 

[FreeAgent]

I think some of you missed my point. . The XP O.S. was geared to specs that dosen't mean my current system is fully compatible. I checked and configurated everything I could think of and made it a little better; however the intel celeron processor at 900mhz would still kick this P.C.'s tower off because it enables you to better configurate the hardware system with a higher compatibility to Windows XP. This is not from my mouth I went to the microsoft site to research this better. My system should operate better than it does anyway but it is not a lack of knowledge on my part it was the ignorance of my original purchases. The O.S. is set up and was set up correctly from the start. Part of my problem was to many start up programs were running. The eye candy has been off from the start and I did indeed have some hardware problems. THE XP O.S. IS NOT ERROR FREE. Yes it is very stable but it lacks that finishing touch.
Errors pop up more than you would be used to on an O.S. that is finished i.e. almost finished ex. 98SE.
My error in the original post was not paying attention to the fact that the processor is not the problem. My asuption was not fully thought out nor backed up by fact.

 

[FreeAgent]

Well, to all you nay sayers out there I found the problem. It was an incompatibility problem that corrupted drivers steming from the sound card. The SB Live 1024 needed XP patches for some reason. Instead I went ahead and formatted and reinstalled, but this time I upgraded instead of replacing my sound card S.C. Turtle Beach is much better.

Let me guess....some of you don't think that was the problem. That's ok because now I have no problems and haven't had any since December 2. So it is it isn't whatever, its fixed.

I still stand by my post about XP being released to early but it is getting better.

 

[flawedexistence]

I'm a bit surprised that with all the discussion about performance and boot times in XP that nobody has mentioned bootvis.exe. This is a little program available from micrsoft that will assess your entire boot process and graph it out so you can see what's slowing you down. It also offers a boot optimization option as well as several other tweaks. I was able to shave about ten seconds off my boot time just by using the optimize feature. I'm no hotshot, but I think that a lot of the answers you folks are looking for are out there, you just have to dig a bit! Anyway, give bootvis.exe a try, I think you'll like it.

 

[HotWire]

Stable???? It just dropped my clients WINDOWS/SYSTEM32/CONF file for no apparent reason????? then it says to push the "r" key with the CD in when booting up to repair......and it doesn't do anything?

 

[Asghar]

Can't do WHAT.... or is this another guess the end of the topic.

 

[UnixFreak]

Actually XP is slower. I think its a case of people wanting XP to be faster so bad that they believe it is. Plus, you can be really "cool" if you say "XP is fast if you know what you are doing".. which is true, of course, but the kernel itself is slower in XP, than previous versions of windows. I can show you proof, if you'd like.

 

[dszd0g]

UnixFreak: I can believe it, but it never hurts to see what you are basing your opinion on. If you've got the proof, I don't see why you would hold it back.

 

[Davegod75]

edit i should read the whole post first...glad to hear you got it fixed

 

[Davegod75]

<< Stable???? It just dropped my clients WINDOWS/SYSTEM32/CONF file for no apparent reason????? then it says to push the "r" key with the CD in when booting up to repair......and it doesn't do anything? >>



lol..did you actually wait until setup started and you got to the repair screen or were you holding the 'r' key while it was booting? Plus i'm sure windows didn't just randomly delete a file. Make sure your "client" didn't go messing around and delete something.

 

[UnixFreak]

<< UnixFreak: I can believe it, but it never hurts to see what you are basing your opinion on. If you've got the proof, I don't see why you would hold it back >>



Well, I am at work, I couldnt find the site, to the one I was thinking of. Its a really good test, that doesnt seem biased towards any of the OS's and runs threaded pipes through the CPU under different platforms, its deep in the IBM developer site, the only reason I am holding it back, is because I dont have the link here, but when I get home, I will post it.

it shows some drastic differences in pipespeed between XP and 2000. Even more drastic between XP and Linux. But the thing to keep in mind is, in a realistic operating enviroment, the differences arent as noticeable, because of all the other factors involved. There are too many things that considerably change the performance of the software environment, so, as a result, even though the raw pipespeed in Linux is 9 times faster than that of XP, we all know that overall, Linux is not 9 times faster. There are so many other variables involved, but, as to what was said, at the core, XP is slower than 2000, from what I can see.

 

[UnixFreak]

Linky to that site I was talking about.

 

[dszd0g]

UnixFreak, good link. I am sure it is obvious though that only a few aspects of the operating systems were tested. One can state that pipes are slower on XP based on that article. It is a little bit of a stretch that XP as a whole is slower. I bet it is until Microsoft gets the bugs worked out and the drivers stabilize, but that is only a guess and not based on any reviews. One would need to find a review that takes many different programs (same program on Windows 2000 and XP) and times how long they take to perform various tasks.

 

[lilnnjaboy]

Went to an Intel Seminar. They said....Intel and Microsoft worked together to have the P4's optimally work with XP. Every instance i have seen of p4's and XP haven't seen any problems.

 

[dszd0g]

lilnnjaboy, and if you go to an AMD conference, Microsoft and AMD will say that they have worked together to make the Athlon optimal for Windows XP. It's marketing. It's also pretty obvious that AMD and Intel work with Microsoft to optimize their products. The P4 wasn't around when Windows 2000 was being developed and I doubt Intel was able to provide enough information to Microsoft to have good optimizations included. Windows XP probably does include more optimizations for the P4.