S
ship
Roady [MVP] wrote:
1) In a way it is answered; it is not processor intensive so you are fine on
this level.
Is there any (low-cost) utility out there to help me work out where
the heck the utility is?
Ship
Roady [MVP] wrote:
1) In a way it is answered; it is not processor intensive so you are fine on
this level.
Based on the specs you published, I doubt going dial core would speed
things up much. It would however, allow you to multitask more
effectively.
Roady [MVP] wrote:
1) In a way it is answered; it is not processor intensive so you are fine
on
this level.
ship said:Please explain
Not permanently. Just as an experiment, to see what impact it has on
performance. If Norton turns out to be the biggest culprit, you could
seek another anti virus solution.
Based on the specs you published, I doubt going dial core would speed
things up much. It would however, allow you to multitask more
effectively.
When you examine a message, if you don't recognize the sender, delete the
message. When you examine a message, if the subject contains a clear
adverisement or multiple misspelled words, delete the message. When you
examine a message, if it contains an attachment you weren't expecting,
delete the message.
Roady said:It's not processor or RAM intensive. The sound of your hard disk isn't an
accurate way to measure bottlenecks. Performance Monitor is the tool for
that.
In general; yes. There are also processors which are optimized for gaming,
while others are for more targeted towards editing graphics other type of
multimedia or business applications.
--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
-----
Based on the specs you published, I doubt going dial core would speed
things up much. It would however, allow you to multitask more
effectively.
Ah-ha - so would it allow me to run other applications
(e.g. Dreamweaver 8, Xara Xtreme etc) faster at the same time as
Outlook?
Ship
It's not processor or RAM intensive. The sound of your hard disk isn't an
accurate way to measure bottlenecks. Performance Monitor is the tool for
that.
Have any of you guys actually TRIED sticking in a second processor?
In general; yes. There are also processors which are optimized for gaming,
while others are for more targeted towards editing graphics other type of
multimedia or business applications.
--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
-----
Based on the specs you published, I doubt going dial core would speed
things up much. It would however, allow you to multitask more
effectively.
Ah-ha - so would it allow me to run other applications
(e.g. Dreamweaver 8, Xara Xtreme etc) faster at the same time as
Outlook?
Ship
ship said:
ship said:- Outlook2003
- WinXP Pro (SP2)
Software:
- Outlook2003
- WinXP Pro (SP2)
- Google Desktop
- Norton (on one PC) /McAfee Virus Scan (on another PC)
Hi
I am looking for ways to SPEED UP Outlook!
Should I:
a) Increase RAM OR
b) put in a dual processor ??
As webmaster, I am using Outlook to handle huge amounts of mail.
Quite a lot of it is unavoidable legit stuff (receipts, feedback forms
etc)
though I confess quite a lot of spam/viruses etc.
I am using about 30 "rules" to filter the emails into the correct
folders.
The big problem is that downloading my mail seems to KILL my PC's
speed!
i.e. Whilst it is downloading ANYTHING (form an external POP3 server)
the PC
immediately becomes almost unusable (to do anything else at the same
time).
I am forced to have my email housed in a POP3 server because I work
from 3 different physical offices. (What I do is simply copy the entire
PST file
to/from my iPod - it copies quite fast about 1 GB in say 2 minutes...)
My .PST file varies between c. 750MB to 1.75GB depending on how much
I have archived off how recently. But even when it's down to
750MB, it's still DAMNED SLOW whilst Outlook is downloading.
Btw, I regularly use SCANPST.exe to clean up the PST file.
So... what's the best way to improve speed:
- More RAM
- A second processor
- Or is there some Windows setting that can stop Outlook from grabbing
so many "resources"
(Incidentally the REALLY strange thing is that if I fire up
Contol/Alt/Del and get
the task manager the processor almost NEVER seems very busy and the
Page File useage seems quite low... and the physical memory only ever
seems
about half used too... so why is it SO SLOW!!)
Any thoughts?
Ship
Shiperton Henethe
P.S. Here is the spec of my hardware:
PROCESSOR: Intel Pentium 4 based system
MOTHERBOARD: Intel Pentium 4 D945GNTLR system board
Integrated Intel GMA950 graphics
*Intel High definition audio
*Intel 10/100 LAN*8USB 2.0
*4 conventional PCI *2 PCI Express x1 *1 PCI
Express x16 *1 Serial*1 Parallel
*4 Serial ATA interfaces
*1 Parallel ATA IDE interface with UDMA33,
ATA-66/100
*PS/2 Keyboard port *Mouse port
*Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz Processor 775 chipset 800FSB
2Mb cache
RAM: 1Gb (2x 512Mb) 533 DDR2 memory
GRAPHICS CARD: Matrox Millenium P650 PCle 128 - 128Mb Dual DVI/VGA PCI
Express X16 - s/n: KEW37452
CASE: ATX Midi tower with 300W 12V PSU
DISK: Seagate 120Gb 7200rpm SATA hard drive
OPTICAL: DVD RW dual layer +&- drive
FLOPPY: 1.44mb 3.5" Floppy disk drive
[END]
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.