CPU slow using xp but not 2000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larry Asher
  • Start date Start date
L

Larry Asher

Greetings and thanks in advance for any insights.

I have a notebook (Fujitsu Lifebook Model C-6557 650Mhz P3 128MB RAM)
that is currently dual booting XP Pro SP2 and 2000 Pro.

I have been running it exclusively under XP and noticed that it has been
getting extremely sluggish so I ran some diagnostics. Using
FreshDiagnostic I ran tests on the CPU and the CPU speed came back as
180 Mhz! I booted into Win 2000 and ran the same test and it came back
as 647 Mhz (chip is a 650).

I've checked all the settings I can think of including the bios (even
though it seems fine under 2000 so it shouldn't be the bios).

I really can't think of what to do next. Any suggestions on what may be
causing this or what I should be checking would be greatly appreciated.

Again, thanks in advance!
Larry

PS I know I need to replace this dinosaur with a new notebook but it is
not in the budget right now. Also, until the slowdown it was still
meeting my needs and this doesn't seem to be a hardware issue.
 
Larry said:
I have a notebook (Fujitsu Lifebook Model C-6557 650Mhz P3 128MB RAM)
that is currently dual booting XP Pro SP2 and 2000 Pro.

I have been running it exclusively under XP and noticed that it has
been getting extremely sluggish so I ran some diagnostics. Using
FreshDiagnostic I ran tests on the CPU and the CPU speed came back as
180 Mhz! I booted into Win 2000 and ran the same test and it came
back as 647 Mhz (chip is a 650).
Click to expand...

Weird.What does other diag tools say? What does System Properties (right
click 'My Computer' and click 'Properties') say?
I've checked all the settings I can think of including the bios (even
though it seems fine under 2000 so it shouldn't be the bios).
Click to expand...

Have you tried checking if there is a newer version of you BIOS available?
Since the problem seems to be Windows related this may not help, but it is
worth a shot.

That being said: Your RAM strikes me as a reason _not_ to upgrade from 2000
to XP. 128 MB is not a lot for Windows 2000, but it is even worse for XP.
Have you noticed a lot of paging (usually indicated by wild disk activity)
when the computer is acting sluggish?
 
Gerry
Thanks for the link. Was it supposed to point to something concerning
the 128 vs 192 issue you mention? It just takes me to the support home
page and I have tried to search that to no avail. About the only info I
could find was:
C-6525, C-6535, C-6537, C-6547, C-6556, C-6557, C-6577, C-6581, C-6591,
C-6611, C-6631
These units do meet the minimum system requirements to run Windows XP.<<<

Mine is a 6557. To answer your question it is 128 MB. I do understand
this is minimal for XP but it had been working fine before.

Thanks for responding. More info coming on my response to the other reply.
 
Maybe the XP install is infected with spyware. Have you checked for
spyware/malware/virus? Also have you recently installed a new printer or
digital camera? Kodak cameras in particular and most all-in-one printers can
cause a slowdown if you are low on ram..

Kerry Brown
KDB Systems
 
Weird.What does other diag tools say? What does System Properties (right
click 'My Computer' and click 'Properties') say?
Click to expand...

It shows a P3 647 Mhz with 127 Mb ram. All the other diagnostics look
ok for the hardware it has except for disk access speed which was
modestly slow. I am defragging it now to make sure that is not the
problem. I understand how paging and a slow disk would slow the overall
response time but why would it show a slow clock speed? Thats what is
confusing.

I ran the cpu benchmark several more times. Most were in the 170 Mhz -
300 Mhz range but had one that did show 640 Mhz and another one that
showed 30 mhz. The 640 and 30 were within 5 minutes of each other with
no system changes.
Have you tried checking if there is a newer version of you BIOS available?
Since the problem seems to be Windows related this may not help, but it is
worth a shot.
Click to expand...

I did flash the BIOS to the newest version to no effect.

That being said: Your RAM strikes me as a reason _not_ to upgrade from 2000
to XP. 128 MB is not a lot for Windows 2000, but it is even worse for XP.
Have you noticed a lot of paging (usually indicated by wild disk activity)
when the computer is acting sluggish?
Click to expand...

Understood. However I was getting acceptable performance for a few
months ago. It does page significantly but I haven't noticed it doing
it more than the past.

Thanks for the response. Don't hesitate if you can think of anything else.

Larry
 
Yep, updated the dats and ran full virus and spyware scans - clean.

The only external devices I have installed are a MS 802.11 b/g card and
an Epson C82 printer (not an all-in-one).

Thanks for the suggestions.
 
Larry

Click on Tech Specs. Select Notebook PC in Select Product Window. Select
C Series in Select Series. Select C6557 in Select Model. Click on Model.

I was quoting the details below from the Technical Specification and
wondering whether memory could be added

a.. 128MB or 64MB SDRAM pre-installed (64MB onboard)

a.. Maximum 192MB (1 DIMM slot)

Another thought. Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to bring Task Manager and select
Process tab. What is the Commit Charge?

Normally to run Windows XP to a satisfactory level of performance level
256 mb RAM is recommended. If this cannot be achieved you may be able to
reduce demand for memory by dropping some unnecessary service(s). The
Commit Charge figure may indicate what is needed.

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Using invalid email address

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Back
Top