How much does CPU speed matter to XP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
R

Rock

Hi,

In what order are the things that make a faster running XP Pro.

CPU speed - I have only 566 Celeron on one system and it is quite slow
RAM - Same system 356 sdram
Boot disc HD - Have 40GB with 20 empty
Mobo is Asus TUSL-M

Connected to LAN

Thanks

Rock
 
Well CPU speed I would say would be the 1st. As
the faster the speed, the faster XP will install.

And ram 2nd. The more ram you have the faster
things will boot/load.

I would say DDR ram is better than SD Ram for XP.

And 3rd the hdd. Doesnt matter how big it is.

Just as long as it's over 1.5 GB. And a bit spare for whatever programs you
want to install.

Since that's how much space XP needs, when you install
it.
 
Rock said:
Hi,

In what order are the things that make a faster running XP Pro.

CPU speed - I have only 566 Celeron on one system and it is quite slow
RAM - Same system 356 sdram
Boot disc HD - Have 40GB with 20 empty
Mobo is Asus TUSL-M

Connected to LAN
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with Paul on the relative priorities.

My experience has been that Windows XP performance is very sensitive
to the amount of RAM that is installed.

Some months ago a customer brought a computer into my shop complaining
about slow performance. It was a Compaq Presario with an 800 mhz AMD
CPU and only 64 mb of RAM.

And it was slow. The only thing that I can remember that was slower
was years ago when I installed Windows 95 on a 386DX40 with 4 mb of
RAM. I thought that was the ultimate definition of a slow computer,
but this Compaq beat it by a wide margin.

Anyway I installed an additional 256 mb of RAM into that machine, and
the difference was absolutely astounding. The owner could not believe
it was the same computer.

With your 566 Celeron CPU I would suggest that you upgrade to 512 mb
of RAM. That should give you reasonably good performance with Windows
XP.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
 
I wouldnt use Celeron either. Most ppl I know
who use them, have all sorts of probs.

Well, yup I agree, the more ram the better. BUT
a faster CPU does help, depends what you intend
to do with the system, once a OS is installed.
 
Paul said:
I wouldnt use Celeron either. Most ppl I know
who use them, have all sorts of probs.

Well, yup I agree, the more ram the better. BUT
a faster CPU does help, depends what you intend
to do with the system, once a OS is installed.
Click to expand...
Thank you guys..

Interesting story about that slooow box.

I upgraded my secreatary's box to a P4 1.8 with an Asus P4B533 with 512
DDR anyway, but will get the ram up ti 512 on that 566 box just to see
the difference.

Whilst XP itself booted not too badly, it was certain programs that
would take forever and then after every keystroke freeze until
processed. Yes, it does sound a lot like RAM!

Thanks

Rock
 
Ditch the Celeron chip, they suck. A pentium 3 chip will run on that Mobo.
Shits all over Celeron chip. Depending on what are doing with system and how
much you wish to spend I guess. Second hand p3 chips aren't too pricey.
 
Back
Top