Puzzled by strange behavior

W

Wes Groleau

In my house now are three Pentium towers.

Comp. A: 1.5 GHz, 32 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. B: 1.5 GHz, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. C: 551 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 200 GB HD

A & B are identical except for memory. C is earlier model, same mfg.

A & B had XP Home, C had XP Pro.

About the time I bought C, an inexperienced widow asked me to update
A & B as it had not been done since her husband died.

Windows update choked and damaged a file. Since the owner
did not know where her husband had put the CDs and product keys,
I decided to try to replace the file by mounting the HD as slave
in the good system. Unfortunately, due to the similarities of the
three machines, I confused which was which and made things worse.
Add bad advice from Microsoft Tech support, and other screwups best
skipped over for brevity, I ended up with one HD unable to even
get safe mode and two that would boot but weren't legal.

Finally, the lady found her CDs and product keys. I had no personal
stuff yet on my new machine, so I reinstalled the correct version of
Windows on each machine.

A & B have since been through four or five windows update cycles
to bring them up-to-date. During the update processes, I frequently
defragmented. (Windows Update creates MAJOR fragmentation!)

C took only two as it already had service pack two. I then
defragmented, then installed Office, activated and upgraded that.
Defragged, then installed SQL Express and Visual Studio Express.
Defragged, then installed FireFox and Opera. Defragged again
and went through update cycles until no more updates were available.

I only had one ethernet port available on the router, so all installs
and updates used the same connection. The router's firewall is at
max paranoia--port scans from outside find absolutely nothing.

A & B, despite the difference in memory both check for and download
updates at about the same (normal) speed. C did at first, but
somewhere along the way it got very slow. Now checking for available
updates takes longer than I can endure watching.

No mail apps ever opened, no ISP logins, nothing downloaded except
from windows update.

What might cause this slowdown? 266 MHz machines on dialup
are faster than this thing!

--
Wes Groleau
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent ^
^ of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets ^
^ surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like ^
^ Heinlein or Dr. Who. ^
^ -- Chris Maeda ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
S

Shenan Stanley

Wes said:
In my house now are three Pentium towers.

Comp. A: 1.5 GHz, 32 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. B: 1.5 GHz, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. C: 551 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 200 GB HD

A & B are identical except for memory. C is earlier model, same
mfg.
A & B had XP Home, C had XP Pro.

About the time I bought C, an inexperienced widow asked me to update
A & B as it had not been done since her husband died.

Windows update choked and damaged a file. Since the owner
did not know where her husband had put the CDs and product keys,
I decided to try to replace the file by mounting the HD as slave
in the good system. Unfortunately, due to the similarities of the
three machines, I confused which was which and made things worse.
Add bad advice from Microsoft Tech support, and other screwups best
skipped over for brevity, I ended up with one HD unable to even
get safe mode and two that would boot but weren't legal.

Finally, the lady found her CDs and product keys. I had no personal
stuff yet on my new machine, so I reinstalled the correct version of
Windows on each machine.

A & B have since been through four or five windows update cycles
to bring them up-to-date. During the update processes, I frequently
defragmented. (Windows Update creates MAJOR fragmentation!)

C took only two as it already had service pack two. I then
defragmented, then installed Office, activated and upgraded that.
Defragged, then installed SQL Express and Visual Studio Express.
Defragged, then installed FireFox and Opera. Defragged again
and went through update cycles until no more updates were available.

I only had one ethernet port available on the router, so all
installs and updates used the same connection. The router's
firewall is at max paranoia--port scans from outside find
absolutely nothing.
A & B, despite the difference in memory both check for and download
updates at about the same (normal) speed. C did at first, but
somewhere along the way it got very slow. Now checking for
available updates takes longer than I can endure watching.

No mail apps ever opened, no ISP logins, nothing downloaded except
from windows update.

What might cause this slowdown? 266 MHz machines on dialup
are faster than this thing!

I have to ask... Are you sure about those specifications?
Comp. A: 1.5 GHz, 32 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. B: 1.5 GHz, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. C: 551 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 200 GB HD

First - the ram is crippling every one of them.
Second - the slowest computer has an unusually (and likely unsupported)
large hard drive.

For Windows XP - I recommend 512MB+ memory. 256MB minimum really. Sure -
it'll install on less, but run like a crippled wet yak.
 
W

Wes Groleau

Shenan said:
Wes said:
In my house now are three Pentium towers.

Comp. A: 1.5 GHz, 32 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. B: 1.5 GHz, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. C: 551 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 200 GB HD

[After fresh installs of the O.S., A & B perform
reasonably well but C is a three-toed sloth]

What might cause this slowdown? 266 MHz machines on dialup
are faster than this thing!

I have to ask... Are you sure about those specifications?

Those are the numbers reported by Windows in the System
control panel and the C: properties.
First - the ram is crippling every one of them.

I say again: A & B both perform reasonably well.
This surprised me, too, but it's an observed fact.
They are not crippled.
Second - the slowest computer has an unusually (and likely unsupported)
large hard drive.

It's _labeled_ 200 GB but Windows says it's less.
The difference is more than I would expect from
formatting overhead. But it is definitely bigger
than the 128 GB limit of older IDE controllers.
For Windows XP - I recommend 512MB+ memory. 256MB minimum really. Sure -
it'll install on less, but run like a crippled wet yak.

Your recommendation is noted and is in my future plans.
But the puzzle still exists: Why, with one-third the CPU speed,
the same memory, and much more disk space, does C run at
FAR LESS than a third the speed of B? And why is A just
as fast as B with one-quarter of the memory?

Someone gave me a good idea for the first question:
SQL Express, Visual Studio Express, FireFox, Office, and Opera,
even though not _apparently_ running may have TSRs intended
to speed up their launching when they are invoked. A & B
do not have those items installed.

I still have no clue how A manages to seem normal
with only 32 Meg. Maybe the motherboard had RAM
built in?
 
W

Wes Groleau

Wes said:
Shenan said:
Wes said:
Comp. A: 1.5 GHz, 32 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. B: 1.5 GHz, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Comp. C: 551 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 200 GB HD

[After fresh installs of the O.S., A & B perform
reasonably well but C is a three-toed sloth]

What might cause this slowdown? 266 MHz machines on dialup
are faster than this thing!

I have to ask... Are you sure about those specifications?

Those are the numbers reported by Windows in the System
control panel and the C: properties.

Now I'm even more puzzled. I _swear_ they said 32 and 128
before I posted the above. Now they say 256. And I'm the
only guy with a key to this house who also knows how and
where to plug in RAM.
 
W

Wes Groleau

Shenan said:
For Windows XP - I recommend 512MB+ memory. 256MB minimum really. Sure -
it'll install on less, but run like a crippled wet yak.

I don't know what it was--tried some other things and discovered
the slowdown was only in web access. Can't blame it on my 1 GBPS
connection, as the other two XP machines, one FreeBSD, and two Macs
all worked fine. Then this one seemed to "fix itself" and run normally
(not like a "crippled wet yak") with 128 Meg.

But I went ahead and put the extra RAM in anyway.

--
Wes Groleau

A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent
of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets
surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like
Heinlein or Dr. Who.
-- Chris Maeda

Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda?
-- Wes Groleau
 

Ask a Question

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.

Ask a Question

Top