RDRAM and XP Pro

[Major Malfunction]

I recently built up a system around an Intel VC-820 Motherboard. The PC uses
128 Mb of RDRAM, Viper V-770 videocard, onboard sound, one DVD and 1 CD-ROM.
The installation was a clean install following a wipe of the drive to remove
the previous OS, Windows 98 SE. Since installing XP Pro SP1a, the system is
decidedly slower than its previous incarnation. Is this normal or does the
RDRAM have something to do with this? I am seriously considering going back
to Windows 98 or putting Windows 2000 Pro on to replace XP. There seems to
be a lot of disk swapping going on with only one application running. Task
manager shows nothing unusual running and there are no viruses or parasite
programs on the system. Any clues what's going on?

 

[purplehaz]

After you install make sure you do a bunch of defrags.
RDRAM or not, 128mb isn't enough. You should have 256 or higher. I have
512mb of 16bit pc800 rdram and it seems fine.
After this machine, I have strayed away from rdram anyway as ddr in most
cases is equal to or faster than the rdram. At first I was on the band wagon
too, but for the money they cost and the performance they give, ddr is a
better choice. But too late for that now, I would say get another rimm.

 

[Bob Day]

I recently built up a system around an Intel VC-820 Motherboard. The PC uses
128 Mb of RDRAM, Viper V-770 videocard, onboard sound, one DVD and 1 CD-ROM.
The installation was a clean install following a wipe of the drive to remove
the previous OS, Windows 98 SE. Since installing XP Pro SP1a, the system is
decidedly slower than its previous incarnation. Is this normal or does the
RDRAM have something to do with this? I am seriously considering going back
to Windows 98 or putting Windows 2000 Pro on to replace XP. There seems to
be a lot of disk swapping going on with only one application running. Task
manager shows nothing unusual running and there are no viruses or parasite
programs on the system. Any clues what's going on?

Windows XP likes gobs of memory. Consider upgrading
to 512MB. I'm not just guessing here. I was running with
256MB for about a year, just doing normal stuff like email
word processing and surfing the Internet, and the response
time got slower and slower over time. In other recent
responses in this group I've explained why this happens,
but suffice it to say, when I brought my computer up to
512MB it speeded up nicely. You may need even more
memory for graphic editing applications such as Photoshop.
If you upgrade, consider replacing your memory with ECC --
it's more reliable and is compatible with the 820 chipset.

-- Bob Day

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

I recently built up a system around an Intel VC-820 Motherboard. The PC uses
128 Mb of RDRAM, Viper V-770 videocard, onboard sound, one DVD and 1 CD-ROM.
The installation was a clean install following a wipe of the drive to remove
the previous OS, Windows 98 SE. Since installing XP Pro SP1a, the system is
decidedly slower than its previous incarnation. Is this normal or does the
RDRAM have something to do with this? I am seriously considering going back
to Windows 98 or putting Windows 2000 Pro on to replace XP. There seems to
be a lot of disk swapping going on with only one application running. Task
manager shows nothing unusual running and there are no viruses or parasite
programs on the system. Any clues what's going on?

128MB is just not enough for a heavily used system - you need 256MB. The
footprint of the WinXP Kernel, normal services, explorer, etc. comes out
to about 150MB (task manager will tell you what yours is), so you are
into swapping straight away. You cal alleviate the situation somewhat by
turning off all those services you are probably not using(*), which will
bring the memory footprint down by ~30MB, however the best solution is
another 128MB of RDRAM.

(*) see
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

 

[Brian Kannady]

You definately need more memory. In my experience, 512MB is the least that
I can use with what I am doing and stay away from disk swapping. If you are
going to go to 512 MB, consider replacing the motherboard with one that uses
DDR SDRAM and just buying DDR SDRAM, it might actually be cheaper than
purchasing another 384MB of RDRAM.
Brian

 

[Bob Day]

RDRAM needs two memory cards for each bank of memory so you will need to buy
two RDRAM modules instead of one

No. That's not true for the 820 chipset. The 820 is
16 bit, single channel, and single modules are just fine.
The later RDRAM chipsets, such as the 850, as far
as I know, are all 32 bit dual channel, and the 32 bit
chipsets do require modules to be installed in pairs.

But, as another poster recommended, perhaps it would
be cheaper to replace your mainboard and go with DDR.

-- Bob Day