Severe performance degradation with DOS App loaded.

[Vance Foster]

I'm running XP Pro on a new system. We have a legacy DOS
App that all users keep running most of the day. On the
new system, which is a Dell Dimension 2400 with 2.2GHz
Celeron & 512Mb RAM, if the legacy app is loaded there is
a huge performance hit accessing the web. In particular,
one user has a desktop shortcut to the Office Depot
website. If the legacy app is NOT loaded, the system
will open a browser window and load the site almost
instantly. If the legacy app IS loaded, usually the
browser window will open fairly quickly (although
noticeably slower than with the app not loaded) but the
website takes 20 to 30 seconds to load. Other times, the
browser window itself takes 15 to 30 seconds to even
appear, and then it still takes a long time to load the
site. If I unload the legacy app, normal performance is
restored. The user's old system was a Pentium III 800
with 64Mb RAM running Win98 and did not exhibit this
behavior. The user was able to keep the DOS app running
at all times and the was no perceptible difference in web
access speed. Any and all suggestions greatly
appreciated.

 

[Tom Swift]

Have you determined whether your legacy DOS application is compatible with
Windows XP?

Tom Swift

 

[Ron Borders]

Vance;
Windows XP doesn't support 16 bit apps like 9x used to.
In order to run 16 bit apps (your dos app), it has to
enter an Emulation Mode. I think that this is the root of
your problem. If your XP Machine is in emulation mode it
slows the whole system down to 16 bit speeds, ... not a
good thig. My suggestion would be to start looking for a
Windows app (32 bit), with the same functionality as the
old dos app., and use that instead. As long as this app
is allowed to run it will continue to slow down the whole
system. You can find may freeware and shareware apps to
provide almost any funtionality you desire at places like
www.nonags.com, www.pcmag.com (downloads) and many
others, just try searching for the funtion that you are
looking for.
Hope that helps, Ron Borders.

 

[Vance Foster]

That makes some sense, but I have a few other systems
running XP that don't exhibit this problem. I'm
beginning to think that it is more related to the new
systems having Celeron processors rather than P4's. It
isn't a memory issue, either; I've tried upgrading one of
the new systems to a full Gig of RAM and it made no
difference...