Why Is Win 2K So BLOODY Slow?

[Slash`n`Burn]

I am trying to get away from Windows `98 for reasons of stability.
Now I am quite familiar with the workings of Win `98, not so familiar
with all the workings of 2K,and I am tearing my hair out over it`s
lack of speed.
EG writng a 750 meg wave file with win `98 =1min 38 secs (Cool Edit
Pro 2.1) and with 2K it takes 5 min 30 secs (Also Cool Edit Pro 2.1)
This is a vast difference, and I was led to believe that Win 2K was a
better performing O/S.
I have read several (actually about 13 ) sites that give advice on the
correct settings for the running processes, and I think that I have
pretty much got it all pared to the bone.
Even the Boot up procedure takes nearly 2.5 minutes, whereas `98 takes
around 27 secs.
Here Is my spec.

AMD 2400+ XP
MSI MoBo KT3V
256 meg ddr 2700 RAM
Dual Boot - I am on win `98 at mo` - can`t get my modem working -
another story)
2 HD`s - 1X20 GIG - Win 2K(NFTS). 1X80 Gig Maxtor partitioned at 15
Gig for win `98 O/S, the rest is used for the wave files etc that I
generate while using my `putor(FAT 32)


My System Is usually extremely reliable and quick but it`s like going
back to my old 200 MHZ Pentium 2 machine (Shudders at thought)

If anybody out there has any ideas for me to explore, I would really
like to hear them.

Thanks in advance

 

[Dan Seur]

S&B -
- W2k's boot is slow if you're used to a DOS-based system. There's a lot
of newsgroup traffic about it, and I've never seen a tip offered that
will speed it up enough so you'd notice. Basically, W2k does a full-body
search, and other systems just wave you on by and hope for the best.
- On the sluggish processes...do you by any chance have a virus scanner
enabled to look at all traffic across the I/O buses? That can really
slow things down. That write time is inordinately slow. I assume you
checked the Cool Edit Pro product and associated hardware for
W2k-specific code & driver(s)? W2k is indeed finicky about those.

 

[JeffO]

Upgrades have more problems than fresh-installs.

NTFS is far superior to FAT32. Example:
My Windows 2000 PC has two drives, one NTFS and one FAT32.
The NTFS drive will defrag in about 3 minutes.
The FAT32 drive takes about an hour.
You can fix this...
Try the "CONVERT" utility that comes with Windows 2000 to
convert your FAT32 drives to NTFS. Update to Windows 2000
Service Pack 4 first.
Then try this command:
convert c: /fs:ntfs

Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=307881
http://www.winbookcorp.com/_technote/WBTA09000117.htm

 

[Dan Seur]

Jeff - thanks for that. Never used FAT32 so never noticed.

 

[Slash`n`Burn]

S&B -
- W2k's boot is slow if you're used to a DOS-based system. There's a lot
of newsgroup traffic about it, and I've never seen a tip offered that
will speed it up enough so you'd notice. Basically, W2k does a full-body
search, and other systems just wave you on by and hope for the best.
- On the sluggish processes...do you by any chance have a virus scanner
enabled to look at all traffic across the I/O buses? That can really
slow things down. That write time is inordinately slow. I assume you
checked the Cool Edit Pro product and associated hardware for
W2k-specific code & driver(s)? W2k is indeed finicky about those.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Snipped>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Dan,
Thanks for replying.
I had heard that the win2K boot up is slow, for pretty much the same
reason that you have described, this is not exactly a problem, as I
intend leaving the machine running for considerable lenghts of time, I
used it as an example of the kind of performance that I am getting.
If you say that this is normal, then I will accept this, but the
general performance even when simply exploring the contents of my
H/D`s is like wading through syrup.
I have,since then, experimented saving different filetypes, of
different sizes, using a variety of software that I have common to
both O/S`s.
Without exception Win`98 is somewhere around 70% faster.
And it is this that is having me scratching my head.

I have no Anti-Virus on Win 2K, or any other external monitoring apps.

Would it be helpful to you if I were to list all running processes,
and services? Maybe there is something in there that you can see which
will immediatly have you pointing a finger saying " this one will slow
you right down" or something like.

I am not in any mad rush to solve this as I still have win`98, and
probably will continue to keep it on my system after I have ironed out
any 2K problems. But it annoys me when I can`t figure something (thank
god it doesn`t happen very often)

anyway, as usual, thanks in advance for your time.


Slash.................

 

[Dan Seur]

S&B - you're very welcome. JeffO pointed out something I didn't know
that may well solve your problem - the fact that NTFS is much faster,
and converting the partition to NTFS is the answer.

I'm not sure W98 can handle NTFS (and am not sure there's any tool that
will convert NTFS back), so it might be a good idea to go carefully,
even to the extent of setting up a new NTFS partition somewhere and
experimenting with copies of the appropriate files, before doing
anything irrevocable.

Post back w/results if you follow his advice (which I hope you've seen
by now)!

As for lists of running processes, let's hope that won't be necessary -
I'd be out of my depth anyway, although many of the helpful sages here
could probably help in that arena.

 

[BT]

Win 98 will not function on a NTFS drive and by default will not read or write to one. There is a tool to read NTFS volumes in 9x.
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfswin98.shtml

 

[BT]

Just a thought. You've installed some software. Have you defragged. Also your registry and/or pagefile might be highly fragmented
but those files are locked and need to be defragged at a reboot. Here's a good tool:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml . I assume you check your disks for errors every few days. Also your
paging file should be about twice your RAM. If you page on a *physical* drive that is separate from your system root, you might get
a little better performance.

I also use a thorough tweak program, http://www.xteq.com/products/xset/index.html , browse through all the options available (look
for settings to increase priority on program startup). There are many and first couple of uses might take a long time. However,
after doing these things, Explorer opens and works about as fast as Win Me, icons load faster, programs starup quicker, etc. I'm
running 160MB RAM on this machine.

 

[Slash`n`Burn]

Just a thought. You've installed some software. Have you defragged. Also your registry and/or pagefile might be highly fragmented
but those files are locked and need to be defragged at a reboot. Here's a good tool:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml . I assume you check your disks for errors every few days. Also your
paging file should be about twice your RAM. If you page on a *physical* drive that is separate from your system root, you might get
a little better performance.

I also use a thorough tweak program, http://www.xteq.com/products/xset/index.html , browse through all the options available (look
for settings to increase priority on program startup). There are many and first couple of uses might take a long time. However,
after doing these things, Explorer opens and works about as fast as Win Me, icons load faster, programs starup quicker, etc. I'm
running 160MB RAM on this machine.

Thanks again every body,

To re-iterate.
I have 2 H/D`s.

one is a 20 Gig seagate (NFTS) that I have Win 2k on

The other is a 80 GIG Maxtor which is FAT32 Partitioned at 15 GIG
(Which contains the Win `98 OS) The remaining 65 GIG Is purely for
storage of some of the huge wav files that I generate in the course of
Mixing my CD`s.
There are no executable files on the 65 GIG Partition.

I cannot acess any of the files on the 2K HD Whilst in `98.
But I can access the win `98 H/D Partition and anything stored in the
65 GIG Partition whilst in win 2K

I will give the Page file defragger a go,(it`s on the list of things
to check)

My MoBo came with a couple of discs of drivers and utilities including
the very excellent X System Tweak App, Which I have installed on Both
O/S`s, And It did make a little difference. But I feel I am missing
something fundamental (Like The IDE REverting to P10 Mode instead of
Ultra DMA).

Anyway, it`s 7pm I have a night of driving my Cab around Blackpool, So
I`m going to bugger off now.
I will give all your suggestions a go when I get in (around 4 am)


Bye for now

Slash...........