Old 22nd December 2006, 01:08   #1
psycho_maniac
Major Dude
 
psycho_maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,293
does this computer seem fast to you? and other stuff...

i have a P4 1.7ghz (intel yuck) 1gig ram. i was wondering if this is fast because to me it USED to be fast, but latley ive noticed it slowing down. i have windows xp. latley ive been in my what the heck mood and insatlling that intrests me. Not everything, just windows stuff (ie windows defender and wmp11). Also i had to install a couple mobile phone tools for my phone. I installed 3 or 4 and only really use 1 or 2. I currently run spybot,symantec virus scanner,adaware, and disk keeper pro, for my computer. ive noticed firefox lagging latley and winamp lag as well, more then usual. i should restore my computer but that takes so much time to do. what do you think? i plan to get faster mb and ram. one thing i wanna learn about is this new "dual core" thing i keep hearing about. im one of those kidna guys that when they get something thats electronic and interesting i have to learn about everything it can do. i know alot about computers, but stuff i dont have i dont know about. ie: i could help anybody with a computer, stereo hook ups but NOT dsl, routers, and printers because i never had that stuff. ONce i learn about it or have something to fool around with its not hard for me to catch on.
psycho_maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 01:16   #2
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
Um, what the hell are you asking

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 02:16   #3
psycho_maniac
Major Dude
 
psycho_maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,293
if that should be a fast computer. and any info you would know about dual core processors. sorry to confuse you.
psycho_maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 03:13   #4
Atmo
The Freak
(Forum King)
 
Atmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,400
A P4 1.7 should be fine for most tasks that arent too processor intensive or requiring large ammounts of memory bandwidth (since the 1.7 only runs on a quad pumped 100mhz fsb). Web browsing & media players shouldnt stress it too much (unless you're running visualisations at the same time).

1GB is a decent ammount of ram for XP, so that's not likely to be an issue.

Have you defragged your HDD recently?

As for dual core systems, i think they're great (which is why i'm running an overclocked 4600+ in my main box at the moment), but i'm not sure what you want to know about them. If you've got any specific questions i might be able to be more help.
Atmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 03:25   #5
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
The only way you will find an advantage with a dual core system is if you are using apps that can take advantage of it. Some games do. Like Quake 4.

But with XP you're hampered by 32 bit and a lack of dual core native support.

If budget is a consideration when you are building your computer a dual core might not be worth it.

If you are a linux buff, dual core 64 bit linux is a bullet.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 03:33   #6
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
linux laughs at our measly two cores

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 05:57   #7
psycho_maniac
Major Dude
 
psycho_maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,293
i defrag my computer every day as a scheduled task (i guess you cant post to replies at the same time lol )
psycho_maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 06:56   #8
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
[aside]
Don't defrag your HDD every day. It'll literally wear it out. Either use Diskeeper, or defrag no more often than once a month.
[/aside]

I'm a psychosomatic sister running around without a leash.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 07:34   #9
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
With NTFS, I've found that defragging once a year is sufficient.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 08:29   #10
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
Best to analyze the level of fragmentation before doing anything. The range of usage level between hard drives in the world is very wide. Hence the justification for Diskeeper.

I'm a psychosomatic sister running around without a leash.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 09:04   #11
jheriko
Forum King
 
jheriko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: a twist in the fabric of space
Posts: 2,150
Send a message via ICQ to jheriko
If you make your swap file static and don't do anything else with that partition then it should never get fragmented. Useful if you have a 4GB partition for a swap file...

-- Jheriko

'Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers'
jheriko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 09:27   #12
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
But with XP you're hampered by 32 bit and a lack of dual core native support.
Not true. XP supports multiprocessor systems and it's NT Kernel always has done.

Also, benchmarks show no great performance difference between 64 bit windows XP and 32 bit windows XP. The only thing that makes 64 bit useful in the windows world is it's ability to properly support systems with more than 2GB of RAM.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 09:56   #13
Widdykats
The Forum Slut
 
Widdykats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A place that invites a post pumping whore from NY
Posts: 15,789
Quote:
Originally posted by Atmo
A P4 1.7 should be fine for most tasks that arent too processor intensive or requiring large ammounts of memory bandwidth (since the 1.7 only runs on a quad pumped 100mhz fsb). Web browsing & media players shouldnt stress it too much (unless you're running visualisations at the same time).

1GB is a decent ammount of ram for XP, so that's not likely to be an issue.

Have you defragged your HDD recently?

As for dual core systems, i think they're great (which is why i'm running an overclocked 4600+ in my main box at the moment), but i'm not sure what you want to know about them. If you've got any specific questions i might be able to be more help.
Because...He's

Last edited by Widdykats; 18th March 2010 at 19:23.
Widdykats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 12:17   #14
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
Have SpySweeper Installed?
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 14:03   #15
Tooblai
Junior Member
 
Tooblai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kolkata, India
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally posted by psycho_maniac
one thing i wanna learn about is this new "dual core" thing i keep hearing about. im one of those kidna guys that when they get something thats electronic and...

Wait a little longer my friend!!! AMD and Intel Quad core (2 X Dual core) processors are on their way.

If you install any anti virus or firewall, the computer naturally slows down a bit. And if you install or uninstall several programs, it is recommended to use any registry-cleaner to keep the Windows Registry in shape.

Lastly, in spite of installing any anti virus software it is never 100% safe to install any software blindly or go online and open some @#$%&* pages (you know what I mean). Even if the Virus definition is updated, it is not safe.
If anything doesn't work then just Remove all your partitions and create all the partitions again and install the OS .
Tooblai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 14:33   #16
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
The last time I checked, only AMD's offering was truly a quad core. Intel's was just two dual cores shoved together.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 15:29   #17
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Neither AMD nor Intel has a "true" quad core cpu.

However, I have the Intel with two dual cores shoved together, and it is amazing. Best CPU i've ever owned.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 17:20   #18
gameplaya15143
Major Dude
 
gameplaya15143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 753
Quote:
symantec virus scanner
That's slowing ya down right there

1GB of RAM is more than enough to completely disable virtual memory (pagefile). You'll get a speed boost from actually using your ram instead of your hard drive.
gameplaya15143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 17:41   #19
Atmo
The Freak
(Forum King)
 
Atmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,400
Quote:
Originally posted by gameplaya15143
1GB of RAM is more than enough to completely disable virtual memory (pagefile). You'll get a speed boost from actually using your ram instead of your hard drive.
1gb being enough will totally depend on the user and the programs they run, and as for it giving any sort of speed boost, that's just wrong.

http://www.dansdata.com/io019.htm (to swap or not to swap)
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...thread&tid=137
Atmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2006, 17:49   #20
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by gameplaya15143
That's slowing ya down right there

1GB of RAM is more than enough to completely disable virtual memory (pagefile). You'll get a speed boost from actually using your ram instead of your hard drive.
I wouldn't. Using no page file leads to system instability, so unless you have a specific reason, I'd avoid that.

Windows documentation recommends against this, and there is a reason.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 00:18   #21
psycho_maniac
Major Dude
 
psycho_maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,293
wow very good information i looked up milti-core processors on wikipedia for more information. also why how is "symantec virus scanner" slowing me down? it uses WAY less memory then norton i found. mabey i will wait as i have to save up for money in the first place so by the time i save enough up for this the quad core processor will be out. all i need or want rather is a faster mobo, ram (prolly 1 gig or more)processor and another big sized hd. what currently is the highest processor out there? i saw 2.2ghz but i swear there was 3.0 and 4.0ghz proecssors or mobos.
psycho_maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 00:50   #22
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
It slows you down because every webpage you go to, every file you open, gets scanned. I assume that is the level of detection you have it on. I have much of SpySweeper's things turned off just because I got tired of how slow it made everything.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 01:03   #23
Atmo
The Freak
(Forum King)
 
Atmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,400
Quote:
i saw 2.2ghz but i swear there was 3.0 and 4.0ghz proecssors or mobos.
Yes, the were P4's up to 3.8ghz (for the EE version anyway).

However, due to the P4's architecture (see here and here) they did less work per clock cycle than a PIII or athlon cpu's of the time.

That's why AMD chose to go with (and still currently use) it's performance rating (2500+ for a 1.83 ghz barton atlon XP for example, as it would roughly match or beat the performance of a 2.5ghz P4). The current Core 2 cpu's are based on the Pentium M architecture, which is based on the old PIII architecture. Despite having a lower clockrate, they do much more work per clock cycle, and are much more power efficient. Of course if you're looking at them based on MHZ/GHZ alone, it can cause confusion.

The best analogy i can think of is that it's like comparing the 2.4 litre 4 cylinder in a toyota camry to the 2.0 litre 4 cylinder in a honda S2000. Despite being a smaller capacity, the S2000's motor still makes about 50% more power (117kw vs 184kw).
Atmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 02:21   #24
psycho_maniac
Major Dude
 
psycho_maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,293
yeah i guess im gonna wait for the quad core. how long till this is out? ive never heard of this. i use spybot and adaware. but these only run when im sleeping and i set my diskkeeper to scan only once a week. on weekends.
psycho_maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 10:09   #25
DeoxySynchro
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 34
Wow, nice computer spec you guys have there.
Guess my computer, Celeron 2.4 Ghz is the lousiest computer here... No money to upgrade it... >.<
DeoxySynchro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 12:36   #26
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
It slows you down because every webpage you go to, every file you open, gets scanned. I assume that is the level of detection you have it on. I have much of SpySweeper's things turned off just because I got tired of how slow it made everything.
SpySweeper after it's upgrades in August has caused alot of problems, it slowed my parent's pc down soo much it was un real.
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 14:49   #27
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
I actually heard that the install file, if you buy it on CD, is a trojan. I cannot find any information online that supports this claim, but supposedly on the CD there are two setup files, one installs a trojan for webroot, the other is a clean install.

If you have the CD, could you verify (that there are two setup.exe's)?
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 20:07   #28
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
I don't have one, we downloaded it, but my aunt has one, i'll take a look at it
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2006, 17:27   #29
discoleo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 209
The more RAM the better. I have 1.2 GB of RAM and so decided to limit the size of the swap file. I noticed that Windows would allocate huge sizes for the swap file, even if it was completely superfluuos. (maybe 800 MB - 1GB is enough, depending on the programs you want to run)

Of course, I have allocated a separate partition for the swap file, too. (5 GB aka 4.88 GB, but 4 GB should be fine, too. Also, you could create separate partitions for other swap files.)

I also have SCSI U320 HDs, and this makes the system really fast. I previosly had an U160 connected to the primary channel (thus probably lowering the performance), but it got busted and I noticed great differences at program startups, but the biggest difference was for installing from setups saved on the local HDs. Magnificent! Indeed, HDs are currently probably the greatest bottlenecks in a (decent) system.

Though I do not defragment every month, it becomes necessary to defragment from time to time (unless you use some UNIX-like OS). However, IF you have plenty of free space on your HD (>60%), defragmentation won't bring so much speed improvement.

If you're looking for multiple cores, Sun has released an 8-core/ 4-threads per core (aka 32 threads) processor, see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/sun_t2000 and the offical Sun site http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t2000 . But of course, these are 2 different worlds. Be aware, that most software aren't however adapted to this kind of compuations (multiple nodes are NOT equivalent to multiple cores!!!).
discoleo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2006, 18:21   #30
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
The need to defrag is a result of the filesystem, not what OS you use.

I remember the rule of thumb used to be double your ram for your swap partition. I have 2 gigs of ram and a 5 gig swap partition myself, the swap is basically never used.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2006, 18:28   #31
PulseDriver
w3 addict
(Major Dude)
 
PulseDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,806
Depending on the the programs you use, having a large swap-file will many times decrease performace as things in memory are things that you don't mind being overwritten and no violations will be met when written over.

And emptying the swap-file can take ages if the programs you use, use this excessivly..

Having a small swapfile will decrease the amount of ram other programs can use, and sometimes might result in "not enough memory", but as smaller the swapfile, the better performance of speed. If you need lots of memory, okay, buy much ram or use a swapfile.

I guess the best experience is met with experimenting on large to lower swapfile.

More ram > large swapfile.

09 F9 11 01 9D 74 E8 5B D8 41 56 C3 63 56 81 C0
PulseDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2006, 19:10   #32
discoleo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 209
1 GB of swap file is probably OK for me, but this really depends on what programs you run.

Indeed, bigger swap files decrease performance. And in my experience, Windows would allocate some 1.8 GB for the swap file (and even more). I run Windows with a lesser swap file for years now, and had no problems with it.

This caused me problems only once. I installed BitTorrent and was annoyed that it always used the C-directory to store files from new torrents. So, after changing some settings, I decided to make the dir in C read-only, to detect IF BitTorrent tries to save the data there.

I set permissions so that neither the system nor me (as a user) had permission to write to that subdir.

BitTorrent started wonderfully and I was fully convinced that my settings were OK this time and BitTorrent will use a different subdir on a diferent partition. Unfortunately some time later, the PC became really slow and ultimately it crashed. (it was non-responsive, needed to restart) BitTorrent has indeed saved all the data in RAM. (RAM+swap file, some 2 GB) => I haven't seen something so weird in a long time. Instead of reporting some error, BitTorrent proceeded as usual; it really sucked. I moved immediately to a different program.

RAM is always better than swapfile, but it is also more expensive.
discoleo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 11:31   #33
Tooblai
Junior Member
 
Tooblai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kolkata, India
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally posted by psycho_maniac
yeah i guess im gonna wait for the quad core. how long till this is out?
As for AMD the officials says it'll be out within the middle of 2007.
I am waiting for it also. Wish doesn't take not much longer.
At present I have an AMD Athlon 2000+ XP processor. Works just fine for me.
Tooblai is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump