PC Speed gloaters: explain.

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Nipsy, Mar 22, 2003.

  1. Nipsy macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    Okay, there are a bunch of you who claim how much faster the PC is in raw computational power (which I'll agree with), but explain this to me:

    I recently upgraded my PC. My Dual Pentium III 500 gave up, and I decided to build a speedy box. I got an NForce2 (Epox 8RDA+), 1GB dual channel PC2700 CL2 RAM, and an Athlon XP2100+. Two ATA133 7200RPM HDs (fresh Windows XP Pro install, data).

    The thing is still dog slow. For all the crap spouted here about Wintel speed demons, how is this possible? The sluggish perfomance of XP is like molasses. WinRAR and FSRAID still bring the machine to its knees. 'My Computer' windows still take 5-10 seconds to draw when Nero is doing a burn....

    Help. Prove your points. I want this machine to be reasonably fast, but as it sits, it is proving how bad the Windows bloat has become.
  2. MacAztec macrumors 68040


    Oct 28, 2001
    San Luis Obispo, CA

    Whats your graphics card?

    I cant think of anything else. Because...

    My school has like some cheap P3 1GHz machines (school quality=cheap crap) and they run Win XP. They run it fast too. Faster then my computers at home (macs).

    And thse machines probly cost em like 300 dollars a piece.
  3. LethalWolfe macrumors G3


    Jan 11, 2002
    Los Angeles
    all you drivers up to date? Bad RAM maybe?

    Honestly, there must be a problem somewhere 'cause I built my GF a PC for Xmas w/an Radeon 8500 LE, AMD 1800+, 256meg PC2100 (I think)RAM on an ASUS A7N266-VM mobo (orginal Nforce) and it is quite snappy running XP.

    Anyway, beefy hardware can only do so much when you are running a bloated MS OS. ;)

  4. taeclee99 macrumors 6502a


    Jun 4, 2002
    Anywhere but here
    Make sure you install the updated chipset drivers for the nforce 2 board. It might make a difference.
  5. FelixDerKater Contributor


    Apr 12, 2002
    Nirgendwo in Amerika
  6. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Jun 25, 2002
    Gone but not forgotten.
    Go into the display control panel. Click on the performance tab. Eliminate anything that says fade or slide. Performance will be much better.
  7. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001

    Clicking in "my computer" is hardly a benchmark. I get hung up there a lot waiting for CDs to spin and stuff like that.


    That is essentially irrelevant.


    Bad RAM causes crashes, not slowdowns.


    Even the most pathetic graphics card should be fine for 2D stuff. Even a crappy 500mhz, i810 integrated shared-memory graphics machine at work has snappyness in some ways that my vastly more powerful Mac doesn't.
  8. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030


    Sep 13, 2001
    Portland, OR
    Re: Hmmm

    That's really weird. My school has a few cheap P3 1GHz machines and they're slooooooooow (Win2000). Seriously, they feel like my old beige G3 233 w/10.1, it's awful. Even the P3 500Mhz Win98 machines seem faster. Luckily, I have one of the few 1.7GHz P4s in the school for my programming machine (it's crap, SDRAM, integrated graphics, etc... but it's got a reasonably fast processor) :) It's almost as responsive as my dual 867 at home.
  9. Nipsy thread starter macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    I realize it isn't a benchmark, but it should not take 5-10 seconds....ever.

    The graphics cards is slow (GF2MX), but plenty for me, as I'm not gaming.

    As far as stuff like benchmarking, SiSoft Sandra tells me it is fast. It plays multimedia a bit better than the PIII rig did.

    What I really wanted was a speed up in the OS, and gruntwork. This machine does boring things, like working video off my ReplayTV, archiving programming newsgroups into databases, etc.

    What's frustrating is that after spending my whole Friday night going to the recommended system (by hard OCP), it feels just like the Dual PIII. Slow.

    And it makes me wonder about all the PC trolls who come here, hit caps lock, and tell us how much faster their machines are. This is certainly an OS dog compared to my Dual 867. It multitasks poorly, and it never seems to even utilize the available processor (30-50% seems like a ceiling for many tasks).

    I believe the speed is there somewhere, but it seems crippled by the OS.
  10. Nipsy thread starter macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    I've done everything in the MoBo manual regarding drivers, and cycled through Windows update (11 times).

    I have yet to turn off all of the eye candy, as primarily my problems seem processing related, and not graphics related (two instances of WinRAR take 30 minutes to do two cds, one instance takes 3).

    This seems to be the key:
    "Anyway, beefy hardware can only do so much when you are running a bloated MS OS."

    However, I still expected one 2100+ to be noticeably faster than 2 PIII 500s.
  11. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    First, overclock everything.
    2ed burning a CD any doing anything in XP makes everything go slower.

    Run some real proformance tests and we will tell you if they are in decent range.

    Edit: Win 2000 > XP by far.
  12. Nipsy thread starter macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    Well, I bought this thinking it would feel snappy for a while, and I could overclock it later. May accelerate that schedule.

    Great benchmarks are useless if my real world speeds for the things I do remain in the toilet. SiSoft Sandra thinks it is performing as it should...other recommendations? Is there some evil service turned on which is limiting me to half my processor?

    Also, I need XP on this machine. I have Win2K on a 500MHz laptop which feels faster...
  13. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001

    Whats the cause of all this bitterness? Is it possible your view is clouded? I've never had a problem with these PC troll types but I have, on many occasions, had run-ins with irrational mac defenders.

    Sounds like the problem is not the processor.

    This is the sort of symptom I'd expect from hard the hard disk being the problem. Processors don't have slowdowns like that from running two processes, but hard drives do, when their seek head has to spend all its time jumping around doing different things instead of tending to one read or one write. I should also add that if you have set things up so that you have both master and slave devices on IDE channels and you are trying to use both devices at once, then you will suffer a slowdown.
  14. Nipsy thread starter macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    Well, my drive setup is as follows:
    Channel 0:
    Master - Boot partition (Windows), programs & docs partition (My Documents and Program files).
    Slave - Slow DVD/CDRW
    Channel 1:
    Master - 120GB data drive
    Slave - Fast DVD/CDRW

    PCI/IDE RAID Channels 0 & 1:

    Both drives are 7200RPM, less than 6 months old, and the Windows partition is a fresh install yestersay...
  15. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001

    Hmmm, your setup looks OK to me, and is pretty similar to my own PC (I run win2k). I mostly play games on it these days, though. :) Anyway, good luck with finding a solution somewhere... I can't help you, it seems.
  16. CrackedButter macrumors 68040


    Jan 15, 2003
    51st State of America
    Install Linux and see how that handles your hardware, rather than find fault with the HW try different SW.
  17. Nipsy thread starter macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    As I stated above, I need to run XP on this machine. I also stated several times that I suspected Windows was the culprit. I don't doubt that the HW is fast (as I mentioned in the first line of the thread).

    Here, I'll rephrase:
    Why is Windows XP on an NForce2/Athlon 2100+ (now 2700+) just as slow as Windows XP on a Dual PIII 500?

    Even with overclocking (lots of it [and took only 8 keystrokes]), the 'My Computer' window still takes 5-10 seconds when doing anything (but not burning). File handling is slow as molasses, etc.

    The machine is working (I managed to get 130 frames processed per second in Virtual dub, compared with my former 12-16), but the OS is dog slow.

    As I've said, this machine needs to run XP, so I need to know if XP can be made snappy, or if I should just resign myself to the fact that it will forever feel like an ugly 10.0?
  18. Independence macrumors regular

    Jan 14, 2003
    United States
    Re: PC Speed gloaters: explain.

    how strange. my 800 mhz PC performs well with those applications, even when i was running windows xp (when the hardware problems aren't causing the system to crash and burn).
  19. edesignuk Moderator emeritus


    Mar 25, 2002
    London, England
    Try turning off all the WinXP eye-candy.
    Right click on 'My computer' and select 'Properties', then go to the 'Advanced' tab, and hit the 'Settings' button in the 'Performence' area, turn off all the crap and you should get things responding much better. Hope this helps :)

    Attached Files:

  20. cubist macrumors 68020

    Jul 4, 2002
    Muncie, Indiana
    Windows has some aspects which are poorly programmed and are always slow, regardless of processor. "My Computer" is one of them. It doesn't matter if you have a 30GHz processor, it takes at least 10 seconds, and possibly a minute or more.

    Startup: During startup, Windows incorrectly shows an arrow cursor when, in fact, it is not ready to accept any commands. Double-click on something, and nothing will happen for 30 seconds or more.

    Printing: You can crash almost any Windows application by trying to print when a network printer is out of paper, or busy, or not turned on, or any of several other conditions. Printing on Windows is painfully slow in any event.

    But these (and many others) are inefficient software, poorly coded parts of the operating system. They don't indicate that you have a slow computer. On a PC, everything can be fast except for the OS.
  21. Nipsy thread starter macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    Perhaps I just have to accept this.

    I allowed for some bogging down on the PIII Dualie, blaming it on the age of the processors.

    I had really hoped that the Athlon would make the OS 'snappy'.

    I'm still at a loss at to why RAR and PAR operations are sooooo dreadfully slow, but having spent the whole weekend on the transisiton, and having it running steadily, I'm ready to walk away and get some damn sleep before the sun comes up.

    Especially now that Windows Explorer has decided to crash whenever I invoke 'Folder Views'.

    I hope in 5 years OS X has gained enough ground that all software is readily available for it, and I can banish these Wintel boxes from my life forever.

Share This Page