Xp Too Slow

[NormaCG 0]

I bought a new IBM computer with Windows XP installed. I find it very slow starting up and very slow at launching programs. I spoke to IBM and they gave me a file to update the BIOS which I did. It has made some improvement but still not like it should be. Any help??? PLEASE...I am not a patient person

[JP- 0]

About how long does it take to start up?

[OLEerror 0]

What are the computer's specs?

[Sampson 0]

XP and for that matter W2K do have issues with some hard disks in starting programs after a period of time Look at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q310419. Since yours is new system, several things suggest themselves - not enough Ram, hard disk is not configured with DMA support, video card or drivers are not optimized. As others have indicated, give your system specs as a first step to diagnosing the more common bottlenecks.

 

edit by clutch

Fixed link.

/edit

[NormaCG 0]

Thanks for all the replies...Ok...I will try this...I am no expert by any stretch of the immagination. The computer is a Netvista - 60g hard drive..128mgs of ram..Intel Celeron processor..not sure what else you need to know.

[JP- 0]

How about how long it takes to start up?

[NormaCG 0]

From start to finish it takes about 10 minutes

[Galilee 0]

You should atleast get more ram. 256MB minimum on XP IMO.

 

And you can try to turn of Luna (use Classic) to get the desktop-use a little faster. Turning of System Restore can also help.

[Sampson 0]

Clearly, you need more memory to run XP, and as Galilee points out 256 is minimum. What is the speed of the processor? Are you sure it is a Celeron?

[kingtrey 0]

how much bloatware crap is loading when you start up your computer? if you have a ton of things loading in the system tray every time you start up the computer, then yes, its gonna take 10 min. are you using the install of XP that was already on there when you bought the computer? you might just want to format the harddrive and install it from scratch if they gave you an XP CD and Serial # ... who knows what that computer had on it before you got it. my advice is either disable everything that you don't need on startup by using msconfig or just reformat your drive and install it fresh. that should speed up your system. oh yeah, and more ram would def. help what type of ram is in your system?

[Dirty Harry 0]

I've never tried XP with <256 MB of RAM and that could very well be a, perhaps the, problem. NormaCG however writes "bought a new IBM computer with Windows XP installed". I'd take it back to the shop and get a refund or, if not possible, have them fix it. I say refund because somehow the combination is strange: "new IBM computer"+ "XP installed" + "Celeron" +"128 MB of RAM". Any chance you can post a link to the shop and the model number of the PC?

 

FYI, XP should load in less than a minute or so on a desktop machine.

 

H.

[Alien 1]

Just to clear things up - 128MB of RAM is not the prob as I buiit a cheap system for a m8 that had only 128MB RAM & a Duron 800 & it certainly didn't take 10mins to start up. He even plays Counterstrike on it - or @ least he did until he moved to somewhere that doesn't have cable yet [he hasn't got a dial-up modem either].

 

Edit: although it's always good to have as much RAM as you can get your hands on, I was just trying to point out that having only 128MB RAM wouldn't by itself cause XP to take 10 mins to start up.

[DosFreak 2]

Driver problem or faulty hardware would cause that slow of a startup. Can you pinpoint the slow startup? Where does it seem to hang at? During the XP load screen?

[Sampson 0]

This is one of those executive summaries from ZiffDavisReviews about the Netvista:

 

"IBM computers are known for their conservative performance and the NetVista X41 lives down to that goal. Though based on a 1.8GHz Pentium 4, it's saddled with SDRAM and an integrated, last-generation graphics system. Compared to decked-out RDRAM systems, that's a recipe for mediocre performance. Pitted against rivals with a similar memory type but cutting-edge graphics cards, the X41 suffers only in our Office productivity test, its score falling about 10 percent below that of the competition. Three words about 3D: don't go there."

 

It is a P4 system; not a Celeron and it is saddled with some pretty "slow" video cards. Don't know what kind of SDRam it has, but would guess it is no barnburner either.

 

Your best option - return it.

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

try disabling the network card and see if that helps.

 

I dont know if one can simply 'take back' a computer after purchase...but I would try to if its a celeron. Unless you are using it for email/word and what not.

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

You should atleast get more ram. 256MB minimum on XP IMO.

And you can try to turn of Luna (use Classic) to get the desktop-use a little faster. Turning of System Restore can also help.

I run XP in 128Mb RAM with all the Luna stuff turned on (I laugh at people who have machines much faster than mine who advocate turning it off for "performance reasons") and it starts up and runs just as fast as 2k did...

[Sampson 0]

Clearly, Admiral, you know your way around that old BX box of yours, but I bet you if you put in a Powerleap processor package (upping your CPU to 1Gig) and stuffed another 512Mg of ram in your system, you'd never go back.

But, it isn't just a question of starting up a system, it is the amount of resources that a system has to contend with, track, and cache, that bring a machine to it knees. Working with large databases and having to build reports and then run those reports with the fonts, variables, calculated fields, exception/inclusion clauses and multiple sorts in headers, subheaders, and footers would quickly convince you that more memory and doing without the eye candy is a great trade off for faster results.

As I said, you obviously know your computer, and you keep it within the boundaries you've set for it, but aren't you tempted just a little, to put a bigger sail on that little beast?

[prost8 0]

i'd still be putting my money on its DMA... i've had lots of problems with it in the past.

right-click My Computer->Manage->Device Manager->IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers->Primary IDE Channel->Advanced Settings. is "Current Transfer Mode" Ultra DMA Mode ? or PIO?

well there's my 2 cents.

[Sampson 0]

You're probably right, prost8, but given the configuration I read about on IBM's webpage, I would say that it is a multiple of factors - this P4 coupled with SDram is going to run slow. This isn't the 13Micron, this is the older version. The video cards are "last generation" so they are going to hold it back. It has too little memory without a lot of disk caching, which, of course, where the importance of UltraDma kicks in. Heaven knows how many applications are fired up at bootup, but if Office or Lotus is one of them, there is going to be a plethora of tasks running in the background.

We need a lot more information to help.

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

Clearly, Admiral, you know your way around that old BX box of yours, but I bet you if you put in a Powerleap processor package (upping your CPU to 1Gig) and stuffed another 512Mg of ram in your system, you'd never go back.
But, it isn't just a question of starting up a system, it is the amount of resources that a system has to contend with, track, and cache, that bring a machine to it knees. Working with large databases and having to build reports and then run those reports with the fonts, variables, calculated fields, exception/inclusion clauses and multiple sorts in headers, subheaders, and footers would quickly convince you that more memory and doing without the eye candy is a great trade off for faster results.
As I said, you obviously know your computer, and you keep it within the boundaries you've set for it, but aren't you tempted just a little, to put a bigger sail on that little beast?

I'm tempted but I currently lack the financial resources to do anything about it so I'm forced to make do with what I have. I'm not much of a tweaker when it comes to performance nor am I a benchmark whore, I prefer to use my eyes to decide if somethings faster or not and they tell me that with my installation compliment, which includes several games, XP starts up and runs just as quickly as 2k used to on the same system.

[valery 0]

Hi,

 

I don't know what are your system specifications. I had the same problem, XP was slow, not only for the boot up but to launch an application, too. I know that XP ask minimum a 500 Mhz (it's recommended) and that I have a 433 Mhz, but it was not normal.

 

I have found a patch called memory enabler for VIA chipset only, it has worked for me but if you have'nt a via chipset it not works for you, I have installed it and now, my computer is perfect !

 

If you have a via chipset, try it (this patch doesn't work for all via chipset - read the documentation in the zip archive), you can download this patch here PATCH VIA MEMORYENABLER

 

It was my solution .... !

 

If you don't have a via chipset, check your Bios settings ... A lot of problems comes form a bios which is badly configured !

 

Bye ...and good luck !

[tHêGhð§tÔfT¡mé 0]

I had a intel 233mhz MMX cpu and 64mb of PC-66 ram and 4 gig ATA33 harddrive and it only took 50 seconds at the most to boot win xp pro to the desktop....on a decent machine like an athlon xp 1700+, 256mb should take win xp bout 30 to 40 seconds to boot up I say take ur puter back and get a refund.....best bet when upgrading or buying a new computer.....get it custom built with hardware and specs that u will use for general tasks etc....if u play alot of 3d intensive games like alien vs predator 2.....get something like a amd athlon xp with windows xp...and minimum of 256mb ddr ram....or if ya just doing video editing and stuff....go for a pentium 4