Analyze my PC! Why is my PC slow like chit?

[JohnHenry]

I upgraded my PC quite some time ago to a 3.06ghz machine, but it just *never* impressed me (so no, it's not that I have a virus or anything like that). I'm sick of it, and I'd like to know why! Forget games, I just surf the net on it, and do your usual file operations in Windows XP Pro. That's about it. It's slow with everything; the desktop, the net, you name it. I want a snappy, responsive computer that won't bog down because I have a bunch of tabs open in my browser, and I want to jot down some notes in Notepad. This does NOT perform like a 3.06ghz should, because I go to friends houses with 2.x ghz machines, and theirs is always faster than mine! So where's the weak link, that would definitely be the cause and need to be upgraded? Is there some specific tests I should run that will identify the problem parts?

Motherboard: Intel D865GVHZ
CPU: Intel Celeron P4 3.06ghz
Memory: 512MB DDR
Video: Intel 82865G onboard graphics controller
Monitor: Sharp LCD
Main Hard Drive: 120GB IBM Deskstar 120XGP


p.s. I have also trimmed my XP services and I have only programs with a small resource footprint in permanent use, in order to minimize memory allocation.

:disgust:

 

[Soundmanred]

Celeron P4?
Which is it, a Celeron or a P4?

 

[JohnHenry]

It's a Celeron. It's still considered P4 family, isn't it? Well, it is according to FreshDiagnose, anyway.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

A few questions to start:

Have you defragmented the hard drive lately?
Have you scanned and removed viruses and spyware?
Have you disabled non-necessary programs at startup?
Do you have a lot of programs installed or a lot of desktop shortcuts?

Let us know.

 

[robisbell]

well, barely minimum of memory for multitasking, decent processor, I think the ram is your major sticking point for the moment.

 

[daveybrat]

You should add another 1Gb stick of ram to that machine. They are cheap and will give you a nice boost.

Also download and run Ccleaner to clean up all your temp files before defragmenting your hard drive.

 

[JohnHenry]

As mentioned, this PC has *always* been slow. That means even on a clean boot. So that means it isn't: fragmentation, junk files, viruses/malware, or programs installed (because as I mentioned, I have kept installed programs to a minimum).

RAM: As I say, I'm only surfing the net, and doing Windows file operations. I'm not Photoshopping anything, I'm not processing heavy AVI's. So why would I need 1GB of RAM just to surf the net in XP? Moreover, as I also mentioned, I go on the PCs of friends who have less CPU power, I surf the net or do file operations, its significantly faster. But maybe they have Intel P4's, not Celerons; I don't know if that could be it. But I know what it isnt!

What about the video? What about tests to find out where the bottleneck might be?

 

[nordloewelabs]

install the freeware Autoruns and uncheck all non-essential progs that start-up with Windows. some antivirus progs are pretty slow. i know a guy that uses McAfee in his laptop and it makes his machine painfully slow. right now, AntiVir is the best free antivirus (fast and reliable).

and others have pointed out, you have too little RAM. it's usable but it will never be "snappy". add a 1Gb stick and you will be fine. i think memory is your bottle-neck.

 

[nordloewelabs]

Originally posted by: JohnHenry
RAM: As I say, I'm only surfing the net, and doing Windows file operations. I'm not Photoshopping anything, I'm not processing heavy AVI's. So why would I need 1GB of RAM just to surf the net in XP?

RAM makes the most difference when opening:
1) progs
2) menus
3) dialog-boxes

if by "file operations" you mean copying and moving files, then your prob is slow HD, which could be caused by fragmentation or slow specs. fragmentation is not affected by clean boots. maybe you meant that your computer is slow even after a "clean install".... if so, then you can rule out fragmentation.

an example: i have a Tablet PC that is slower than my (very) old desktop -- even though the Tablet has a better processor! the prob is that the Tablet has a slow HD. data is written to and read from the HD at a slow rate.

regardless of the specs of your HD, you have too little memory for "snappyness". you should have -- minimum minimorum -- 1Gb....preferably 2Gb.

 

[JohnHenry]

>>maybe you meant that your computer is slow even after a "clean install".... <<

Yes. That's why I said "This PC has *always* been slow. That means even on a clean boot."

>>if so, then you can rule out fragmentation.<<

I know. That's why I wrote the following line: "So that means it isn't fragmentation"

As for installing Autoruns and unchecking all non-essential progs that start-up with Windows, well I already mentioned having already mentioned that I did this already. I already know it isn't a software problem. ***THIS IS A SLOW PC***. Fact. I already *know* that AV and other software can slow down a system. Again, this problem is *not* due to software. I have a SATA Deskstar. It shouldn't be that slow. It can't be the memory, because the PC is slower than 3+ghz should be right after boot and before I start to seriously use it. That means when there's still 400MB+ of RAM available to WIndows, this thing is still not snappy! So I can shove 650 Gigabytes of RAM in there, that's not gonna change that. That points to either a crappy motherboard, a slow on-board video processor, or I should never have gotten a Celeron. I think I'm gonna forget this and just run some benchmarks and see if I can compare the numbers to what others are getting with similar hardware, and find out where the bottleneck is that way.

 

[coxmaster]

Celerons usually seem slower (atleast mine used to) RAM would definately make it snappier.. As for video, onboard definately doesnt help because it takes away even more RAM.. and its slow

 

[robisbell]

I think you're confusing RAM and HDD, and RAM will speed performance of the OS up due to it not having to use large swap files to run anything, I'd say upgrade to 2GB of RAM, that should make things run smoother.

 

[JohnHenry]

Originally posted by: robisbell
I think you're confusing RAM and HDD, and RAM will speed performance of the OS up due to it not having to use large swap files to run anything, I'd say upgrade to 2GB of RAM, that should make things run smoother.

No one's confusing RAM and HDD, I think we all here know the difference between the two components. And yes, I know RAM will speed up performance of the OS due to the swap file. I've already tried running XP with no swap file many times. Yes, it helps matters (until I start browsing the net, run out of memory and get warned by XP to increase the file). But I still dont think the PC runs like a 3+ghz should, even with no swap file. I'm still getting much better performance on other people's computers, despite them having 2.x P4 machines, and no more memory than me. There's still unacceptable delays with many operations on my PC, like loading web sites, loading Directory Opus (my file manager), opening archives, and other mundane day to day windows operations. I'm still constantly having to wait for the computer to catch up to what I want to do. I had thought upgrading to a 3.06ghz would have solved all that!

Still, I'm looking at getting another 1gig of DDR 400mhz memory, but I'm not hopeful that's going to solve all the responsiveness issues. It may be that Celeron's are just nowhere as good as the non-Celeron P4's, or the Intel motherboard sucks. I'm still not sure if getting an outboard video card would help here, if I'm to upgrade the RAM (the onboard video taking the main RAM for its VRAM wouldn't matter with 1.5 GB, since I'd have more RAM than I need for basically just surfing the web).

If an outboard card would help anyway, what's a really cheap PCI video card (for 2D desktop applications) that would nevertheless be significantly faster to my eyes (ie. load pictures on web pages faster) than the onboard video?

 

[robisbell]

I have used Celeron's with XP, and they always performed smoothly, I think you need to take it in steps before assuming the cpu is the problem. I would try the ram since old DDR ram is cheap at the moment, as long as you get ram that is 100% compatible with the board, especially a older model motherboard. since you're not doing anything involving graphics, video, etc.. , what are you trying to use the system for then?

 

[nordloewelabs]

i got an Athlon 3000+ with 2.16Ghz. i used to have 512Mb RAM in it....never felt snappy. i upgraded it to 1.5Gb and i immediately noticed the difference. there's no way XP will feel responsive with just 512Mb RAM (shared or not).... especially with onboard graphics sucking 64-128Mb of the juice. hell, even my P3 700Mhz feels snappy with its 768Mb RAM.

you'd get better responsiveness from XP running a
- Celeron 2Ghz with 2Gb RAM
than a
- P4 3Ghz with only 512Mb RAM


my ¢2.

 

[JohnHenry]

robisbell:

As I wrote, I mainly just use it for surfing the web, and file operations in windows. BTW, DDR RAM I noticed is -not- cheap, compared to DDR2! You would think otherwise, since its obsolete now.



nordloewelabs: As I just wrote in my last msg....:

"And yes, I know RAM will speed up performance of the OS due to the swap file. I've already tried running XP with no swap file many times. Yes, it helps matters (until I start browsing the net, run out of memory and get warned by XP to increase the file). But I still dont think the PC runs like a 3+ghz should, even with no swap file. I'm still getting much better performance on other people's computers, despite them having 2.x P4 machines, and no more memory than me. There's still unacceptable delays with many operations on my PC, like loading web sites, loading Directory Opus (my file manager), opening archives, and other mundane day to day windows operations. I'm still constantly having to wait for the computer to catch up to what I want to do."

 

[robisbell]

I know if you look you can find it at a lot less than DDR2. I'd weigh either spending the money on old hardware or using it get new hardware.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Has anyone considered that part of the issue may be the slow FSB of the Celeron? AFAIK, they run on a 400Mhz (4x100Mhz) FSB. This significantly slows down the throughput of the system. P4s run on a 400/533/800 FSB. Most Northwood P4s run at 800Mhz though.

Also, having more RAM helps immensely, even if your applications aren't using the RAM. Why? Because it is used for caching the slow disk drive. More RAM is definately needed to speed up your system. It would definately speed up your web browsing.