Damn, lately my P4 1.6 and my XP 1600 have been feeling slow.

[PlatinumGold]

hmmm. wonder if it is time for an upgrade.

Is it the PC or is it me??

 

[Utterman]

format c: /q

 

[Supermercado]

Don't feel too bad. I'm still running an 800 MHz PIII and won't be able to upgrade until next summer at the earliest.

 

[BDawg]

I don't want to hear about it...right after I lost my job, my PIII 933 started wiggin' out. Now it only runs at 100MHz fsb.

Hopefully, when I get a job I can get a nice 2.4 GHz P4...

 

[UberDave]

i'm at 1700+ and feeling great


512 ddr

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I feel like my 2.56GHz Northwood is getting slow, too.

nik

 

[CraigRT]

hm, i dunno.. I still like my XP2000

 

[NewSc2]

the only thing i notice in the upgrade from 1.5ghz to 2.0 northwood (o/ced to 2.75ghz) is that war3 loads up much faster than most people. other than that, winamp, IE, AIM, and outlook all load in the same times for me.

 

[toant103]

not mine. It's flying.

 

[ElFenix]

my pentium pro 233 feels a bit slow...

 

[nord1899]

Reinstall windows?

 

[Mrburns2007]

Some say the cluster size affects windows speed, they recommend 4k cluster, by default windows xp may use 512 which can run very slow over time.

So check your cluster size and see if it's 512 or 4k.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
my pentium pro 233 feels a bit slow...

lol - I wish I still had my 486 DX4-100 running Win98 on 16MB RAM

nik

 

[PlatinumGold]

Some say the cluster size affects windows speed, they recommend 4k cluster, by default windows xp may use 512 which can run very slow over time.

So check your cluster size and see if it's 512 or 4k.

hmmm, check again. mb i'm wrong, but cluster size applies to FAT not to NTFS, which all my computers are running.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Some say the cluster size affects windows speed, they recommend 4k cluster, by default windows xp may use 512 which can run very slow over time.

So check your cluster size and see if it's 512 or 4k.

hmmm, check again. mb i'm wrong, but cluster size applies to FAT not to NTFS, which all my computers are running.

You might be wrong according to this: ntfs and cluster

it was immediately apparent to me that my performance eroded markedly. It took Windows forever to load, and disk-intensive tasks ran like molasses in January. In fact, I was surprised by how slow the machine became. I had been led to believe that 512-byte clusters slowed the machine down incrementally, but the reality was much worse.