Windows XP is SLOOWWWW - Help!

[Budman]

My point is you never said you had DMA in your first post,you did after but not at first.

And if you had half a brain Cpu usage at 75% while hd reading is a dead giveaway for DMA not being enabled,but then again you must be the moron.

And I will post if I chose to.

 

[Budman]

Maybe next time try reading the AT faqs.

DMA (Direct Memory Access) allows devices in your computer to transfer data directly to and from RAM without having to use the CPU as an intermediary. This system is a boost to overall system performance not only because the devices can respond more quickly but it also frees up the CPU to perform other tasks.

Enabling DMA on hard drives and CDROMs

 

[dullard]

I tried to stop this argument by showing it as simple misunderstandings. It just led to more flames. I'm getting out so I'm not booted.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: Trinitron
I believe he said that he already had DMA enabled Budman

Read his first post, cpu usage 75% and he never mentions DMA.

Look above , I said FIRST POST, yes dullard he said he enabled it AFTER,that's not the point.

I never said he NEVER said DMA, i just said in his FIRST post he didnt,that's all.

 

[dullard]

I tried to stop this argument by showing it as simple misunderstandings. It just led to more flames. I'm getting out so I'm not booted.

 

[cvpifreak]

Budman I never had problems enabling DMA, it was enabled at 75% CPU usage! DMA WAS ALREADY ENABLED

How many times must I say this and others in this thread say this before it sinks into your head that it was not part of the problem???

DMA WAS NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM!! NOT A FACTOR!! NOT RELATED TO USEAGE PROBLEMS! YOU ASKED ME ABOUT IT! I TOLD YOU IT WAS ALREADY ENABLED! YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

You really are an idiot. But I will have to call you an idiot several more times apparently before it sinks in...

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: cvpifreak
Budman I never had problems enabling DMA, it was enabled at 75% CPU usage! DMA WAS ALREADY ENABLED

How many times must I say this and others in this thread say this before it sinks into your head that it was not part of the problem???

DMA WAS NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM!! NOT A FACTOR!! NOT RELATED TO USEAGE PROBLEMS! YOU ASKED ME ABOUT IT! I TOLD YOU IT WAS ALREADY ENABLED! YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

You really are an idiot. But I will have to call you an idiot several more times apparently before it sinks in...

Hey relax buddy,you started calling me names,there's no need to call people names here.

Thing is you messed up & didnt install 4 in 1 drivers,then came here complaining XP was slow.

You system isnt that slow,Xp isnt that slow,maybe between the keyboard & the chair?

 

[cvpifreak]

07/14/2003 7:26 PM

DMA enabled on your hd/cdrom ?

And dont expect miracles with that old setup

Pentium III 1Ghz
256 Meg PC133 Ram

07/14/2003 7:30 PM


Thanks Ionizer86, I'll check those things out.

Budman - puhllleeeasee! The specs are perfectly fine for running an OS and MS Office, I don't play games. You don't need an Athlon XP 3200 with 1 GB ram to run an OS and Office at a decent speed. Windows 2000 has zero problems, it has nothing to do with the system being "old".

Edit - DMA enabled.

Edited: 07/14/2003 at 7:32 PM by cvpifreak

07/14/2003 7:59 PM


Read his first post, cpu usage 75% and he never mentions DMA.

HMMM LETS SEE!! You asked a question... I posted a reply and I answered that question in my reply. Then after this you refered to the first post no mention DMA... this is AFTER you claim that you "told" me how to fix the problem and that was the solution.

Idiot

 

[cvpifreak]

Budman you came off as a smart ass know it all and got proved wrong, I didn't forget to install 4in1, I made it clear in my first post I hadn't done it yet.

I called you name because you deserve it. I think YOUR problem is between your left and right ears.

 

[elzmaddy]

cvpifreak, please calm yourself down. Personal insults can get you banned from the forum.

Anyway, I agree 1GHZ/256MB is plenty for XP. I installed XP for a friend on his AMD K6-3 (450MHZ, 192MB RAM) system and he loves it.

 

[bocamojo]

CVPIFREAK, I was not involved in this particular thread, but I would like to say that you should really take it easy with your comments. This forum is here for your benefit, as well as others. If you don't need our help, and can fix it yourself, then you should not be asking for our advice. There's no need to start flaming people when they're trying to help. Some people might come off like they know it all, and then again, some of us do....

 

[Nebor]

Why drag up this old post? To rekindle the FLAMES?

 

[galt]

I'd say the installation didn't go right. I have a celeron 733 with 192mb ram, and its running xp pro as fast as my xp2000+ with 512mb ram. I guess check your drivers are correct, do some defragging, and try with the eye candy turned off.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: dullard
I tried to stop this argument by showing it as simple misunderstandings. It just led to more flames. I'm getting out so I'm not booted.

I've been in more heated debates/arguments than this and I didn't get booted... you have nothing to worry about

Oh yeah... and I'm using Windows 2000 right now, with MBM, AIM, Yahoo Messenger, and IE running... and my commit charge is 130 MB... so I doubt Windows XP on a computer with 128 MB of RAM would be acceptable in my book.

 

[bocamojo]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Why drag up this old post? To rekindle the FLAMES?

Nebor, you must be living in Nano Time... The post was started yesterday night, and was commented on this morning. How is this an old post? Or perhaps you were just looking for the opportunity to say your one liner "rekindle the FLAMES", which was funny, BTW.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Budman
DMA enabled on your hd/cdrom ?

And dont expect miracles with that old setup

Pentium III 1Ghz
256 Meg PC133 Ram

Oh yes, you really need *that* to run Windows XP. Give me a break. My advice - instead of lighting flames for idiots to flame at, just ignore them. You're better off that way.

 

[ShawnReeves]

My server runs great on XP.

Pentium 233MHz MMX
256mb PC133@100
2.3gb HD @5400
Aopen Slot load 40x
2mb Matrox (ok yeah this sucks, but its just a server)
XP Pro SP1
Xirtami Pro Webserver/FTP Server

Could be your HD is wearing down or not performing right?!?!?

 

[bjc112]

[/quote]

HMMM LETS SEE!! You asked a question... I posted a reply and I answered that question in my reply. Then after this you refered to the first post no mention DMA... this is AFTER you claim that you "told" me how to fix the problem and that was the solution.

Idiot[/quote]

Alright take it easy junior... He was just trying to help you out.

Let this thread die already.

 

[Nebor]

ANything off the front page is old.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Nebor
ANything off the front page is old.

Don't be so quick to jump, if you have it showing 100 posts per page, it will show last nite, early in the morning...

 

[bocamojo]

Originally posted by: Nebor
ANything off the front page is old.

So, are you saying I should only reply to posts on the front page, and ignore the others, because they're too "old"? If a post is a week old, then that would be one thing, but 12 hours old is yet another thing, regardless of what page it is on. I routinely go through the first 6 or 8 pages, starting with page 1, and respond where I see fit. I don't troll the boards day and night, so this gives me the opportunity to catch up, per se, when I have the time.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Nebor
ANything off the front page is old.

Don't be so quick to jump, if you have it showing 100 posts per page, it will show last nite, early in the morning...

Or if you're in the Off Topic forum... anything that's 10 minutes old is off the front page.