unhappy with my p4 system

B

blue_heart71

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
212
recently the office i work for bough a dell 4600i system (intel 865pe chipset, 2.8c, 2x512 infenion (3-3-3) with 80gb maxtor 7200 ata 2mb

however, i changed the hard disk and got wd360 and 80gb 7k250, partitioned as follows

wd360
c: OS+program files (20gb)
d: photoshop scratch disk (8gb)
e: work data (ms office files + outlook express) (7gb)

7k250
f: win pagefile (2gb) (fixed 1.9-1.9 gb)
g: temps + internet temp files (6gb)
h: general storage (games, data backup, movies, songs...etc) (68gb)

the OS is winxp pro and norton anti virus 2004 is installed and in the auto protect the smart scan is enabled only.

the problem that i am not happy is the application loading compared with my previously used system (seagate ata 7200.7 40gb 2mb on soltek nforce2 2500+ barton 1x512 dual) is slower where it should be faster

do you guys have any idea what is the reason?

in my computer properities it is says Intel 8280 1eb ultra ata controler, i do not know why it is not sata controller, so maybe this is the problem

and am i going to see any difference if i bough a serial ata pci card and hooked both the drives to the card?


please help me solving out this problem


thank you in advance
 
The problem is the 36 gig raptors arent that much faster than the seagate.

I've got a 80 gig Maxtor that has the same average as the first raptors.

Mine feels slower than my Shuttle rig that has a single 200 gig WD JB 200.
 
My computer runs slower when I have my WD 200Gb SE hooked up. If I un-hook it it boots a lot faster I am running a 74Gb Raptor.
 
The problem is the 36 gig raptors arent that much faster than the seagate.

i am not saying its speed is similar or a litlle bit faster, i am saying it is slower, its really strange

i disabled the HT in the bios but nothing changed, will try again tomorrow to switch again and check
 
My computer runs slower when I have my WD 200Gb SE hooked up. If I un-hook it it boots a lot faster I am running a 74Gb Raptor.

first i was using the wd360 alone and later on i insalled the 7k250 and both cases the speed remained the same
 
Would you consider installing another WD360GD drive in combination with the first WD360GD in a SATA RAID-0 Configuration?

Should help things out, but it's an added cost.
 
Would you consider installing another WD360GD drive in combination with the first WD360GD in a SATA RAID-0 Configuration?

i am not into raid and extra cost, there is something wrong with the system, raptor and slower than ata 7200.7 sure there is something wrong, maybe the motherboard is where the problem is, therefore i am thinking to get a sata card from a friend and give it a try
 
Are they connected on different IDE ribbons?

they are sata drives not pata and therefore each drive connected separately to the connector on the motherboard (wd360 on sata 0 and 7k250 to sata1)
 
get rid of your virus scanner and just dont download stupid attachments!! :)

I've been virus scanner & VIRUS FREE for about 3 years now.

I did get WinPup32 (pop up/malware/crapper) from a webpage with scripts enabled (some type of loop hole) But removed it immediately when I noticed a pop-up on my homepage isnt supposed to have them.
 
P4's in my opinion are the shatz. I was working on a two client machines one was a p4 1.7 the other duron 650. the Duron felt more responsive and plain faster launching all apps andd scanning for viruses. 1.7 was an equivalent to sticking a needle in my eye. AVG and Norton was on the p4. AVG, Norton, and Symantec ran on the Duron and still duron won pants down. Go figure.
 
Norton and Symantec huh?

app loading should be a bigger problem with the drives then the proc IMO, especially in his case.
 
Installs Intel's Application Accelerator if you havent. That might help.
 
thanks for your reply guys

unfortunately i can not remove NAV, i use outlook express and get attachments from lot of companies and some times these attachments are infected with viruses, so AV is must.


i am still wondering why barton 2500+ with 7200.7 ata was faster in loading applications, also i used to use NAV with that system as well.

i also disabled HT in the bios but nothing changed so i turned it on again


DiscoStu
Intel's Application Accelerator

as i know there is no need for IAA friver for ICH5 chipset, and when i visited intel web site the only IAA available is for the raid setup ICH5R and therefore it would not bring any benefit for me
 
I found that NAV is the suck. I use AVG its faster takes less resources and picks up more viruses then NAV
 
i uninstalled NAV 2004 and installed AVG 7.0 and the program load time improved.

now i feel the system is more responsive and less lag and faster program loading about 20-30%

seems NAV 2004 slows down more than NAV 2003


by the way, is AVG better than NAV?
this is the first time i use AVG while i used to use NAV for the last 5 years and it served me well. so i do not know if moving to AVG is smart step or not.



thank you guys for your help.
 
I have been using AVG 6 + for a long time and Its BY far better then any NAV. I have deployed AVG on Networks and Servers. NAV retail is crap, it behaves more like a virus then an anti-virus, on top of that it doesn't do a good job removing stuff. Honorable mention does go out to NAV Corporate just because its very differently designed. I have more success with AVG then I ever had with NAV.
 
too many partions could also cause this, i would try limiting the partions on the raptor
 
i heard the same about NOD32 and tried it, and my system got faster than with AVG, but NOD32 is not free, there is trial version or you buy, so if i could not find free version i am going back to AVG


by the way, today my friend brought Adaptec A1025A sata pci controller with SI3112 chip, i tried it and the performance staied the same but i noticed slight lag in opening the programs therefore gave it back to him and back to the board sata controller.

the only thing that the adaptec card could make it correct is the hard drive name under mycomputer/properties/device manager as it named them to wd360xxxxxxxxxx scsi drive (and this for both the wd360 and 7k250) while the on board sata controler only says wd360xxxxxxx (without sata or scsi drive), had a look on it but could not know how to make it read as it should be.
 
Originally posted by Wrench00
P4's in my opinion are the shatz. I was working on a two client machines one was a p4 1.7 the other duron 650. the Duron felt more responsive and plain faster launching all apps andd scanning for viruses. 1.7 was an equivalent to sticking a needle in my eye. AVG and Norton was on the p4. AVG, Norton, and Symantec ran on the Duron and still duron won pants down. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Please go inject yourself with clorox...

Fist of a P4 1.7 is fairly slow in the first place... But P4s in general are quite fast...

Second a P4 1.7 willy would stomp out a durn 650 ANY day of the week... It would beat the taste out of the durons mouth, there must have been a problem with that 1.7 system.
 
Originally posted by Big Worm
Please go inject yourself with clorox...

Fist of a P4 1.7 is fairly slow in the first place... But P4s in general are quite fast...

Second a P4 1.7 willy would stomp out a durn 650 ANY day of the week... It would beat the taste out of the durons mouth, there must have been a problem with that 1.7 system.
Click to expand...

People make lame comparisons all the time. Comparing oranges to apples. One may have 128Mb of ram... and the other 512Mb etc.

The 1.7 may have 128MB of sdram with a crappy 5400 rpm harddrive and integrated video,
and the Duron may be on a newer mobo with 512MB of DDR and a 7200rpm HD with a videocard. Thats not even counting software configs, etc.
 
NAV is crap, definitely

however, the Symantec Corporate is quite fast and works great! wish they could have made their home product as good
 
WTF?!?

Big Worm.

This particular machine was just lame p4 1.7 was crap. How bout you stick your thumb up your ass and rotate.


As for:

People make lame comparisons all the time. Comparing oranges to apples. One may have 128Mb of ram... and the other 512Mb etc.
Click to expand...

I don't care how much more ram and how much faster RPM HD you got there is now way 650 should have felt faster then the P4 1.7.

Both machines had 256 MB of Ram. Duron Had a Maxtor 20 Gig and P4 had a WD 40. The P4 was also much newer.
 
Originally posted by Wrench00
WTF?!?

Big Worm.

This particular machine was just lame p4 1.7 was crap. How bout you stick your thumb up your ass and rotate.

I don't care how much more ram and how much faster RPM HD you got there is now way 650 should have felt faster then the P4 1.7.
Click to expand...



There is no way a proper running P4 1.7Ghz machine can be outperformed by a duron 650....

Either you are full of shit, or you have no clue what your talking about, or the P4 machine had something wrong with it...

I personally think you dont have any clue what you are talking about.. also you are probibly a bit full of shit as well. Either way your still a newb.
 
I'm going to have to disagree with both of you kinda....

a crappily configured P4 1.7 with integrated graphics SDRAM-PC100 and slower harddrive could possibly "feel" slower than a Duron 650 in a new Nforce2 with dual channel DDR 400, separate video card (not integrated) and a fast harddrive. (he mentioned size HD's not RPM speeds & memory size... not speed or type)

And win in many benchmarks:
ex: 3dmarks - b/c of better video card
memory benches - b/c sdram vs dual channel DDR
and a few other random benches

But my personal opinion is that Wrench is just crapping his worthless biases opinion in here and being a jackass. But I could be wrong.

Besides "feels" like it faster is a strictly subjective opinion. He could say that having sex with his mom feels as good as having sex with his dad. That is his right to his worthless incestuous opinions.

When he shows me links to PCMark for both computers then maybe I'll give his opinion some value.
 
Originally posted by chrisf6969
a crappily configured P4 1.7 with integrated graphics SDRAM-PC100 and slower harddrive could possibly "feel" slower than a Duron 650 in a new Nforce2 with dual channel DDR 400, separate video card (not integrated) and a fast harddrive. (he mentioned size HD's not RPM speeds & memory size... not speed or type)

And win in many benchmarks:
ex: 3dmarks - b/c of better video card
memory benches - b/c sdram vs dual channel DDR
and a few other random benches... When he shows me links to PCMark for both computers then maybe I'll give his opinion some value.
Click to expand...

Agreed, thats a possible scenario, but I was only thinking about it realisticly.. and besides the systems hardware were on par with eachother.

Besides "feels" like it faster is a strictly subjective opinion. He could say that having sex with his mom feels as good as having sex with his dad. That is his right to his worthless incestuous opinions.
Click to expand...

You just may have something here... I agree with you 100%. The analogy between his PC life and the life of him having sex with his mother and father seems logical.

:D
 
Norton is a piece of shit. I have to deal with that crap at work all day. You want to slow a machine down install that shit.

Good luck getting rid of it. As the uninstaller only works about half the time.
 
On another note...................P4's with HT are nice. I have never felt faster and more responsive computing with the possible exception of a Dual Xeon system with HT. Otherwise for multitasking and other tasks they rock.

I have an Athlon 900 and it felt like ass compared to my Pentium III 800 which I no longer have. Personally I think it's like the butt dyno with cars. It doesn't actually mean anything without data to back it up. Differences in chipset I/O and system config count for alot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top