Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)
I recently build a new computer with a ASRock K7S41GX motherboard, 512
Mb DDR400 RAM and AMD SEMPRON 2400+ processor( clock speed 1666Mhz ). I
installed Win XP Pro on it NTFS file format with a cluster size of 4096
..
Now my old computer is a 512 Mb RAM PC133 system, Athlon XP1600+ (
clock speed 1400Mhz )processor and Win XP Pro but on FAT32.
My new computer is much slower than the old computer.
There are two things I like to know. What is people's experience with
different file systems ( FAT 32 versus NFTS ) and cluster size related
to performance of computer ?? Also, my motherboard specs say max RAM it
can handle is DDR333. I have DDR400 installed. Could this be the problem
??
I have checked other things like Spyware, programs running in
background, virusses, etc. No problems there.
Your comments please.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)
robr wrote:
> I recently build a new computer with a ASRock K7S41GX motherboard, 512
> Mb DDR400 RAM and AMD SEMPRON 2400+ processor( clock speed 1666Mhz ).
> I installed Win XP Pro on it NTFS file format with a cluster size of
> 4096.
Ok.
> Now my old computer is a 512 Mb RAM PC133 system, Athlon XP1600+ (
> clock speed 1400Mhz )processor and Win XP Pro but on FAT32.
> My new computer is much slower than the old computer.
Please define "much slower".
What is "much slower" about it? When you copy files from one place to
another on the same hard drive? From one hard drive to another on the same
system? From one system to another across a network? Does it take longer
to boot? Take longer to shutdown? Take longer to open applications? Do
games run slower?
More specific information would be a great help in helping you figure out
the issue.
> There are two things I like to know. What is people's experience with
> different file systems ( FAT 32 versus NFTS ) and cluster size related
> to performance of computer ?? Also, my motherboard specs say max RAM
> it can handle is DDR333. I have DDR400 installed. Could this be the
> problem ??
Could be. However, if the RAM was truthfully incompatable, you would have
had problems (likely) before this. You will notice a slow-down in some disk
related activities between FAT32 and NTFS if you notice nano to milli
seconds of time a lot in your normal life.
> I have checked other things like Spyware, programs running in
> background, virusses, etc. No problems there.
> Your comments please.
When did the slow-down start? Was it immediately noticed when you first
installed Windows XP? Did you upgrade all the drivers, check for BIOS
upgrades, fully patch the operating systems and applications running on it?
--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)
Your old processor is faster than the new, you went basically to a duron
processor.
"robr" <robr.1mhc3e@news.xpbanter.com> wrote in message
news:robr.1mhc3e@news.xpbanter.com...
>
> I recently build a new computer with a ASRock K7S41GX motherboard, 512
> Mb DDR400 RAM and AMD SEMPRON 2400+ processor( clock speed 1666Mhz ). I
> installed Win XP Pro on it NTFS file format with a cluster size of 4096
> .
> Now my old computer is a 512 Mb RAM PC133 system, Athlon XP1600+ (
> clock speed 1400Mhz )processor and Win XP Pro but on FAT32.
> My new computer is much slower than the old computer.
> There are two things I like to know. What is people's experience with
> different file systems ( FAT 32 versus NFTS ) and cluster size related
> to performance of computer ?? Also, my motherboard specs say max RAM it
> can handle is DDR333. I have DDR400 installed. Could this be the problem
> ??
> I have checked other things like Spyware, programs running in
> background, virusses, etc. No problems there.
> Your comments please.
>
>
> --
> robr
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.