How can I make my WinXP Pro PC run faster? (Second HD? SCSI? Dual-Core?) - Budget: aprox. GBP300
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: manually cleaning a printhead
Next: External HD
From: ship on 22 Sep 2006 05:51 Hi I need some advice - how can I make my PC go faster! e.g. How much faster is a SCSI hard disk compared to a SATA? MAIN APPLICATIONS I USE: DreamWeaver 8 (huge websites), Outlook2003 (1+GB .PST files etc) O/S: WindowsXP Pro (SP2), MY EXISTING COMPUTER: Processor: 3.2Hz Intel Pentium 4 - RAM: 2GB Disk: Seagate 120Gb 7200rpm SATA PROCESSOR: Intel Pentium 4 based system MOTHERBOARD: Intel Pentium 4 D945GNTLR system board Integrated Intel GMA950 graphics *Intel High definition audio *Intel 10/100 LAN*8USB 2.0 *4 conventional PCI *2 PCI Express x1 *1 PCI Express x16 *1 Serial*1 Parallel *4 Serial ATA interfaces *1 Parallel ATA IDE interface with UDMA33, ATA-66/100 *PS/2 Keyboard port *Mouse port *Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz Processor 775 chipset 800FSB 2Mb cache RAM: 2Gb 533 DDR2 memory GRAPHICS CARD: Matrox Millenium P650 PCle 128 - 128Mb Dual DVI/VGA PCI Express X16 - s/n: KEW37452 CASE: ATX Midi tower with 300W 12V PSU DISK: Seagate 120Gb 7200rpm SATA hard drive OPTICAL: DVD RW dual layer +&- drive FLOPPY: 1.44mb 3.5" Floppy disk drive O/S: Microsoft Windows XP Pro Oem Main applications: WindowsXP Pro (SP2), DreamWeaver 8, Outlook2003 I WAS thinking of replacing the processor with a DUAL-CORE chip. But I have been largely talked out of it. Looking the WindowsXP "Task Manager" Performance monitor it seems that for most of the time the processor is barely being used - it's mainly DISK ACCESS that is so slow. The WORST applications for slowing up my PC seem to be Outlook2003 and Dreamweaver. (I have already done what I can to shrink the files that they are using...) SCSI? Should I change or add another hard disk? If so how much faster would a SCSI hard disk be? My hardware supplier says that a "decent" SCSI controller would set me back about GBP 250 - just for the controller! But how much faster is a SCSI hard disk compared to a SATA? Or maybe I should simply buy another SATA hard disk and put all my data (e.g. .PST file[s] and large websites etc) on it.. Maybe I could get a SATA disk with a huge amount of CACHE?? I have a budget of about GBP250 to 350. - Any suggestions? And any idea how much FASTER each of the options would be likely to make things run in practice overall...? - Any thoughts? Ship Shiperton Henethe
From: Brian Cryer on 22 Sep 2006 07:28 "ship" <shiphen(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158918685.692148.88760(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Hi > > I need some advice - how can I make my PC go faster! <snip> > Main applications: WindowsXP Pro (SP2), DreamWeaver 8, Outlook2003 > > I WAS thinking of replacing the processor with a DUAL-CORE chip. > But I have been largely talked out of it. > Looking the WindowsXP "Task Manager" Performance monitor > it seems that for most of the time the processor is barely being > used - it's mainly DISK ACCESS that is so slow. If you are sure that its the disk you are waiting on (and a simple way of telling this is how long are you waiting when the disk light is on), then a faster disk will help. The disk spindle speed is a good indication of the overall disk speed (although other factors do come in, such as number of platters). Your disk is 7200rpm. Almost every disk in a pc these days is 7200rpm, but if you hunt around you might be able to find a faster one - but remember that a 10,000rpm disk will only give (on paper) just short of 40% speed increase, the reality is probably that unless you are waiting for a LONG time then you are not likely to notice much of an improvement. Given that you have 2GB of RAM, how much of that does task manager report as being used? I find a good indicator is the page-file usage (PF Usage in task manager), if this is well below the amount of physical ram then you won't be swapping and adding more RAM won't help. If on the other hand the page-file usage approaches 2GB or goes above then either look into whether your pc can take more RAM (most can't, although XP will support up to 4GB) and whether you can move your page file to another disk. > The WORST applications for slowing up my PC seem to be > Outlook2003 and Dreamweaver. (I have already done what > I can to shrink the files that they are using...) > > SCSI? > Should I change or add another hard disk? > If so how much faster would a SCSI hard disk be? I'm no expert, but my understanding is that whilsst SCSI disks generally spin faster and have better support for multiple disk accesses, that the performance of SATA is often at least as good - certainly unless you do your homework and come up with a clear case (or have shed loads of money to spare), migrating from SATA to SCSI isn't likely to yield any noticable returns for you. Hope this is useful. -- Brian Cryer www.cryer.co.uk/brian
From: Jim Macklin on 22 Sep 2006 08:00 You can't do a lot, a second SATA hard drive for the virtual memory and storage would speed up some. You can't run the dual-core P4 on a 945 board AFAIK. A new mobo with faster frontside bus, support for dual-core would give a boost. What kind of Internet connection are you running? Have you copied those huge Outlook files to a DVD so the program doesn't have to work them all? Have you checked background services and spyware? You may be able to gain the most speed increase by buy/building a new computer with the latest chipset, CPU and graphics will help the most. "ship" <shiphen(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158918685.692148.88760(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | | | Hi | | I need some advice - how can I make my PC go faster! | | e.g. How much faster is a SCSI hard disk compared to a SATA? | | MAIN APPLICATIONS I USE: | DreamWeaver 8 (huge websites), | Outlook2003 (1+GB .PST files etc) | O/S: WindowsXP Pro (SP2), | | | MY EXISTING COMPUTER: | | Processor: 3.2Hz Intel Pentium 4 - | RAM: 2GB | Disk: Seagate 120Gb 7200rpm SATA | | PROCESSOR: Intel Pentium 4 based system | MOTHERBOARD: Intel Pentium 4 D945GNTLR system board | Integrated Intel GMA950 graphics | *Intel High definition audio | *Intel 10/100 LAN*8USB 2.0 | *4 conventional PCI *2 PCI Express x1 *1 PCI | Express x16 *1 Serial*1 Parallel | *4 Serial ATA interfaces | *1 Parallel ATA IDE interface with UDMA33, | ATA-66/100 | *PS/2 Keyboard port *Mouse port | *Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz Processor 775 chipset 800FSB | 2Mb cache | RAM: 2Gb 533 DDR2 memory | GRAPHICS CARD: Matrox Millenium P650 PCle 128 - 128Mb Dual DVI/VGA PCI | Express X16 - s/n: KEW37452 | CASE: ATX Midi tower with 300W 12V PSU | DISK: Seagate 120Gb 7200rpm SATA hard drive | OPTICAL: DVD RW dual layer +&- drive | FLOPPY: 1.44mb 3.5" Floppy disk drive | O/S: Microsoft Windows XP Pro Oem | | Main applications: WindowsXP Pro (SP2), DreamWeaver 8, Outlook2003 | | | I WAS thinking of replacing the processor with a DUAL-CORE chip. | But I have been largely talked out of it. | Looking the WindowsXP "Task Manager" Performance monitor | it seems that for most of the time the processor is barely being | used - it's mainly DISK ACCESS that is so slow. | | The WORST applications for slowing up my PC seem to be | Outlook2003 and Dreamweaver. (I have already done what | I can to shrink the files that they are using...) | | SCSI? | Should I change or add another hard disk? | If so how much faster would a SCSI hard disk be? | My hardware supplier says that a "decent" SCSI controller | would set me back about GBP 250 - just for the controller! | But how much faster is a SCSI hard disk compared to a SATA? | | Or maybe I should simply buy another SATA hard disk and put | all my data (e.g. .PST file[s] and large websites etc) on it.. | Maybe I could get a SATA disk with a huge amount of CACHE?? | | I have a budget of about GBP250 to 350. | | - Any suggestions? And any idea how much FASTER each of | the options would be likely to make things run in practice overall...? | | - Any thoughts? | | | Ship | Shiperton Henethe |
From: kony on 22 Sep 2006 08:48 On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:28:57 +0100, "Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer(a)127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote: >Given that you have 2GB of RAM, how much of that does task manager report as >being used? I find a good indicator is the page-file usage (PF Usage in task >manager), if this is well below the amount of physical ram then you won't be >swapping and adding more RAM won't help. If on the other hand the page-file >usage approaches 2GB or goes above then either look into whether your pc can >take more RAM (most can't, although XP will support up to 4GB) and whether >you can move your page file to another disk. The goal is not to have pagefile usage below that of physical ram, the goal is to have the least pagefile usage possible no matter how much ram. The more significant comparison for determining if there is enough memory is: 1) Aggressively use the system, worse case of use with as many apps, large jobs, etc, as the system will ever see (often enough that one wants to spend the $ on memory to combat this use). 2) Next open Task Manager and compare the "Commit Charge", "Peak" value to the "Physical Memory", "Total" value. The Peak should always be lower than the Total, by even a few hundred MB more if you want enough free memory for a persistent filecache (greatly reducing dependence on HDD speed for subsequent access to HDD). If working with very large static files, even more will a large filecache help but beyond a certain point, some operating system tweaks may be needed to increase the default size of the cache supported by windows. http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/931/ In some cases this cache change can degrade performance instead of improving it, if the apps use a lot of memory. One can try it both ways and compare per their use of the system. > >> The WORST applications for slowing up my PC seem to be >> Outlook2003 and Dreamweaver. (I have already done what >> I can to shrink the files that they are using...) >> >> SCSI? >> Should I change or add another hard disk? >> If so how much faster would a SCSI hard disk be? You're not likely to benefit much from moving to SCSI for Outlook and Dreamweaver use. As with anything they will need enough memory (as mentioned above), high memory throughput (fast memory bus on a modern platform) and fast CPU. I don't know if Core 2 Duo architecture will benefit these uses in particular, as much as some, but you might seek benchmarks of these to determine what performance:$ improvement is acceptable.
From: Brian Cryer on 22 Sep 2006 09:55
"kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:v8m7h25kiiqghubvkn5aqnj8eh18l7456k(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:28:57 +0100, "Brian Cryer" > <brian.cryer(a)127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote: > > >>Given that you have 2GB of RAM, how much of that does task manager report >>as >>being used? I find a good indicator is the page-file usage (PF Usage in >>task >>manager), if this is well below the amount of physical ram then you won't >>be >>swapping and adding more RAM won't help. If on the other hand the >>page-file >>usage approaches 2GB or goes above then either look into whether your pc >>can >>take more RAM (most can't, although XP will support up to 4GB) and whether >>you can move your page file to another disk. > > The goal is not to have pagefile usage below that of > physical ram, the goal is to have the least pagefile usage > possible no matter how much ram. Agreed. > The more significant comparison for determining if there is > enough memory is: > > 1) Aggressively use the system, worse case of use with as > many apps, large jobs, etc, as the system will ever see > (often enough that one wants to spend the $ on memory to > combat this use). > > 2) Next open Task Manager and compare the "Commit Charge", > "Peak" value to the "Physical Memory", "Total" value. The > Peak should always be lower than the Total, by even a few > hundred MB more if you want enough free memory for a > persistent filecache (greatly reducing dependence on HDD > speed for subsequent access to HDD). If working with very > large static files, even more will a large filecache help > but beyond a certain point, some operating system tweaks may > be needed to increase the default size of the cache > supported by windows. > http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/931/ > In some cases this cache change can degrade performance > instead of improving it, if the apps use a lot of memory. > One can try it both ways and compare per their use of the > system. Agreed. Mine was but a simple rule-of-thumb. -- Brian Cryer www.cryer.co.uk/brian |