Faster CPU+More RAM=Slower Computer?!?

Bit O. Data wrote:
Hope you downloaded IE6 with the upd 1.
Also hope you downloaded the latest DX9.
I hope you do not have more than 512 Megs of RAM for win98SE.

Might help if you actually read the post. 512Mb of ram, no more.

Too Much RAM
is bad for win98. It originally had a limit of 384 Megs. I run it on 512
Megs of Ram and it does fine.

Check to make sure you have also loaded the Chipset Drivers that came with
the motherboard, and all of the Ultra ATA 100/133 drivers for the hard
drive.

You should be using a 7200 rpm hard drive at least.


Same hard drive before and after. This point is irrelevant.

The speed at which you can view frames is limited by your Video Card. A
Sapphire 9000 or 9100 would probably work well with that motherboard if it
has an AGP port. I used a Sapphire 9000 on my sons Asus A7N8X Deluxe and it
did wonderfully.


Same video card before and after. This point is irrelevant.

Win98 works best with modems, but WinXP works extremely well with broadband.


LOL

That's horse****


"SkyRocker" wrote in message
...

I recently upgraded my motherboard and CPU and added more RAM to my

system.

I went from an Abit KT7A w/ 700 Duron and 256 Megs of RAM to a Biostar

M7VIW

w/ 2000+ and 512 Megs DDR 2100 RAM. I did a fresh install of WIN 98 after
the upgrade and updated all of the drivers for the VIA chipset, video card
(ATI Rage FURY), etc. But the computer runs slower than it did before the
upgrade. Worst offender is Windows Internet Explorer. Some web pages

load

VERY slowly and some lock the computer up entirely. If this were the only
problem I'd think it was just the browser, but other programs load slowly

as

well, and the system sometimes locks up if I have more than 2-3 active
windows open. I've tried playing with the BIOS, but have reverted back to
the optimal defaults with just things that I don't need, like serial

ports,

game ports turned off. I was expecting much better performance with

double

the RAM and almost triple the CPU power but it seems like I've taken a

step

backwards.

Any advice would be appreciated.

TIA







--

Are you registered as a bone marrow donor? You regenerate what you
donate. You are offered the chance to donate only if you match a person
on the recipient list. Call your local Red Cross and ask about
registering to be a bone marrow donor.

spam trap: replace shyah_right! with hotmail when replying

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:33:33 GMT, "SkyRocker"
wrote:

Thanks for all the replies! Latest update: Broke down and go XP. $89 at
Circuit City.

XP is a good choice, not much to say about it. Welcome to the current.
;-)

I think that 98 just couldn't handle the
faster processor and extra ram.

That's complete nonsens. There's patches for some cpu issues for old
9x. Also, 9x should be ok up to 512MB. About then, you need to limit
the size of the disccache in the win.ini file, but then you're ok for
loads of memory. GigaBytes no problem.

You had some install problem, period.
I have assumed that you had Win98SE, but how old is your install CD
really?

It's also important that one doesn't try any shortcuts, after change
of cpu/mobo. C:\ should be formatted and OS must be reinstalled from
scratch from an install CD. And no periphelia should be in the box
from the start, and it should be updated from MS.


ancra

"spodosaurus" wrote in message
...
Bit O. Data wrote:
Hope you downloaded IE6 with the upd 1.
Also hope you downloaded the latest DX9.
I hope you do not have more than 512 Megs of RAM for win98SE.

Might help if you actually read the post. 512Mb of ram, no more.

Too Much RAM
is bad for win98. It originally had a limit of 384 Megs. I run it on
512
Megs of Ram and it does fine.

Check to make sure you have also loaded the Chipset Drivers that came
with
the motherboard, and all of the Ultra ATA 100/133 drivers for the hard
drive.

You should be using a 7200 rpm hard drive at least.


Same hard drive before and after. This point is irrelevant.

The speed at which you can view frames is limited by your Video Card. A
Sapphire 9000 or 9100 would probably work well with that motherboard if
it
has an AGP port. I used a Sapphire 9000 on my sons Asus A7N8X Deluxe
and it
did wonderfully.


Same video card before and after. This point is irrelevant.

Win98 works best with modems, but WinXP works extremely well with
broadband.


LOL

That's horse****


"SkyRocker" wrote in message
...

I recently upgraded my motherboard and CPU and added more RAM to my

system.

I went from an Abit KT7A w/ 700 Duron and 256 Megs of RAM to a Biostar

M7VIW

w/ 2000+ and 512 Megs DDR 2100 RAM. I did a fresh install of WIN 98
after
the upgrade and updated all of the drivers for the VIA chipset, video
card
(ATI Rage FURY), etc. But the computer runs slower than it did before
the
upgrade. Worst offender is Windows Internet Explorer. Some web pages

load

VERY slowly and some lock the computer up entirely. If this were the
only
problem I'd think it was just the browser, but other programs load
slowly

as

well, and the system sometimes locks up if I have more than 2-3 active
windows open. I've tried playing with the BIOS, but have reverted back
to
the optimal defaults with just things that I don't need, like serial

ports,

game ports turned off. I was expecting much better performance with

double

the RAM and almost triple the CPU power but it seems like I've taken a

step

backwards.

Any advice would be appreciated.

TIA

Are your drives running in DMA mode?
Tried removing one stick of ram? Original Win 98 sometimes slowed down with
more than 384 MB.

If you read the original post, you would see that SkyRocker was using
Windows98, which doesn't support NTFS.

--
===

To reply, remove dead bodies from email address.

===
"Ancra" wrote in message
...
On 10 Jul 2003 23:47:27 -0700, (B1W) wrote:

I have the same board and Proc with 256mb of pc133. I am running xp
pro with very few problems except slow HD performance.

If you're having both NTFS and FAT32 partitions, then that's probably
it. I noticed 100% perf increase when I got rid of an old FAT32
partition. I'm not saying NTFS is faster than FAT32, but the
combination seems to be a brake.


ancra

"Ancra" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:33:33 GMT, "SkyRocker"
wrote:

Thanks for all the replies! Latest update: Broke down and go XP. $89
at
Circuit City.

XP is a good choice, not much to say about it. Welcome to the current.
;-)

'Bout time...

I think that 98 just couldn't handle the
faster processor and extra ram.

That's complete nonsens. There's patches for some cpu issues for old
9x. Also, 9x should be ok up to 512MB. About then, you need to limit
the size of the disccache in the win.ini file, but then you're ok for
loads of memory. GigaBytes no problem.

You had some install problem, period.

More than likely...

I have assumed that you had Win98SE, but how old is your install CD
really?

Win98SE, purchased late '99-early 2000

It's also important that one doesn't try any shortcuts, after change
of cpu/mobo. C:\ should be formatted and OS must be reinstalled from
scratch from an install CD. And no periphelia should be in the box
from the start, and it should be updated from MS.

C: was formatted, 98SE installed from scratch. New motherboard included
sound/LAN and I do have a cdrw installed.

Ancra wrote:

But isn't top posting eaier to follow?

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:19:05 GMT, "Poop Shaman"
wrote:

If you read the original post, you would see that SkyRocker was using
Windows98, which doesn't support NTFS.

Who are you resonding to?


...And if you read my post correctly, you would see that in this case
I wasn't responding to SkyRocker.
(- but I suppose that's how topposters read. ;-))


ancra

Who knows what is being responded to from a top poster! :-)
--

Stacey