A5 speed in XP

[CALocklin]

OK, I can't take it any more. I just read another post about how well A5 works in XP. Everybody keeps saying how great XP is, even with A5, but I'm finding one major drawback and I'd like to know if others are seeing the same thing.

I upgraded from:
900 Mhz P3, 256 RAM, 5400 RPM HD, 100 bus with Win98
to
2.4 Ghz P4, 512 RAM, 7200 RPM HD, 133 bus with XP
(I'm disappointed in the bus speed. Is this the whole problem?)

"i"BUT"/i" I still have both systems.

Even using a system with a CPU that's 2.5 time faster, a faster bus, and a faster HD, A5 seems to run 5-6 times slower whenever significant file access is required. Even saving field rules takes a ridiculous amount of time - sometimes as much as 5 seconds.

This is based on side-by-side comparisons of the identical actions on identical applications using the identical version of A5v5.

I've also noticed that file lists and copying in Explorer seem to take quite awhile longer although I haven't done a side-by-side comparison. However, Bill Warner has and his results support mine.

I think this is basically an XP issue but it gets frustrating enough to make me want to switch back to Win98 despite the resource issue.

Are others seeing the same thing or should I just take an axe to this computer and start over?

One more thing - if anybody suggests I should defrag my HD again, please don't come anywhere near me during target practice. I guarantee you this is not the problem.

[Marc King - A5solutions]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Hi Cal,

I have a similar upgrade path to yours 300ghz w/98 to 1.2ghz w/98 to 3.1ghz w/XP but have not seen any degraded performance in fact quite the opposite. My systems were HP, HP, and Fry's Clone respectively.

Several things can cause what you are seeing. Primarily in upgraded systems you can have motherboard and CPU limitations in the form of shared bussing with graphic cards and memory versus CPU integrated caching. The later was a major problem in some versions of the Intel Celeron chipset.

I generally recommend that clients upgrade with full factory specified motherboard/chipset combinations rather than just CPU and memory.

You might also look at your graphics card and make sure it is up to speed with your current configuration since screen redraws play a big role in A5 performance.

Marc

[martinwcole]

RE: A5 speed in XP

I think it has more to do with the processor/bus than the OS. The first PIV I bought I sent back, as I went from a PIII933 to a PIV early edition (same OS on both), and it was significantly slower than the 933. A white paper I read talked about a length in the pipe that transfers data back and forth from the cpu to memory, etc. being longer, and except for certain programs (photos,games,etc.) it was actually slower than the 933.

I know that having a full PIV and not a Celeron, etc., is significant. Marc likely has an 800 bus. there is a major change in speed for business type software when you get above a certain point - the 3.2 is very snappy, but the PIV 3.2 extreme is really fast, with Alpha maybe twice as fast as a 2.6.

Certainly XP is bigger than 98, but I have had it since it first came out, and i have never had to reinstall it, reboot because Alpha had crashed, or had a problem that it didn't fix itself.

If it isn't too late, I would exchange it for a full PIV at least 2.8 with the best bus and memory available for the model.

[JerryBrightbill]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Marc

I think you may have identified one very significant issue. Many newer computers are using shared resources for video. My experience is that this significantly slows performance in any application that makes any video demands, which is almost every application. With modern computers, video performace seems to have a huge effect.

I have also seen significant differences between brands of computers due to configuration differences. For example, I went from an IBM 1.4 ghx computer with 640 meg ram and WinME to an IBM 2.4 ghz with 1 gig of ram, Win2000 Pro, and a faster hard drive and the newer was slower in many applications. I was going to blame the operating system, until I compared the speed to a Dell 2.4 with 512 ram and WinXP which is significantly faster. The big difference was a faster video in the Dell with more video ram.

I also have found XP to be MUCH more stable than Win98. I don't have to reboot during the day, plug and play actually works, usb is properly supported, and many many problems have gone away. Back to back, I suspect Win98 is faster, but it also is much less stable. I still have a Win98 machine for testing, but I wouldn't want to rely on it on a day to day basis. My wife has WinME and constantly grumbles about it and wants to upgrade to WinXP, just for stability and the fact that many newer programs won't run on ME or 98.

Jerry

[Melvin Davidson]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Just as another thought, but I feel the obvious also should be asked, have you defragged the disk? I have found that even with a brand new system, the file system is quite defragmentated and simply doing the 1st time defrag speeds things up considerably.

[davej]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Mel, Mel,

Read the last paragraph in Cal's original message. If I were you, I keep looking over my shoulder at the upcoming conference.

Dave

[Tom Henkel]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Check your antivirus software, too. We have ended up stopping realtime file system scanning of our database folders. The antivirus software brought A5 to its knees.

Tom

[JohnZaleski]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Cal,
I second what Tom said. With XP and Norton running, I saw certain functions decimated - one was zipping a directory with a lot of files.
Have you put your app on any other XP machines and tried it there?? The speed difference ( 5 to 6 ) sounds way too big no matter what your new hardware looks like.
There is tweaking you can do with XP like turning off indexing, playing with Oplocks and most likely some cache and others choices. If you find it runs much better on another comparable machine, start looking at some of these things.
John

[Finian Lennon]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Me third ... the difference with Norton AV on and off is remarkable. I have no trouble telling the difference - even when I disable it on my main work machine, the domain logon starts it again so we go round and roud.

Finian

[Al Buchholz]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Jerry

FWIW

Do a fresh install of XP when you upgrade the ME machine. Don't upgrade from ME. Too many problems follow along.

But you probably knew that...

[CALocklin]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Thanks for all the comments. The only thing listed that I haven't tried yet is a faster/larger video card - so what's considered acceptable video? (i.e., what are others using?)

My current video card is an AGP 4x w/ 32 Meg. By today's standards that's pretty small but I'm not doing any gaming either.

The system is completely new and has an Intel 865PERL motherboard. What bothers me is that the two system/benchmark programs I've used, Belarc Advisor and SysID, both tell me the bus speed is 133 but the guy that built the machine tells me it should be 800 and the motherboard specs say it supports bus speeds of 400/533/800.

It also isn't the anti-virus because I've even removed it from the startup to make sure there were no "residuals" causing problems.

Mel, I promise not to bring my rifle to the conference. Besides, it's only a spring operated air rifle that shoots .177 pellets. However, it will put a pellet completely through a 1" pine board at 40 yards - far more powerful than any Crosman I've ever seen and accurate enough to put 5 out of 5 pellets in a 2" circle at the same 40 yards (when I can hold it steady!)

[Peter.Greulich]

RE: A5 speed in XP

FWIW: In my office half our machines run XP, the slowest XP machine is a Dell P-500. The other half run Win-98, from a slow P-333 to P450's. The only machine that drags it's rear end running A5 is the P-333. All other machines, XP or 98 run A5 reasonably fast. The P-500 XP runs A5 faster than the P-450s on Win98, although not light years faster, but you can tell the difference. My own Machine is a P-933 w. 128mb ram. I am quite satisfied w. the performance. Your performance problem is definitely an anomoly of some kind. As yourself and others have suggested, it must be some kind of hardware problem. Hey Cal, maybe you bought a lemon? :(

-Peter

[JerryBrightbill]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Cal

I have a rule - I don't use clones. I have a friend who builds clones as a business and he admits that there are many configuration variables. Some systems hardware combinations work very well and others don't. He has built some very fast systems, but his personal computer is a name brand. When he builds a clone, it typically is for price, not performance. He claims that getting max performance requires testing various combinations and tweaking the settings, which takes too much time and defeats the price advantage.

Jerry

[JerryBrightbill]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Al

I have seen information on a number of sites about problems with just upgrading, so in my view only a clean install makes any sense. But, since it is almost as cheap to buy a new, faster computer with XP loaded as it is to buy the upgrade, I can't imagine why anyone would go through the hassle of a clean install. Better to get a new machine with new features like USB 2.0.

Jerry

[rtbtat]

RE: A5 speed in XP

Hello Cal:

[My current video card is an AGP 4x w/ 32 Meg]

I'm with Jerry, I think video card performance is critical and most people overlook that component when buying a system. This is especially true with so much graphical overhead with today�s software. Obviously this won't resolve your problem, but IMHO a 32 mb video card isn't good enough any more. If I were buying a new computer or a new video card, the absolute minimum would be an AGP 4x with 64 mb of ram.

But that's only the minimum, I would probably buy an AGP 8x with 128 mb of ram. You can of course go much faster, but at this point in time, that's where you get the most bang for your buck.

It's the same with system memory, the absolute minimum in today's system is 256 mb and 512 mb is a better choice. So in that regard, you are doing well.

Just my opinion,
Robert T