Windows 2000 Pro speed problem
I have recently installed Win 2000 Pro as I heard that it is faster than my Win98 i had previously. But i found that it runs much slower and often takes like a minute or so to open an app or change between apps while they are alredy open.
I have recently installed Win 2000 Pro as I heard that it is faster than my Win98 i had previously.
But i found that it runs much slower and often takes like a minute or so to open an app or change between apps while they are alredy open. During this time I can hear the HD working overtime.
I defragmented, run Norton SystemWorks, installed RAM memory management programs but there is no difference.
My system specs:
IBM ThinkPad A21m
PIII 750
20gig HD - Win2000 running on seperate 6gig partition
128 RAM
Does anyone know why it is so slow and are there any ways of speeding it up. Any tweaks?
Thanks
But i found that it runs much slower and often takes like a minute or so to open an app or change between apps while they are alredy open. During this time I can hear the HD working overtime.
I defragmented, run Norton SystemWorks, installed RAM memory management programs but there is no difference.
My system specs:
IBM ThinkPad A21m
PIII 750
20gig HD - Win2000 running on seperate 6gig partition
128 RAM
Does anyone know why it is so slow and are there any ways of speeding it up. Any tweaks?
Thanks
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Naturally, there are a plethora of possible reasons, but based on the information you gave me you need more RAM. Windows 98 is more than happy with 128, Win2K is not okay with so little of something so integral.
You did mention Norton SystemWorks and Ram utilities. For performance disable all NAV auto-protection, and systemworks tray applications from starting automatically. Look at your startup group and in the registry. Also uninstall any RAM utilities that stuff is garbage, like crash defenders, and screen savers. These applications all do nothing and typically have the opposite effect (okay screen savers used to be helpful 10 years ago).
Good Luck,
Christian
Good Luck,
Christian
Are there any RAID solutions for laptops aside from installing Linux?
All m y drivers are updated, I turned off all the unnecessary apps which load up at startup, not using any sreensavers or wallpapers also got rid of most shortcuts on the desktop and it still runs slow.
I found a website which tells you which networks functions you can turn off but it gives me an error message saying that these are critical functions which cannot be switched off.
I found a website which tells you which networks functions you can turn off but it gives me an error message saying that these are critical functions which cannot be switched off.
Whoever agreed with me about the RAM is absolutely correct . However I'm wondering did you check HKEY_Current_User\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
...munOnce
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\......\Run
..munOnceEX...munOnce...munServices...?
Win.ini, system.ini (check for run= and load= sections)
...munOnce
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\......\Run
..munOnceEX...munOnce...munServices...?
Win.ini, system.ini (check for run= and load= sections)
Quote:Flat out, you need at least another 128 mb of ram to run Win2k Pro efficiently. The OS Kernel itself likes to use almost 128 megs for just itself. So the moral of the story is: GO GET MORE RAM!!
While I agree with you to a point that more RAM is required (even though 2000 Pro used to run perfectly fine for me in 128Mb RAM) your line about the 2k kernel needing 128Mb is absolute bull. Right now, my XP kernel is using around 26Mb which is up a little from the 19-20Mb it normally uses but still nowhere near 128Mb. The 2000 kernel would have been around the same if not smaller.
While I agree with you to a point that more RAM is required (even though 2000 Pro used to run perfectly fine for me in 128Mb RAM) your line about the 2k kernel needing 128Mb is absolute bull. Right now, my XP kernel is using around 26Mb which is up a little from the 19-20Mb it normally uses but still nowhere near 128Mb. The 2000 kernel would have been around the same if not smaller.
I'm not trying to offend you, but if you've never tried 128MB and then 256MB on the same Win2K Pro system you simply don't know what you're talking about. Since everyone seems to be in agreement except you why not consider the possibility that we are in fact correct. You could spend 20-40 bucks, or maybe even borrow a RAM stick from a friend just to try it out. Then you can write us all a thank you post, because we were right.
-Christian Blackburn
-Christian Blackburn
I'm not trying to offend anyone either but when I upgraded to Win2K pro, I had 512 meg memory and my once speedy system turned into a dog.
Day ... search this forum for all the tweaks you can find. This is where I found most of my registry tweaking information and now my system runs as it should. As always, back up your registry just in case. Here are also some good links with tweaks:
http://www.winguides.com/registry/
http://arstechnica.com/tweak/win2k/others/memory-1.html
http://www.ntcompatible.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17024&highlight=alec+staar
Day ... search this forum for all the tweaks you can find. This is where I found most of my registry tweaking information and now my system runs as it should. As always, back up your registry just in case. Here are also some good links with tweaks:
http://www.winguides.com/registry/
http://arstechnica.com/tweak/win2k/others/memory-1.html
http://www.ntcompatible.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17024&highlight=alec+staar
Quote:I'm not trying to offend you, but if you've never tried 128MB and then 256MB on the same Win2K Pro system you simply don't know what you're talking about. Since everyone seems to be in agreement except you why not consider the possibility that we are in fact correct. You could spend 20-40 bucks, or maybe even borrow a RAM stick from a friend just to try it out. Then you can write us all a thank you post, because we were right.
-Christian Blackburn
For the record, I never disagreed with anyone about needing more RAM. What I disagreed with was the statement that the 2000 kernel consumes 128Mb. According to the Task Manager my XP kernel uses about 20Mb at startup. I can't remember the exact figures off hand but I doubt it would have been much larger for 2000.
-Christian Blackburn
For the record, I never disagreed with anyone about needing more RAM. What I disagreed with was the statement that the 2000 kernel consumes 128Mb. According to the Task Manager my XP kernel uses about 20Mb at startup. I can't remember the exact figures off hand but I doubt it would have been much larger for 2000.
Okay nevermind about the ram thing. It just wasn't clear in your posts. However I think it's next to impossible to know how much overhead the Windows 2000 kernel takes outside of Microsoft or some book. Every system has different hardware and since different drivers are always going to be running on a user's system it's quite possible that some users actually do have close to 128MBs take between their drivers and the OS. It's been my experience that the resource use is very close to 100MBs not 128, but once you start one or two apps file swapping will take it's toll.
-Christian
-Christian
Quote:According to the Task Manager my XP kernel uses about 20Mb at startup. I can't remember the exact figures off hand but I doubt it would have been much larger for 2000
My standard install of Win2k Pro takes 40 MByte RAM(Idle), and my standard install of Win2k Adv. Srv. takes 100 MByte RAM(Idle)
So with the Win2k Adv. Srv. one should be able start two IE's and then get into pagefile heaven.
My standard install of Win2k Pro takes 40 MByte RAM(Idle), and my standard install of Win2k Adv. Srv. takes 100 MByte RAM(Idle)
So with the Win2k Adv. Srv. one should be able start two IE's and then get into pagefile heaven.
Funny I just looked at my system and after closing every program aside from drivers and the OS my memory usage was 157MB! However that too can be misleading, because windows makes the most of what you've got. I'm using 157MB, because there's probably a ton of files in a system cache right now. I wouldn't be at all surprised in screen resolution and color depth came into play too.
Funny I just looked at my system and after closing every program aside from drivers and the OS my memory usage was 157MB! However that too can be misleading, because windows makes the most of what you've got. I'm using 157MB, because there's probably a ton of files in a system cache right now. I wouldn't be at all surprised in screen resolution and color depth came into play too.
Just look at this screenshot that's the real number you need to pay attention to. You're never just running the kernel there's always drivers, and probably your choice of applications. Also note in my screenshot that apps are running. I'm merely showing you where not depicting the ammount of my system at it's leanest and meanest.
ScreenShot
ScreenShot
Hi cazzman,
Just for the record nobody runs Windows 2000 Pro just fine on a P200 w/ only 128MB ram. I presume it's a RAM issue, but having used a system with such little specs I can tell you with considerable confidence that this is definetly not an ideal system/ OS combination. The keyboard and mouse response will be ungodly slow on your system. You might try windows 98 (I know it's unstable, but it will be a lot faster), or upgrading your RAM and or CPU. 128MB just doesn't cut it on Win2K you need at least 256 and really it requires a decent Pentium II Proc or better.
-Christian
Just for the record nobody runs Windows 2000 Pro just fine on a P200 w/ only 128MB ram. I presume it's a RAM issue, but having used a system with such little specs I can tell you with considerable confidence that this is definetly not an ideal system/ OS combination. The keyboard and mouse response will be ungodly slow on your system. You might try windows 98 (I know it's unstable, but it will be a lot faster), or upgrading your RAM and or CPU. 128MB just doesn't cut it on Win2K you need at least 256 and really it requires a decent Pentium II Proc or better.
-Christian
