1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Slow computer - possible IDE controller problem?

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by Christer, 2004/07/25.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2004/07/25
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Hello all!

    I was visiting a friend who has a computer with these basic specs:

    Motherboard unknown
    PIII/500 (edited: or is it a Celeron/500 - I'm not sure)
    256MB RAM
    IBM-DTTA-351680 ATA33 harddisk
    Windows XP pro

    This system is much slower than other systems with "the same" specs. I'm not sure about the other harddisks being ATA33 but I think so. I had a quick look at the computer:

    The opticals are on the secondary channel, separated from the HDD which is alone on the primary channel but it shows up as the second device on that channel. I opened the case and checked the connectors and it is correctly hooked up using an 80-conductor cable. I also tried changing from Master jumpering to Cable Select jumpering but there was no difference.

    Has someone experience of this?

    Would it help to uninstall IDE1 and let Windows redetect and reinstall it?

    Thanks for Your time,
    Christer
     
    Last edited: 2004/07/25
    Christer,
    #1
  2. 2004/07/25
    LDTate

    LDTate Inactive

    Joined:
    2004/06/29
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Christer
    Do you know when the last time the pc was cleaned up? Like Disk Cleanup, deleting .tmp files things along that line.
     
    LDTate,
    #2


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2004/07/25
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    My friend is rather good at keeping it clean or rather NOT getting it dirty in the first place. He does not use it too much on the internet (modem) and the primary use is to pay his bills.

    It was looking nice and clean and it has actually been slow ever since he abandoned Win98se for WinXPpro.

    It was me who did the installation but it was the first computer of that vintage that I worked on. The subsequent ones have all ended up much faster.
    I never checked the Device Manager when I did the installation but will make a rule of doing that from now on.

    I wonder if something went wrong during the installation ...... :confused: ......

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #3
  5. 2004/07/25
    noahdfear

    noahdfear Inactive

    Joined:
    2003/04/06
    Messages:
    12,178
    Likes Received:
    15
    Did you take a look at running processes? CPU usage? Have the services been tweaked?
     
    noahdfear,
    #4
  6. 2004/07/25
    sparrow

    sparrow Inactive

    Joined:
    2004/03/21
    Messages:
    2,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    cpu speed?

    I would look at the BIOS to see if the CPU is really at the rated speed. I've seen that sometimes (for unknown reasons, like a power glitch?) the speed has been reduced and I've had to set it properly again.
     
    sparrow,
    #5
  7. 2004/07/25
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Dave,
    I had a quick look in Task Manager and everything appears to be normal. There is no abnormal CPU activity when the system is idling and he hasn't caught anything to get rid of.

    sparrow,
    I took a detour into BIOS but didn't think about checking the actual CPU speed. I did however restore defaults before exiting and saving. I'm not sure if that would set a correct multiplier, if that was the problem.

    The computer is slow enough to be an annoyance. When working in Windows Explorer, expanding and collapsing folder trees takes quite a while (a few seconds ...... :D ......) and occasionally, the rolling light bulb tries to releave the situation.
    I would expect an ATA33 harddrive to be somewhat slower than an ATA100 but not that much ...... :confused: ...... or am I wrong?

    I have not found an explanation to why it, in Device Manager, shows up as primary slave (device 1) when it has been verified to be connected as primary master (device 0).
    I'll try a different cable the next time I go there, probably next weekend.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #6
  8. 2004/07/25
    RayH

    RayH Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/10
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the single hard drive on the chain is a WD, it likes to have no jumper. There is a SINGLE selection for those.

    ATA 33 is a lot slower than ATA 100. Usually the ATA 100 might be 7200 w/cache. Maybe it's just 5200 RPM. But the speed can be noticeable.
     
    RayH,
    #7
  9. 2004/07/25
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    It's an IBM-DTTA-351680 and it spins at 5400 rpm. The specs are from Dell Support but my friends computer is an IBM Aptiva, according to the screen during POST.

    As I mentioned earlier, I have installed XP on other computers of the same vintage and specs. There shouldn't be such a big difference.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #8
  10. 2004/07/25
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Dave,
    I forgot to mention that the Services have been tweaked according to Black Viper "SAFE" recommendations.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #9
  11. 2004/07/25
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,896
    Likes Received:
    389
    Hm - that should improve performance, especially with only 256 Mb RAM.
     
    PeteC,
    #10
  12. 2004/07/25
    Zander

    Zander Geek Member Alumni

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    4,084
    Likes Received:
    5
    From the specs you mentioned it doesn't surprise me that it would be a bit on the slow side (with XP). Especially if it's a celery. If it were me I'd add some ram and see if that helps.
     
    Zander,
    #11
  13. 2004/07/25
    Rockster2U

    Rockster2U Geek Member

    Joined:
    2002/04/01
    Messages:
    3,181
    Likes Received:
    9
    You need to find this out because it may require a BIOS update for XP and the only way to know is to check with the mfg. Go to the IBM site and do some checking - also, can Everest ID the MoBo for you? Secondly, my experience has been that a PII 500 w/ 512 cache or a PIII 500 should be OK, Celeron 500 and AMD 500 K6-II's are right on the cusp re: running XP at tolerable speed. Third - did you install chipset (MoBo) drivers - assuming its Intel, you're probably OK with what XP loaded, but you can get that application accelerator patch at their website. A 5400 ATA33 is going to labor a bit, but it still should be tolerable - its funny how spoiled we get when accustomed to speed and then one hits a slow poke machine and it seems even slower than it is because your reference point has changed based on what you haev become used to.

    ;)
     
    Rockster2U,
    #12
  14. 2004/07/26
    mattman

    mattman Inactive Alumni

    Joined:
    2002/06/10
    Messages:
    8,198
    Likes Received:
    63
    IBM support page:
    http://www-3.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/
    On the right-hand side of the page are ways to identify your system (one is an online system that ID's for you... "Direct Access ").

    See if any drivers are available for your chipset or specifically, the IDE controller if you are still thinking that the problem may be there.

    IBM has lots of information. Look in Tips and Hints.

    If you haven't tried already, try removing the IDE controller in device mangler. XP Pro got a few of my drivers wrong when I installed mine.

    Matt
     
    mattman,
    #13
  15. 2004/07/26
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Zander,

    I have installed XP on other hardware of the same vintage and specs apart from the other two being PIII/500 and I'm pretty convinced that this is a Celeron/500. Anyway, this computer takes twice the time to boot and is rather sluggish.
    He's not prepared to buy new hardware for this computer (RAM) and he actually upgraded from 128MB to 256MB with no apparent improvement.

    Rockster2U,

    Yes, I plan to do that next weekend, unless my friend (or his employer) has other plans. He is connected via modem so I'll bring a CD with a few usable utilities, like AIDA32 (still havent tried Everest).

    I was short on time when I was there and will check it up. I'm pretty sure it's an Intel board ...... :rolleyes: ...... but I'm also pretty sure that I've got a Teflon Coated Memory.

    Matt,

    I've been there and found out that my own computer is not an IBM ...... :rolleyes: ...... me and my fat fingers ...... LOL
    I'll run the check on my friends computer next weekend.

    Well, as long as the HDD, physically verified to be connected as Primary Master, shows up in Device Manager as the second device on the first channel, then something must be wrong.
    I will bring another cable to rule that one out and then uninstall Primary IDE to see what happens when Windows redetects and reinstalls it.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #14
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...