My computer keeps getting very sluggish

I can see you are determined to master that Gideon, somehow.
A little at a time---


You want to know a little about Bios- then download and save a copy from Phoenix
http://www.phoenix.com/NR/rdonlyres/EEB89E24-3EA7-46F0-84F9-3A428F8F6CA8/0/biosawardgeneric.pdf

Memory terms, and AMD explanations.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ComputingSolutions/0,,30_288_13265_13295^13335,00.html

Your processors capabilities explained.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9493,00.html


Now, I have tried to find as much as I can, without adding confusing jargon, so that you can understand it as much as possible.
By the preceeding paragraph, you should get the gist if things.

1/ Your CPU supports hyperthreading, your motherboard does, too.
In your Bios,in advanced settings, be sure to enable hyperthreading, and that should give some improvement, as the cpu can do more than one job at a time, faster if enabled.


2/ Your cpu should have a part definition, -if it is (see page 5, or, 6 of your manual)
AR,p
as
aw
ax
az
or, bi
Then the memory goes in slot 1 and 2 to give dual channel , and this means running @533 for you Ballistic memory, instead of 266.
If the cpu part definition is in the E,s- then they go in 1 and 3., or, 2, and 4.

3/ From my looking the comment by Wizzy , earlier
There have been sketchy comments on the nforce chipsets being slow when copying, and sometimes the computer freezing. It appears that this is due to the IDE controller, and Biostar reckon this was fixed by the latest Chipset update- I thought you had that ( Chipset---- XP 64bit/Server 2003 x64/ 1.0.0.0 2007-07-06 11.07 MB) = (NfREF_826_XP64.EXE)

4/ In the Bios,again,
Pnp/Pci configuration, set to auto, or enable. (your Everest stated a fault with that)

5/ In frequency / voltage control set to enabled.
Good hunting,:duck

 

Hi baklogic,

I am definitely going to master the pc. The only alternative would be that it masters me, lol, and that ain't gonna happen . . . :boxing

Just a quick response for now. I'll be checking out the links you gave me and checking my BIOS settings a little later, but I wanted you to know that

I installed

- NFref_826_XP64, new chipset driver,

- VGA_8440_XP64, on-board VGA

- 93.71_forceware_winxp64_english_whql, Nvidia forceware

- AMD Athlon™ 64 and FX Processor Driver for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 Version (x86 and x64 exe) 1.3.2.16, BIOS update


I didn't install On-Board Audio as the Nvidia forceware contained an update and I think it was either you or ASUS who said that they would clash.

Thanks for the links and info.
.

 

Don't forget to see if Everest, or, Sisoft show you that cpu number, as it looks like you have the earlier one , if the Ram works better in adjacent slots, rather than, alternate slots.

 

I changed some settings in BIOS:

- I set Pnp/Pci configuration to auto.
- USB Memory Choices = Shadow or Base Memory (640K). I had set it to Shadow due to the info in one of the reports. I didn't change it back to Base Memory (640K)
- Frequency OnChip USB is set to V1.1+V2.0

Sandra recommendation:

"If the BIOS supports processor Vcore setting, check that the voltage programmed is correct for the processor installed."
There is no "Vcore" setting in BIOS, unless it's under a different name. As I said earlier, Frequency OnChip USB is set to V1.1+V2.0. I'll have to go back into BIOS to see what the other option is.

- System BIOS was set to Disabled. I changed it to Enabled.
- CPU & External Caches were set to Enabled. I didn't change these settings.
- Gate A20 Option is set to Fast. I didn't change this setting.
- I looked throughout BIOS and could find no choice for hyperthreading, unless it's under a different name.


I didn't get a manual with my CPU and in the Everest and Sandra reports, there is no mention of

Below are portions of the Everest reports about the CPU.

The Everest Report (CPU):

Since the Sandra report states that my CPU is underclocked, here is info about overclocking

Since memory was brought up in the Sandra report, this is what Everest has to say about it

I've attached portions of the Sandra Reports about the CPU, Amp System Status, and Mobo.

 

To summarize a bit:

The inner settings of a computer and how they work are too much to remember. From what I can gather from the reports,

My CPU is compatible with my mobo but I should update to a dual core CPU.

It seems that my RAM may not be the right type of RAM

My computer is underclocked.

I do not have enough voltage allotted for the CPU.

I couldn't find the part definition for my CPU, so I don't know if my RAM is properly installed on the mobo. I have them in slots 1 and 3 at the moment.

I couldn't find an option to select hyperthreading.
.

 

Don't read too much into the Everest or SiSandra reports. They are great tools, but are not perfect. I get this part on all my computer also:



Notice 224 : SMBIOS/DMI information may be inaccurate.
Tip 2511 : Some memory slots are free so the memory can be easily upgraded.
Warning 100 : Large memory sizes should be made of Registered/Buffered memory.
Tip 2546 : Large memory modules should be ECC/Parity.
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.

Not too sure about the Vcore part, but don't mess with that just yet. (You don't want to be playing around too much with the Vcore... You might let the magic smoke out of Gideon.)

As far as the CPU upgrade part, I don't have a dual core CPU, but I can put a dual core CPU in it, just don't have the money. So I get the CPU can be upgraded message from SiSandra also.

E

 

just a little question on this part
Voltage Values:
CPU Core 1.33 V
+2.5 V 1.14 V
+3.3 V 3.33 V
+5 V 4.92 V
+12 V 11.97 V
+5 V Standby 4.92 V
VBAT Battery 3.07 V
Debug Info F 27 FF 00
Debug Info T 127 127 33
Debug Info V 53 47 D0 B7 BB A3 52 (61)

your 2.5 volt is only getting 1.14? doesnt sound right to me

 

Warning W235 - Processor core voltage (Vcore) is less than rated minimum. Unless the reported value is incorrect or the processor is a different type that is not correctly detected, the voltage is lower than it should be. If you’re under-clocking the processor you may have pushed too far.

I get this error also, but mine is overclocked... I would not worry about that yet.

Good eyes ibbonkers, I did not notice that. I shall blame it on the beer... I am not sure about the importance of the 2.5V, Hopefully someone will chime in soon about it.

E

 

I'll have to find the setting and see what the other option is. I believe it wasn't a number but something like Auto and SCSI, (not the words that are in BIOS).

I haven't had any beer but my face is ready to fall on the keyboard and I hate those waffle marks on my cheeks that last 1/2 a day

Thanks ibbonkers and Fred. I'll get back to you on the other option that's available or you may know of a way that I can increase the voltage to a size not that not an available option.
.

 

Dang Denise, I forgot to put this in my previous post. If your CPU is showing up at the proper speed, ie if it is a 2.2Ghz CPU, and it shows up as a 2.2Ghz CPU, then I would not worry about the CPU voltage. That part sounds like a glitch on SiSandra. Still not sure about the 2.5V part that ibbonkers spotted.

E

 

Fred is right on the ball - don't take Everest, or, Sisoft as gospel--just a guide.
Power supply calculator (I think it was Adrenalyne that I got this link from)
If you want to work out how good your power supply is, or, what is advised
http://www.journeysystems.com/?powercalc

ibbonkers made a point about the power rail
IT WOULD SEEM THAT SYSTEM FANS USE THE 2.5 v , and as you said you had one.

If you have doubts about your psu,perhaps a testing tool like this .
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx...er&T=2001131&gclid=CLum2qbx-Y0CFSeNZwod6BuXrg

Phoenix Award Bios , typical- is yours the same ? If so, hyperthreading is on the advanced tab
http://www.computerhope.com/help/phoenixa.htm

 

upon looking around the 2.5v rail is actually the power for 2nd core (vcc1 @ 2.5 vcc2 @ 3.3) so if that is the case it is regulated by the board. I thought fans use 12 volt rail.That may be where that undervoltage error comes in.

 

PSU rails are not my best subject, The fan I was referring to was the one connected to the motherboard header, perhaps wrongly, my knowledge is very basic, I use the links I gave to help with my own findings/repairs, and I cannot advise more, but, I suggest Denise waits for someone with more knowledge to help on that,

ibbonkers, It could well be a clue to her problem- vcore.. low voltage..
CPU ONLY 1.33V - Perhaps Adrenalyne could help on this ?

 

I checked out the link for the Pheonix Award Bios and my screen doesn't look like the one displayed but I can get to the same features by clicking on options.


I used the calculator but it didn't tell me the voltage that I would need, just the wattage. None of the selections matched what I have so I used the highest/strongest wattage needed for each and it came out to 268W. I have a Corsair 620W so I don't think it's my PSU.


I installed the system fan but I haven't connected it yet because it's about 1" short from being able to be connected to the port. I need to get an extension for it.


The Everest report said that my CPU voltage is "I/O Voltage 1.2 V + 2.5 V," but in BIOS, it says "Frequency OnChip USB is set to V1.1+V2.0". I don't know if this matters, what it means or how to change it.



At the link given in the Everest report, "Product Information http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...30_118,00.html " it says:

Does the info that I put in bold mean that I have a dual core processor?

What can I do about this?



Last night, while I was transferring a file from one of my ext hdds to another one, I couldn't do so much as move a scrollbar until the file finished moving.

Denise
.

 

I checked out the AMD site and found the manual for my processor. I've attached a chart name Absolute Maximum Ratings. I don't know if it gives information that's needed to determine if my CPU isn't getting enough voltage.
.

 

With (AMD'S) HyperTransport, all devices get their own I/O connection, reducing data bottlenecks and boosting performance. allowing connection for multiple HyperTransport input/output devices to a single channel.
Wheras hyperthreading (Intel) makes the operating system think it has two processors, and runs as I see it very similarly..

 

got it

 

What are you laughing at . . . it is a chart! *mumble, mumble*

I've been talking to myself for years . . . that's a given, but now I'm talking to a machine, questioning it, pacifying it, and out-and-out threatening it :foolish

I just went back into BIOS.

Under PCI Express Relative Items, it was "Maximum Payload Size 4096" 4096 is the highest number.

Integrated Peripherals:
- OnChip USP Options, the options are "Disabled," "V1.1+V2.0" (which it is the chosen option) and "V1.1"

IDE Function Setup
- OnChip IDE Channel10 = Enabled
- Primary Master PIO = Auto
- Primary Slave PIO = Auto
- Primary Master UDMA = Auto
- Primary Slave UDMA = Auto
- OnChip IDE Channel1 = Enabled
- Secondary Master PIO = Auto
- Secondary Slave PIO = Auto
- Secondary Master UDMA = Auto
- Secondary Slave UDMA = Auto
- IDE DMA Transfer Access = Enabled
- Serial-ATA Controller = All Enabled
- IDE Prefetch Mode = Enabled

K8 Cool 'n' Quiet Control = Auto


I changed USB Memory Type from "Base Memory (640k)" to "Shadow" a couple of weeks ago because it was recommended in one of the reports. Should I put it back to Base Memory (640k)?


I knew I'd hate BIOS! *making the sign of the cross while holding a silver spike in my other hand*

Maybe if I gave the computer a good, swift kick in the rear (panel, that is), it'll get on the ball . . .

I wish someone would tell that to my CPU! There's no mention of hyperthreading or hypertransporting in BIOS.


I'm starting to wonder if that motherboard/CPU under plate needed to be installed afterall . . . the one we all discussed in the original 700+ post thread?
.

 

Its not really in my coffers, but as no one seems to be coming on to help, I understand that the vcore to the cpu is usually set in the Bios, BUT, some motherboards can allow you to adjust it. It is usually set around +/- 10% of the rating for the cpu. All I can see seems to point to the 1.35v being in that region.I also understand that going over 2 to 2,5 v can fry the cpu - but I am not the expert on this.:crybaby
I can only give you the little that I have learned.:banghead
I made an error, in an earlier post, when I said the motherboard and cpu support hyperthreading- I was forgetting AMD call theirs Hypertransport, and I would not know that it might not be in your Cmos to see, or , if it would make a difference.
:confused

 

Well, I had to turn my pc on and off about 8 times to get this info, lol, and I hope it was worth it, but the 2 second screen, under Hardware, says CPU VCore Useage 1.32V.

I know that hypertransport isn't in BIOS because I just looked throughout every setting available in BIOS. I clicked on every option in case Auto/Enabled/Disabled could be changed to hypertransport and it wasn't there.

I've been through CMOS to look for it also but it wasn't there either. It might be a set status and can't be changed.

The first screen that blinks off in about 5 seconds says "NVidia 64Mb RAM" and something else that I don't think I should state here.

No need to knock your head, baclogic, you've done a GREAT job helping me. I don't know what I would have done without you. :celebrate
.

 

Hey Denise, you might want to go back into the BIOS, and change this:
K8 Cool 'n' Quiet Control = Auto

To:
K8 Cool 'n' Quiet Control = Off

Could possibly be underclocking your CPU. Won't hurt anything to have it off anyway.

E

 

and as for cpu voltage it is within specs the 2.5 vcc reading is independent of chipset usb two totally different areas. the 2.5 if for the 2ND cpu if dual core installed. The voltage regulator for this is onboard and is not controlable. hypertransport is a feature that is also native to amd and not controlable. Two things to try is 1) try another power supply and 2)try disconnecting cdrom/dvdrom drive to see if it speeds things up. It could be something as simple as a cable to a drive slowing you down.If you have another drive you can do a clean install on try that too to rule out hdd problems. Seen it happen even with new drives

 

I'll give this a try tomorrow. I'm processing files again and don't want to stop them or I'll have to start them from the beginning.

It's good getting input from all of you. . . it's helping to narrow down the problem. So the CPU is ok and I can't do anything about the voltage, I've changed some settings and I'll turn off Cool 'n' Quiet.

I can disconnect my DVD ROM drive to see if that makes a difference.

The floppy drive was just installed and this problem has been going on since I first booted up.

I don't have another hdd but I was thinking along those lines also. I've run a number of tests on it and the results always say that the hdd is good/healthy. One was a stress test and the other was HD Tune. Chkdsk always says that the hdd has no problems. If I had another hdd, I'd try it. It's something to think about in the future. I can try swapping cables. There are 2 SATA ports that I can connect the hdd to. Should I connect it to the other port?

Also, I've asked this question a couple of times but it might have been overlooked. I changed USB Memory Type from "Base Memory (640k)" to "Shadow" a couple of weeks ago because it was recommended in one of the reports. Should I put it back to Base Memory (640k)?

 

either way that should be fine on the usb memory type

 

I am glad I got my motherboard with e-sata connections, - sorry, only gloating.:neener
Follow FredG, and ibbonkers, Denise, new input is a great help.:guitar:guitar
I do enjoy it, though , never give up.:grouphug

 

"I am glad I got my motherboard with e-sata connections" :drool

 

Can someone tell me if the pc would run faster if I overclocked it a bit?

 

Denise... What the HELL are you thinking! Technically, yes it would be faster if you overclock it. If you overclock Gideon, then he becomes... Damion!

Now once you get all the kinks worked out, you might consider it. But when you o/c, you are adding unusual settings, extra voltages to stuff, heat problems... O/C can make problems even harder to pinpoint.:cry

So what is so great about these e-sata connections?

E

 

I think of Heaven, not Hell . . . . . . 'cause that's where I'm headin'

With the Corsair 620W, I have plenty of juice, and useage of 1.3V for my CPU, I still have 1V remaining.

I don't know what else will make this machine run as fast as a 5-year old, abused and never updated machine. You just don't understand how slow it is. I can't even so much as move a scroll bar if I'm moving a file. I've run every test in the book and they all say my pc is fine and recommend only a tweak or two, but with the equipment it has, even if the southbridge is slow, it should run faster than that.

When I can afford it, I'm going to buy a dual core processor. My mobo is dual channel so it should speed things up a lot. If it doesn't, the trash heap is right outside the garage door. If I format my old pc and update the drivers, it'll run twice as fast as this one and it has only 128 and 512 RAM. The on-board graphics card is about shot but I'll look into disabling it and installing one. I'm really serious. This pc crashes at least once every 2 days. My old pc could stay on for at least a week, and then I'd reboot it. This new pc runs like a 10-year old pc, and I'm not exaggerating.

The package that came with the CPU said that if the bracket was attached to the CPU, that the backplate should not be installed. The manual that I just downloaded says that the backplate should be installed. That would lift the mobo about 1/2" off the back of the case. We all decided that it wasn't needed because I couldn't screw the mobo to the case if it were 1/2" from the case and the instructions that came with the CPU said not to install it if the bracket was attached. I think that the plate should have been attached. When I installed the firewire card and the SATA card, they didn't reach the area where I needed to screw them onto the frame. I bent the metal and molded it so I could screw it in, but it was originally 1/4" off. That makes me think that the plate should have been installed under the mobo, and maybe that's the problem. At this point, I can't get the hsf off anyway, so it'll have to stay the way it is.

If I had an e-sata connection built into my mobo, I wouldn't have had to buy a 4 port SATA card (which blew my PSU and FDD, if you remember when I plugged in the ext SATA hdds and turned them on). The ones that are built-in are made for the mobo so much less likely to have a problem with them. The 4 port SATA card cost me over $100.00 and I had to throw it away. I also spent about $45 for FDDs, $20 for FDD cables, and about $20 for SATA cables. I originally bought 2 twin sticks of 528G RAM and they're sitting here doing nothing because they'll slow down the 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM that I bought, so that's another $100+ down the drain.

So that's it all in a nutshell.
.

 

Denise, don't you dare think of giving up.crybaby
I am sorry , I didn't mean to upset you with the little gloat, only a joke, :duck especially as you have kept your pecker up, despite your gliches with Gideon.:tas
You do see what I mean, though, if you had a little backplate with a sata plug, and plugged into a spare sata connection inside, it would help, but for Fred,
By having e-sata connectors on the motherboard, no seperate controller card is needed.

eSATA can give transfer rates 3 times those of USB 2.0 and FireWire 400,
but eSATA needs its own power connector

eSATA does not have to translate data between the interface and the computer. This enhances data transfer speeds,
saves computer processor resources and eliminating the need for an extra off-load chip.

http://www.sata-io.org/esata.asp

Denise,
Right click, My Computer, click manage, click Event viewer, application, double click the error, and post it back, one of us might find a reason, for your crashes.:boxing

Chin up , FredW gave good advice, like with the Bios, wait a bit longer, and see if one of us can solve this.:***

Fred. and ibbonkers, might just get :guns and put their finger on it.:highfive

 

backlogic: I get it now, External SATA... Nice if you use external drives.

DeniseM, I read through the thread again. Which slots do you currently have your RAM in? |||| 1234

E

 

Keep Denise going FredW, she needs a boost - also I reread the Kingston whitepaer on ram, and it could be worth trying the 2 x 512 ram , as well, in the other slots - apparently in correct slots matched ram will work,even when different sizes, as long as they are the same rating as the other pair (3200/or, whatever ) .:foolish:duck

 

Don't worry baklogic, I won't throw it into the trash can. I'll disassemble it and sell the parts . . . only kidding again. Gotta keep my spirits up and kidding is a good way to do it. You didn't upset me at all when you mentioned that your mobo has on-board SATA ports. I would have liked to have had them, but I'd like to have a few million dollars too. When I explained the SATA card vs on-board SATA ports, it was in response to Fred's question, not that I'm unhappy with my mobo. Well, I'm unhappy with how slow files transfer. Every program runs fast. As soon as I double click on it, it's opened, give 2 or 3 seconds. Since I work with large files very often, the transfer rate of a file from one drive to another or from my c drive to a partition on the drive is what I need the most but, instead, is the problem.

I made 3 screenshots of the main Error and Warning messaages that I receive. Windows doesn't show me any error messages. In Event Viewer, there were a number of Errors and a couple of Warnings. I've attached 3 of them so you can get an idea of the type I get. Every error and warning is the same.

I don't know what the rating is. I threw away the packages that they came in and Kingston no longer makes the twin 2x512Mb RAM that I originally purchased for the pc.

I have the RAM installed in slots 1 and 3.

I had a SATA 2-port adapter connected via a SATA cable to the spare SATA port on the mobo, along with the 4-port card that was installed in the slot. The 2-port adapter didn't work either.

Now that SATA II is out, the 2 SATA ports that are on my mobo aren't the same as SATA II connectors. I have another new SATA ext hdd but the ports are SATA II. If my SATA card was working, I couldn't connect the drive to the SATA card without an adapter.

Since my pc was formatted 4 times in a few weeks and because the SATA 4-port card blew the PSU and floppy drive, besides wondering if the hdd might be damaged, I'm wondering if some ports are damaged. When the last floppy drive sparked, it could have caused damage to the port or another place on the mobo. I don't know much about this at all but there has to be a reason why my files transfer so slowly.

I made 3 screenshots of the main Error and Warning messaages that I receive. Windows doesn't show me any error messages. In Event Viewer, there were a number of Errors and a couple of Warnings. I've attached 3 of them so you can get an idea of the type I get. Every error and warning is the same, but there doesn't seem like any of them could cause an extreme slowdown of file transfers. As you can see, they're pretty old too, so my pc "thinks" everything is going along well. It doesn't "think" that the slow transfer rate is a problem.
.

 

From your earlier posts, you could not get Seagate Windows hard drive tool to work, as your system was reckoned not to have version 2 installed, I am sure updated net framework will help, this is a redistributable version,

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...CB-4362-4B0D-8EDD-AAB15C5E04F5&displaylang=en

It is up to version 3 now, but try to ensure version 2 is installed.

 

Have to go now, I keep an eye out, and hope FredW comes on to go through the ram , and anything else, or ibbonkers.
11 PM in U.K

 

1 and 3 or 2 and 4 are the slots for your RAM according to the Biostar manual I downloaded, so you have that right. How you would install the 2 512Mb sticks and get dual channel to work, I don't know. I don't think you should need more than 2 gigs of ram.

Your computer is slow when you are transfering files internally (from a folder on your main drive to another folder on the same drive) or when you are transfering files from your main drive to one of the external drives?

Just to clarify a few things, I have no experience with the 64bit XP, so if I am off on something, sorry! Also, I think you have tried this already, but have you tried the 2 512MB RAM sticks in slots 1 and 2 without the 2 1GB sticks?

Got a couple of ideas running around in my head about your computer...

E

 

I have the 2Gb sticks in slots 1 and 3. I've tried to 2 sticks of 512Mb RAM a while back in slots 2 and 4, but I don't remember if it made a difference. The computer always seemed slow. I took the 512Mb sticks out because someone here had said that a pc will run only as fast as the lowest RAM, and I read it at a couple places too. It won't hurt to try installing them in slots 2 and 4 and see what happens.

My mobo is dual channel but my CPU is not dual core. All of the original computer parts came in a kit. I immediately sold the one 512Mb RAM and bought 2 twin 512Mb RAM. I didn't think that I would need more than that, but it turned out that I could have, so they're sitting somewhere. I have pc parts all over the place.

Moving the files is slow whether I'm moving them from my c drive to a partition on the drive or to an ext hdd, same speed. But when I move a file from one ext hdd to another, it takes less time, by about 1/3, which boggles my mind.

I don't think that this is an X64 problem. The parts were made for X64 and I've gotten used to working with it so that I don't have the problems that I used to have, plus, more drivers/programs are made for X64 now than 8 months ago.

Denise

 

Dual channel RAM and dual core CPU's are two different beasts. A dual core CPU has 2 CPU's or cores, on the chip. DDR RAM means you have 2 or more sticks of ram, setup in the right way on the right board, and you now have double the RAM bandwidth!

I need to do a quick test on my computer that requires a reboot. Will post again in a few mins.

E

 

So if I am understanding you right, an internal disk transfer takes a long time, and pretty much takes over the computer while doing it.

Create a blank folder on your desktop and copy a large internal file to it. Time it.

Now boot into safe mode (press f8 during the boot process) and boot into safe mode with networking. Delete the copy, and copy to the blank folder again. Time that.

Post said times.

E

 

Also have you tried another cable on the hdd? or tried another hdd yet? just seems wierd it does it from c but not externals. keep thinking its the drive. Had a bad dvd burner bog down and lock up a pc before

 

I did find some info about some of the Seagate SATA drives. Some of them have a jumper that makes it run at SATA1 speed instead of SATA2. It is unclear whether the mobo is suposed to auto-negotiate the speed. If you have the jumper on the hard drive, I would remove it. Can't hurt anything (and you can always put it back on). Note: the jumper is like a CMOS jumper, or a Master/Slave/CS jumper on a regular hard drive, just a little smaller.

http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...fa74c010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&locale=en-US

Click on the PDF manual on the right side, scroll down to page 40 for the jumper info. I agree with ibbonkers. If you can, try another hard drive and cables if possible. And you might want to try a different SATA port on the board if you can.

Sorry if any of this stuff has been tried before.

E

 

I know. I wanted to point out the fact that my mobo is dual channel but I don't have a dual core CPU but I'm saving to buy one. It doesn't make sense to me that the kit would contain a dual channel mobo but not a dual core CPU. I would gladly have paid a few more dollars for the dual core CPU.

I'll be testing, removing the connection to my DVD ROM drive, using a different cable to connect my hard drive to the mobo and I'll use the other slot. The slot where I now have the cable plugged into the mobo is the recommended slot. I don't have a spare hard drive to try.

All of my drives are connected using 2.0 USB cables, whether they're SATA or USB 2.0 because the SATA card doesn't work, nor does the 2 port SATA adapter (when I connect it to one of the SATA ports on the mobo).

It's very strange that the files transfer faster from one external hdd to another faster than from my c drive to an ext hdd. I have a couple of ext hdds that transfer files so fast that, if I blink, I'll literally miss it, and these are large files, around 750Mb. It takes over 2 minutes for a 750Mb file to be transferred from my c drive to an ext drive.

Fred, I'll do the experiment. My wristwatch has a second handle on it. I like the old fashioned ones that have a real clock. Digital can only go so far

This jumper was on the hdd when I received it. I don't remember exactly what had to be done with it but I think I only had to make sure that it was on the correct pins, and it was.

I've also cleared CMOS a couple of times by switching the CMOS jumper according to the directions in the manual and I've done it in CMOS also.

Thanks, guys, for your input. I'll let you know how everything works out.

Denise
.

 

Hi baklogic . . . I had the Redistributable pack installed on my old pc and I had a lot of problems with my programs, even after I uninstalled it. I'm leary about installing it in this pc.

 

Something interesting . . . Avast picked up Dark Angel trying to enter my pc 2 times yesterday. I put them in quarantine but I haven't figured out how to get to the chest to delete them, lol . . . the instructions were no help. They said, "go into the chest" . . . but they don't say how to get into it.

 

Denise, how is your main C(semicolon) drive connected?

I know. I wanted to point out the fact that my mobo is dual channel but I don't have a dual core CPU but I'm saving to buy one. It doesn't make sense to me that the kit would contain a dual channel mobo but not a dual core CPU. I would gladly have paid a few more dollars for the dual core CPU.

DDR and Dual Core CPU are totally different things. You will love this, on some of the new boards you now have DDR2 and quad core CPU's:drool

E

 

My c: drive is SATA and it's connected using a slim red SATA cable that's connected to the back of the hard drive, and the other end fits onto the JSATA1 port on the motherboard. Due to the shape of SATA I ports, the cable can fit in only one way.

The hard drive also has pins that have a jumper on them. I called Seagate (really) because I didn't know what a jumper was at first, and when I took a good look at it, I saw the small rubber jumper "cap" over the pins. When I spoke with the tech and explained the rear of the drive to her, she said that the jumper was on the correct pins. She sent me an additional jumper in case I ever needed one.

I'm not confused about DDR, CPU dual core or dual channel mobo. I'm confused because the ones I have don't work together and I don't know why.

Right now, and probably for the next 2 days (15 ext hdds), I'm running an in-depth scan of all of my drives with Avast in regular mode. Then I'm going to do it in Safe Mode and run MG's battery of tests on it. It's been niggling at my mind that some of the things that my old pc did, my new pc is doing, and since I moved files and zipped programs from my old pc to this pc, I want it checked and double-checked. The tests have always come out negative, except for a few cookies. baklogic was right. I'm very determined to get to the bottom of this. Anyway I look at it, there's no reason for it to run so slow unless something is wrong.

After the Avast scan finishes, I'm going to do the things that you, baklogic and ibbonkers suggested, then I'm going to run MG's battery of anti programs in its Read Me.

 

These are two questions that I'm hoping someone can answer.

1. Due to the fact that my PSU and first FDD were fried, could it be possible that the ports on my mobo were damaged? At the time that it happened, my computer was so new that I didn't have a chance to know how it would have run if the damage hadn't been done.

2. The hsf came in a package with a back plate. The instructions on that package said that the back plate didn't have to be installed if the bracket was attached to the hsf. Since the bracket was attached to the hsf, I didn't install the back plate. I just read the manual and it says that the back plate should be installed, no ifs, ands or buts. What's the possibility or probability that the pc isn't running properly because that backplate wasn't installed?
.

 

That one that I posted is suitable for XP X64, - really this is a later motherboard, and chipset than your old one, so you should not have the same problem.
Many things, today, need the extra updates to work properly- have you updated XP todate ?

Fred_G , and ibbonkers are helping you look at other things, try the suggestions, as you get time..

Have you virus scanned you external discs ? too.

Have you run cpu-z / - It will give better readings than Everest, and Sisoft, on the ram, cpu
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download425.html
Always possible that that sata controller card did some damage, but your tests did not find anything.
To have fitted that backplate, you would have neede higher motherboard support pins.

 

That's one of the reasons why I didn't install the backplate, and the major reason was the the instructions on the package said that it didn't need to be installed if the bracket was attached to the hsf. I think it's needed because the adapter cards can't be attached to the case as the are. I needed to use a pair of pliers to change the shape of the area that would be attached to the case because they were 1/4" short, which is the size that the back place would have raised the mobo.

Unfortunately, I can't remove the hsf or the CPU to install the back plate without breaking the plastic lever that holds the hsf to the CPU, but I'm wondering if not installing the back plate has caused the problem or part of the problem that I'm having.

On top of it all, two of my new 750Gb ext hdds are failing so I'm not a happy camper today. :cry :mad :banghead :***

I programmed an Avast scan last night to check all of my drives, int and ext, and thought that it would finish by this morning. When I woke up this morning, Avast had frozen when it started scanning the first ext hdd (Drive G). This morning, I set Avast to scan G. A fast scan takes about 10 minutes and basically only checks the names of the files. An in-depth scan takes about 2 minutes to check each file. I have approximately 1,800+ files on that drive, short cartoons. I'm looking at a year's worth of scanning all of my ext hdds.

I just downloaded cpu-z. I'm going to install and run it in a little later.

Thanks all, for you input.
.

 

I ran CPU-Z. I attached screenshots again (in this and the next 2 post) as it's better than interpreting the results.
.