My computer keeps getting very sluggish

These are 3 more. I have my RAM in slots 1 and 3 but this report shows them in slots 1 and 2, unless it's a different type of memory.
.

 

And the last 2.
.

 

I checked out page 40 of the manual, regarding the jumper pins - limited vs normal. Then I crawled back into the 2'x2' space that I have to work with now that everything is attached to the tower and found that there isn't a jumper on the pins. My memory isn't what it used to be, with all this tech stuff being put into one side of my brain and leaking out the other side. When I telephone Seagate, the Tech probably had me look at jumpers on another set of pins and sent me a jumper in case I wanted to limit the data transfer rate. It's the only explanation that I can think of. I don't remember the little details clearly at this point.

The manual that you found on line, Fred, is very good. Thanks for showing it to me.

While I was in there, I disconnected the cable to the FDD and the DVD ROM drive. I'm going to reboot and then see if it makes a difference when I transfer large files. After that, I'm going copy a large file from my c drive to a new folder on my desktop and see how long it takes. I'll then go into Safe Mode with Networking, delete the copy in the folder, and copy it to the folder again and time it again.

Thanks guys. I'll be back later . . .
.

 

If I am remembering correctly, the jumper is smaller than usual, next time you are in the PC, look around. I did some reading, and I don't think it a problem, but you never know.

E

 

The four pins are clearly visible, shining in the light of a flashlight. There's definitely no jumper on the pins.

Well, here's the lowdown on all the tests.

There was no difference in the speed of copying files after I disconnected the cables to the DVD ROM drive and FDD.

I used a file that was 768,958kb for copying.

- It took 22 seconds to copy it from an external hard drive to the c: drive.
- It took about 1 second (give or take a few milliseconds) to copy it from my c drive to a new folder on my desktop.
- It took 55 seconds to copy the file from my desktop to my d drive, which is a partition on my int hdd.
- It took 55 seconds to copy the file from my d drive to the ext hdd.
- It took 24 seconds to copy the file from the folder on my desktop to my d drive.

I was surprised that it would take 24 seconds to go from one part of the partition to the other, and that it took 2 seconds longer to copy the file from an ext hdd to my c: drive. I watched the second hand on the clock on my pc very carefully and I don't believe I'm off a second.

The ext hdd that I used was chosen at random because it's 1 of 3 that are the easiest one to reach, but those 3 also firewired to my computer, which I didn't think of before I ran the tests or I would have used a drive that was connected with a USB 2.0 cable because the other 12 drives are connected with a USB 2.0 cable.

I also disabled Cool 'n' Quiet.

If I tried to move a scroll bar or change the name of a file in any folder on any drive while a file is being copied or moved, it will either not do it until it had been completely copied or moved or it would take about 15 seconds before I could do it.

While in Safe Mode with Networking, the ext hdd was not available. I deleted the copy that was in the folder on my desktop and again copied the file from me c: drive to the folder on my desktop and it took only about 1 second again.

 

I think ibbonkers suggested trying a new SATA cable for the main drive. Have you tried that? Also try a different SATA port on the mobo.

And here we have a nifty hard drive speed tester: http://www.majorgeeks.com/HDTach_d672.html

I got this with 1 Seagate 320 SATA drive.

E

 

definately do the speed test see what it says i transferred this file 996 MB (1,044,414,464 bytes) between my drives and it took 40 seconds whichever way I went (3 internals)

 

I made an error in my report . . .

It should have read the other way around

- It took 24 seconds to copy the file from the d drive to the desktop folder (which is less than 1/2 the time to do it the other way around).

I connected the existing cable to the other port but didn't switch cables. I'll do that next, along with the hard drive speed tester.

Thanks
.

 

I looked but I don't have another SATA cable that I can connect my hdd to the mobo.

I just finished running the benchmark tests.

The first benchmark test was done right after I rebooted.

Then I changed the way files were being copied during the tests.

For this test, I first copied files (I drive is an ext hdd drive, D drive is a partition on my int hdd, contains C and D)

- from I drive to C drive (29 files)
- from C drive to D drive (7 files)
- from D drive to I drive (4 files)

I tried to break the test up into thirds but it looks like eyeballing it didn't work.

For this test, the Burst Test, CPU Test and Random Access Tests were performed only during the first portion of the Benchmark Test, while files were being copied from I drive to C drive.

 

For the second test, I first copied files

- C drive to I drive (2-1/2 files in about 15 mins)
- I drive to O drive (2 files in about 2 mins) (external hard drives, USB 2.0 connections)
- O drive to I drive (6 files in about 3 mins) (external hard drives, USB 2.0 connections)

Again, the Burst Test, CPU Test and Random Access Tests were performed only during the first portion of the Benchmark Test, while files were being copied from C drive to I drive.

For Benchmark test in this post and the test in my previous post, the Sequential Test was run while files were being copied from drive to drive. I tried to cut the Squential Test into thirds but didn't have much success, but you'll get the gist of it.

The second Benchmark Test was run while AutoGK was processing files.
.
.

 

Try the drive benchmark program on your main drive when the computer is idle. Have you tried a different SATA connection on the mobo?

E

 

The first benchmark test that I posted was run when my pc was idle. I connected the SATA cable to the other port. I don't have another cable.

 

Denise, are you saying the first test result, in post #259 was with your PC idle? And, just to verify, is this your main hard drive: http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...fa74c010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&locale=en-US

E

 

The first test was done when I first booted up my computer. No programs were running except the programs that automatically start when I boot up.

I keep the paperwork and boxes for just about all of my pc equipment, even the bags that come with the parts, but wouldn't you know that I can't find the box for the hdd. But when I made a list of the components in January, I took the info from the boxes or paperwork that was in them. At that time, I listed my hdd as a "Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB Hard Drive." When I copied the serial number from the Everest Report and Googled it, it led me to the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB Hard Drive page. It's also the drive part number that's listed on the reported on the Benchmark Test.

I checked out the first few pages of posts of the build. baklogic wrote,

I connected the hdd using the data cable from the mobo and the SATA connector from my PSU. The 4 pins are still bare. I don't think I have a connector for the 4 pins even if I wanted to connect it that way.


I also found that the jumper question came up regarding the BenQ, not the hard drive. Isn't my memory good?!?

What do you think of the huge dips on the Benchmark tests?
.

 

I ran Dial-a-Fix . . . flushed DNS, purged SFC, and processed idle tasks.

I then disabled all the programs that were running in systray: my connection to the internet, Windows Firewall and Antivirus, SuperAntispyware, Avast, Webshots and Nvidia Sound Affects. The first attachment is a Benchmark test graph taken whil the above programs were removed from my systray.

I re-enabled the programs one at a time to see if one of the programs was causing my pc to run so slowly. When I ran the first Benchtest, I was really happy to see the graph run slowly downhill with smooth, small waves. I re-enabled one program at a time and each time the Benchmark test had the graph run slowly downhall with smooth, small waves. The last thing to be re-enabled was Windows Antivirus, but I couldn't figure out how to enable it, so I rebooted and it was enabled. I ran the last Benchmark test with all the programs enabled. A copy of the test is attached. The difference between the Benchmark test that I ran yesterday and the Benchmark test that I ran today is as different as night and day.

I don't know what made the difference because I've disabled all of the the items in my SysTray on previous occasions when I ran other tests and I use Dial-a-Fix almost every day.
.

 

Fred_G has given you something to help work it out, so, extra input from Fred_G, and ibbonkers is working, - incidently the ram showing in slots 1 and two , when you say they are in 1 and 3, - when you retest , try it with ram in other slot, and see if it shows as 1 and 3, and if the fsb is the 400, instead of 200.--and when you do a time check, again, I will watch developments

 

I have the same hard drive as you Denise, and that first drive test looked really bad! Looks like you may have some program acting crazy causing slow disk performance. The picture I posted a page before is the drive test on my pc with Folding and a few programs running.

Let me think about it for a bit. I have a copy of Seagate Seatools on a CD, I will boot from it and see if it has any diagnostic stuff for the drive you have. Might be worth an email or a phone call to Seagate to get yourself a copy.

Oh yeah, looking to get my new hard drives set up sometime next week, with some luck... 2 Seagate 15k RPM Cheetah SAS drives in a RAID0 :cool. Hope I can get this going, the farfing drive controller card has 256megs of DDR RAM... Will have it Thurs. Oh well, sorry for the hijack there.

E

 

Fred, I think they all look bad except for the last two tests. I couldn't begin to think what program I might have that would cause the Seagate to run so poorly. I have a number of programs in my pc but they're all "on demand," such as Webshots, AutoGK, Avast, MGI PhotoSuite III, Microsoft Office, VLC and Classic Media Players, Avast, Spybot, programs for the tests done here, and I added things such as codecs, avisynth, Xvid, DivX, etc. I don't think that any of them would cause my pc to act the way it's acting. The other programs that I have are ones that were installed with Windows and the mobo disk.

 

baklogic, when I ran the CPU-Z tests, it showed that my RAM were in slots 1 and 2, even though they were in slots 1 and 3. I just moved my RAM to slots 1 and 2 and the CPU-Z test shows that I have my RAM in slots 2 and 4. Is my mobo confused?

And I replied

But I found the packages that they came in this morning. I haven't yet taken note of anything about them yet, but I will soon.

 

I installed NetFramework 2.0 Redistributable Pack for X64 a few hours ago along with updates for it and so far so good . . . I've seen no problems at all.

I've been using Advanced WindowsCare V2 Personal for the past week and it seems to help a bit by cleaning out all the unwanted/unneeded bits and pieces.

I'm a little confused about the Benchmark tests that I posted in #259. The spikes and dips in the graph when I ran the Benchmark test right after rebooting are extremely erratic, and the very low dips in the graph of the Benchmark test when I was transferring files to different drives. What do the low dips in the graph mean? That I've used all of my CPU resources?

I've run thorough scans using Avast on 2 of my ext hdds. Both came out clean. I'll be running a thorough test on each of my ext hdds.

I just ordered another int SATA cable. I should get it in about a week.

 

Last night, I started an Avast thorough scan of another of my ext hdd's while I was processing files with AutoGK, all the while running the CPU Stability Test in Troubleshooting mode. During that time, I was doing things on the internet as well. It's been running for over 11 hours and no problems were reported.

I took some screenshots of the results of the CPU-Z test, the first one when I first started the test and the second one when it had run for about 11 hours and I've attached the graphs. It looks like my CPU was getting a little tired at the end.

Does this mean that my CPU is in good shape?

 

I found the packages that the RAM came in. and the websites where they're described further, to see if they'd be compabible so that they can all be installed in my pc and not receive only the lowest RAM size.

The Ballistix 2x1G RAM is 184-pin DIMM,128MX64 DDR PC3200, Unbuffered
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=CT2KIT12864Z40B

The Kingston 2x512Mb, 184-pin DDR, Dual Channel, Memory Speed 400MHz PC3200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820141423

I ran a Crucial Scan and it offered the advice in the attachment.

 

Your ram are rated 2.6v and 3200, and 400fsb, so dual channel shoyld show them in, Everest as at 400fsb, if dual channel is operating.
I would say the cpu is running well for its size.:dancer
By the read/write rates,(red line in bar, and chart) your system seems to be at reading/writing at the slower ide speed, not sata- If no-one can say better, I would say the 50bps slower might well be because you installed without using the sata driver, if you remember, and it seems to show now, in reading, and writing speeds.:major
Unless Fred_G. or, ibbonkers have any more to say on that, I wonder if reinstalling XP x64, withe floppy sata driver (presisng f6, as Windows starts loading) would give you that extra speed in copying that you are missing - I cannot tell you if downloading it , and installing it within Windows, instead would make the same difference- could be worth the try.:foolish
Fred_G, and ibbonkers might just have clicked on the right test to find this - :hyper

 

I didn't realize that RAM came in different speeds. I thought that the Gb of the RAM was all that needed to be taken into consideration for pc speed. With that lesson now learned, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you about

Do you mean that I decided not to set up a SATA array? Do I have to set up a SATA array in order to get SATA speed or just SATA? I thought that my pc would work as SATA because my mobo is SATA, and that I didn't have to set up an array in order to have SATA.

My CPU is small? . . . arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!



The buttons on my keyboard are different than most keyboards, i.e., I have to press F5 to get into Safe Mode, not F8. With this wierd keyboard, which F key would I need to press when Windows starts loading?



When I had the RAM in slots 1 and 3, the CPU-Z test showed that they were in slots 1 and 2

When I moved my RAM to slots 1 and 2, the CPU-Z test showed that they're in 2 and 4.

Is the CPU-Z wrong or does my mobo have its wires crossed?




This is what the Everest Report had to say about my RAM when it was in slots 1 and 3 . . .

Where should I install the RAM to get the right configureation?




The only fsb that I could find in the Everest Report is

 

Unless Fred_G. or, ibbonkers have any more to say on that, I wonder if reinstalling XP x64, withe floppy sata driver (presisng f6, as Windows starts loading) would give you that extra speed in copying that you are missing - I cannot tell you if downloading it , and installing it within Windows, instead would make the same difference- could be worth the try.:foolish

Those are RAID drivers... I never installed any SATA drivers myself backlogic. Using whatever installed itself... But I am in XP32bit.

DeniseM your memory for 2 sticks is slot 1 and 3 if you look at them as 1234. With 4 sticks of different size RAM, your manual does not say. They may have to be the same size to work in dual channel.

My CPU is small? . . . arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!

Hey Denise, let me dig around in my spam e-mail folder, I am pretty sure someone sent me one that will help you our with your.... problem... 'Special' thermal paste maybe?

E

 

The CPU-Z test says that my RAM slots are not 1234.

When I had the RAM in slots 1 and 3, the CPU-Z test showed that they were in slots 1 and 2

When I moved my RAM to slots 1 and 2, the CPU-Z test showed that they're in 2 and 4.

Which is right, my mobo configuration or the CPU-Z test results?

Even if I don't install the twin 512Mb RAM, if I put the twin 1G RAM in slots 1 and 2, I might really be putting them in slots 2 and 4, according to the CPU-Z test results.

 

Prior to buying the 2X1G sticks of RAM, I contacted Crucial. This is parts of emails between Crucial and myself:

I asked:

Crucial's response:

But when I went to http://www.nforcershq.com/article4067.html just a few minutes ago, the site says

All I needed to purchase was 2x528Mb sticks, not 2x1G sticks, and that settles the RAM issue . . . I can't add install the 2x528Mb RAM along with the 2x1G RAM. But I still don't know which slots are 1234 on my mobo because CPU-Z tests results don't agree with the slot numbers.

 

By 1234, I meant the memory slots on the mobo. 1 and 3 should have RAM in them if you are running 2 sticks. As far as 2 pairs of RAM modules, your manual does not say, so I don't know.

I am beginning to think your motherboard has a demon in it or some of the magic smoke has escaped. If I were you, I would test the PSU (you most likely don't have a multimeter, so oh well) if that passes, and memtest passes, I would buy a new motherboard, format again, I know, but you can do it in your sleep by now!

A new motherboard is my recommendation. But that is just me. It could be a driver, issue with Win64, who knows. Thats my advice DeniseM, just too many things are messed up. But I could easily be wrong, so keep in mind, it is just what I would do.


I am still here for you if I can help. New mobo is what I would do if I was you. :cry

E

 

I know that slots 1 and 3 (#1 being the slot closest to the CPU) is where RAM sticks should go for dual channel. My slots are also color coded so I'd have to be a dumby not to figure that one out. I had my RAM in slots 1 and 3 but the CPU-Z test reported that they are in slots 1 and 2. So I'm wondering if my mobo's "wiring" is bad or if the CPU-Z test made a mistake.

A new mobo is something that I'd consider buying in the future, along with a new CPU, but not this year, and I'd have to be very careful and make sure that my RAM will be compatible with it. It looks like I'm going to have to build a new computer. It's funny . . . I decided to build my own pc because it was going to be a lot cheaper than buying one already made. . . chalk that one up.

Thanks for your opinion Fred

 

When I bought the kit, the description of the mobo:

but when I went to the Biostar website and checked out the specs for the mobo, it said that it could handle only 2G of RAM.

Not only is the mobo, CPU-Z test and myself confused, but Biostar is confused as well.

 

I could buy a new mobo (in the future) but I can't get the CPU off this one that I have.

My PSU is the new one that I purchased after the SATA card blew the old one and my floppy drive. It's a Corsair 620W and it's never given me a reason to think that it's not working properly.


Is everyone in agreement that my hdd is okay?

 

All seems o.k, Denise.
I took ages writing out asomething for you, and majorgeeks dropped me out, when I went to post it - sorry-I lost the lot.
I will do more later, Sata hard drive speed and IDE speed - look at the chart- sata are above yours-yours is showing as IDE- that's what I was trying to explain.
Memory in slots 1, and 3= 1gb + 512 in slots 2, and 4 + total dual channel, will show probably as 2.8 gb (Adrenalyne , I believe did a post on showing less thsn installed.

 

Thanks Fred . . . and sorry about the lost post. I know how it feels to lose everything I've written when it took a while to gather the info and write it. I now highlight and copy my posts if they contain that kind of info.


I removed the 512Mb RAM sticks months ago because it wasn't determined whether my pc was running at the slowest RAM size, which was 512Mb instead of the 1G.


I don't understand, now, which the Benchmark test says that my RAM sticks are in slots The 1G are in slots 1 and 3 but CPU-Z test says that they're in slots 1 and 2, and why, when I moved them to slots 1 and 2, the CPU-Z tests says that they're in slots 2 and 4. I need to know if the test is reporting the wrong data or my mobo was damaged several months ago when the SATA card blew the PSU and FDD.

 

Fred_G showed his writing speed, and it shows as sata (two lines above yours, Denise.Nearly twice your speed, but what cpu have you got Fred ?
I said I was not sure about the sata floppy, but thought to bring it up.
It does look , after re-reading back, and forward, that some damage must have occured when the sata controller card blew the floppy.
If you compare Fred_G, s setup to yours, then we need to see if anyone can explain the low reading rate on your pc, other than damage to the motherboard.
I wil see what I can find, going through my old reminders, and looking around, unless Frd , or, ibbonkers, or someone else can offer more input.

 

My CPU is an AMD Athlon 3700 (64bit, single core) with a small (for now) over clock to 2.3something. Since we both have the same exact drive, the results should be much closer. If any other benchmarks are needed, let me know, and I will get them posted here.

E

 

the difference between the 3200 and the 3700 wont double the read write speeds it definately sounds like there is an issue onboard there. Hate to say it but I would strongly recommend a new board. With as many issues as that poor board is having you'd save a lot of aggravation.

 

Hi,

I didn't get an email saying that there were any responses posted.

I ran the Sandra VII test for the second time last night. I disabled all running processes and went into msconfig and unchecked all items in the Startup tab. I disconnected from the internet, disabled my virus programs, and turned my pc off. I pulled the plug out of the rear of my pc and from the wall. I took out the battery, waited about 15 minutes and put it back in. I turned my pc on and started Sandra. I found this procedure on the internet and thought I'd try it . . . I didn't have anything to lose.


The first time, the test got hung up on the motherboard test. I let it continue for 2 hours and then stopped it. The report said:

Last night, I checked the boxes to test all items on the first and second page. I waited until it started to check my motherboard. When I woke up this morning, the motherboard was still being analyzed, so that it has been running the motherboard test for over 11 hours. I'll be stopping it soon because it doesn't look like it can analyze my motherboard.

So it seems that it's very possible that the motherboard is damaged.

Unfortunately, I can't get the hsf off without damaging it and, possibly, the CPU too.

 

I remember reading about your HS issue. Why can't you get it off? What kind of thermal goop did you use? The HS has a lever that tightens the two clips that hold it on the mobo on my stock HS. If you move the lever and get the 2 clips off the mobo the HS does not move?

E

 

I don't know if I can remove the cpu because I can't get the hsf off. I push the lever as far down as it will go and I wiggle it while it's down there, but it won't release. If I do get it to release, but I doubt it, I know that I don't have the strength in my hands/fingers to remove the clips. They were almost impossible to get on. A few months ago, the lever would still release at that time and I tried to get the clips off and I couldn't. The grease I used was the grease that came with the cpu, but that shouldn't affect the ability of the lever to release.

I stopped the second SiSoftware Sandra VII test because it was hung up on my motherboard analysis for over 11 hours. I started a new test and it looks like it's hung up on analyzing the cpu now. I think the mobo and cpu were damaged when the SATA card fried my psu and fdd, but the effects weren't as noticeable . . . they still worked, but only up to a certain point. Unfortunately, I didn't have the pc up and running long enough to know how fast it should work, but I knew there was a problem somewhere because it runs so slow and has a hard time processing/doing more than 1 thing at a time.

 

I stopped the last test because Sandra was trying to analze my processors for about an hour or more. I started a new test with mainboard and processors unchecked. The test completed and each one said that it was successful.

I've tested my pc using CPU-Z and HD Tack tests. I attached the results of the HD Tack test to an earlier post. The CPU-Z test doesn't recognize my RAM in the correct slots.

So it looks like my mobo and cpu are damaged. This is beyond me. Renaming it to Gideon didn't help at all.

 

Another question. If it is confirmed that my mobo and cpu are damaged, can I use the same case with a new motherboard?

 

Denise, you can use everything you have, as long as the new motherboard is the same size- fits in the base unit
You may also be able to re-use the processor.Ideally, as you have such a problem removing it, if it was possible, I would say take the motherboard, and the processor still attatched to a computer shop to have it seperated.
While it is still working, I would not panic, as long as you have all you need backed up.
However, if you can still get on the web, without Gideon, it would be worth doing that as soon as you can afford it.
Then, you can get just a motherboard, if your cpu is o.k.

 

Your Biostar motherboard is ATX , so anything will normally fit.
If you had the dollars, this one has very good writeups
A8N32-SLI Deluxe S939 NVNF4SLI ATX SND+2GLN+1394+U2 FSB1000SATA Motherboard
by ASUSTeK

 

I'm going to look around for a pc repair shop to see if they can remove the hsf and the cpu. They can probably test the cpu, too, to see if it's ok.

I didn't know much about pc components when I purchased this kit. It included the case, mobo, psu, cpu, and hsf. I can see now that I need a different type of mobo, more along the lines of your mobo, baklogic, because it has a lot of external ports. I don't know whether or not it would fit into my case tho, or a similar one. As was also mentioned here, my cpu is small. I use my pc a lot and most of my files are very large. When I read about the kit, since the mobo was dual channel, I thought the cpu would be dual core, but it's not, so I'd like to go that route too, with a dual core cpu. I'm just about positive that my Corsair 620W is large enough. I don't do gaming, just a lot of videos. My RAM might not fit into a new mobo, I don't know. If it does, that would be good, but I'll eventually buy faster RAM. I didn't know they came in speeds when I purchased the pair that I have.

The above is my wish list. Right now, though, I'll have to do with Damien and buy one new part at a time, starting with the mobo.

 

Another question . . . will my present cpu fit into every motherboard?

 

I checked out A8N32-SLI Deluxe S939 NVNF4SLI ATX SND+2GLN+1394+U2 FSB1000SATA Motherboards and it seems that they're sold most in England/Europe, and they're pretty pricey.

baklogic, did you choose this mobo because it will fit into my case, or because I can use my cpu? It seems to have many of the features of my present pc, such as Nvidia, AMD 64 socket 939, etc? Or are these things the normal parts of mobos now?

 

looks as if the board was picked to go with your current processor (socket 939)also if you would like a list of dual core pc build for under 300 let me know . actually closer to 200 since you have case and dvd drive etc

 

When I build the new pc, I have a much better idea of what I want/need for my uses.

One of the things that i want is a lot of slots for adapter cards . . . for usb 2.0, firewire and SATA external drives. I have 15 of them and most of them are connected to HUBs. I have two SATA I ext hdds and 2 SATA II ext hdds. In the future, when I buy more ext hdds that are larger (750G), I'll be removing the smaller ones that are 250G, and the new ones will be SATA. The connectors on SATA I hdds are different than the connectors on SATA II drives and I'm having a problem with that. I can't connect any SATA hdds right now but I want to with the new mobo. I don't know if there are adapters/cables that can connect a SATA I ext hdd to a SATA II port.

The other thing that I want is a dual core processor with a dual channel mobo that has slots for 4X1G RAM. When I buy the RAM, all 4 will match and they'll be the ones that are faster. Hopefully, it's also fit the RAM that I presently have.

I would also like to be able to use the case that I have so that I can save money there and, as you said, I have my DVD drive, my hard drive (if it's still ok), my fdd, and my psu.

This pc will do for now. It's not at a point where it might fail in the near future. I have everything backed up on ext hdds so if it does fail, I won't lose anything. It's just so very slow.

If the mobo can fit inside my case, if my RAM is compatible with the new mobo, if my hdd is still ok, I'll just need a mobo with lots of ports/slots for adapter cards for ext hdds and a dual core cpu. It's what I thought that I was getting with this pc.

I still don't know why the SATA card blew my psu and fdd, and damaged my mobo. It really shouldn't have.

So what do you think?

 

I d say get something along these lines
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138082
motherboard 60
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103774
66 for dual core processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220064
71 for 2x1 gig ram
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127273
30 bucks for video
you could use everything else you have and the board has 6 usb's in back that wouldnt set you back a mint or anything and get you rolling good hope it helps I looked at 939 stuff but this just seems your best bet

 

Motherboard

I'm not sure if these are internal or external slots. How many external slots are there in the rear so that I can connect a firewire card, ubs 2.0 cards, and SATA I and/or SATA II cards?

Also, someone's comment said that there is only 1 IDE slot and felt that there should have been at least 2. My mobo has 2 IDE slots that are empty. What would I need them for?


In Posts 273 and 274, it was pointed out that

CPU

My last cpu was "small." Is the new cpu small?

and

RAM

My present RAM's speed is slow. Is the speed of the new RAM fast?

FAN

The description doesn't say that a fan is included. What fan will the cpu need?


I know that I'm asking a lot of question (and there will probably be more), but last time I asked only basic questions and I'm having problems with the parts. I'll appreciate any advice you'll give me.
.