• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Slow loading...VIA the culprit?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

PCphreak

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Location
Dayton, Ohio
I have a Maxtor 80GB 7200 RPM drive. It's the only drive on the 80-conductor ribbon and XP® is detecting DMA. The chipset is VIA's KT266a with 256 MB DDR. XP® is tweaked with bare minimum services running too.
Now my gripe.
I invited my brother-in-law over for a 2 person LAN:D. He has the SiS 735 chipset (ECS board) with 512 MB DDR and 80 GB WD 2 MB cache.
When playing Battle Field 1942 for instance, he is able to load a level map about 30%-50% faster than I. His system is non-overclocked too- (not that bus bandwidth is an issue).
I've noticed my loading times with games being irritatingly slow, before this head-to-head comparison.
I'm thinking with having only 256MB RAM, Windows XP® is creating a swap file when this game data is loaded, slowing this load time down. Am I correct in needing more RAM, or is this typical and VIA is to blame?

-PC
 
Last edited:

RED Hot Machine

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
You hit the problem on the head.

2k/XP both run alot faster with 512mb of ram. I had a stick die on me a few months back and am down to 256 now and there is a big difference.

Get yourself another 256mb stick and you will see a difference in loading times.



A big thanks to Microsoft for making there software so bloated :rolleyes:
 
OP
PCphreak

PCphreak

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Location
Dayton, Ohio
Thanks for the input...I thought by tweaking/trimming XP® would negate the need for another 256 MB stick (as I was going for max FSB). Well, tweaking did to a certain degree- as it's quick for all around use with the 256 MB (except large data loads of course). Looks like another 256 MB stick will be on order...
I'm considering a 512 MB stick...I'm assuming a majority of 768 MB total would go unused, correct?

-PC




RED Hot Machine said:
You hit the problem on the head.

2k/XP both run alot faster with 512mb of ram. I had a stick die on me a few months back and am down to 256 now and there is a big difference.

Get yourself another 256mb stick and you will see a difference in loading times.



A big thanks to Microsoft for making there software so bloated :rolleyes:
 

RED Hot Machine

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
The amount of ram used all depends on what you are running. Windows will start to cache programs/system files etc.

This all helps to make windows run quicker. When I had 512 I was getting about 400mb+ used and with 256 I'm getting about 185+ used, windows loads and unloads programs as i see's fit.

Windows will make use of the 768mb of ram, you should see less disc access which should speed things up :)


Can you buy me a 512mb stick aswell :)
 
OP
PCphreak

PCphreak

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Location
Dayton, Ohio
Ok, I'm not really apt on how Windows XP operates. I assumed as long as you controlled the amount background services, you controlled a majority of how much RAM would be used. I do remember the talk of how XP manages large amounts of system RAM better than previous Windows versions though. I also know Linux avoids these types of issues....In a catch 22- so to speak. I would like to run Linux, but Windows® has everything I use.....

-PC


RED Hot Machine said:
The amount of ram used all depends on what you are running. Windows will start to cache programs/system files etc.

This all helps to make windows run quicker. When I had 512 I was getting about 400mb+ used and with 256 I'm getting about 185+ used, windows loads and unloads programs as i see's fit.

Windows will make use of the 768mb of ram, you should see less disc access which should speed things up :)


Can you buy me a 512mb stick aswell :)
 

RED Hot Machine

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Have you thought about a daul boot ?

You could have windows xp and linux installed. That way you get to learn about Linux but still have Windows there for stuff you can't/don't know how to do in Linux.
 
OP
PCphreak

PCphreak

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Location
Dayton, Ohio
RED Hot Machine said:
Have you thought about a daul boot ?

You could have windows xp and linux installed. That way you get to learn about Linux but still have Windows there for stuff you can't/don't know how to do in Linux.

I considered that for the sole purpose of learning Linux- but until Linux becomes an almost drop in replacement to Windows®, looks like I'll remain possessed by the 'Evil Empire':D....
Although I am curious/excited about the direction .NET is taking with a Common Language Runtime....looks like Linux usage may now be closer than anticipated for me.

-PC