New Dell PC is pretty darn slow.

Rich Cervenka wrote:

"G. Mark Kelm" wrote:

SystemWorks is the problem. It is a huge resource hog. The 2400 shares
system RAM with video and audio also. My advice is to make sure that you
have at least 256KB of RAM (512KB is better) and limit the background
applications running to the bare necessity.

No, the problem is that this guy is running a cheap (Celeron)
processor with insufficient memory and is expecting it to run 'fast'.

While not disagreeing that the OP needs more memory [for what he's
doing, the Celeron choice vice true-blue Intel isn't penalizing], if
the OP is running the Norton System Doctor, that runs a user-selected
set of diagnostics continuously "in the background", it *is* certainly
part of his problem. I did run System Doctor for a while, years and
years and years ago, when I first got NSW. It is a resource hog, and
I only ran it for a few weeks to see what typical frequencies I needed
to run the tools available in NSW. Once I determined that, I shut off
System Doctor, and set up a schedule for doing the various defrags,
registry checks, etc., on a regular basis.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

To many people 128MB sounds like a lot of memory especially if they are
replacing an old system that may have had 64MB. Believe it or not there are
many PC buyers that aren't tech weenies like many of us in here.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...on/sysreqs.asp states:

a.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
supported; may limit performance and some features)

The integrated video controller will allocate 32MB of that 128MB for video
and that leaves a VERY SUBSTANDARD 96MB of memory for XP and user apps.
This system is designed from day one to be a DOG and a user that isn't
highly technical won't realize he purchased a mongrel until he tries to do
something besides read email.

Does Dell (and others) have no obligation to offer a base configuration that
performs to a *reasonable* expectation? IMO offering these systems with
128MB is saying you don't care about anything but allowing the system to
boot up. Unfortunately the customer can't take this dog for a test drive
and see how inadequate it is. That's why Dell (and others) need to make
sure they don't burn the customer from the get go with a system that doesn't
have enough memory to perform adequately.

I suspect your computer may have infected with MSBlaster virus. This
happen to my new Dimension 8300. McAfee, AOL or others software will
NOT take up cpu usage by 100%. What I did was to activate the
firewall on your network (which comes with XP) and then do a Windows
critical update. Good luck.

(Mike) wrote in message . com...
My friend just bought a Dell Dimension 2400 with the 2.4GHz Celeron
Processor. Turned it on and it seemed a bit sluggish. We unistalled
all the McAfee stuff that came with it. Uninstalled the AOL 9.0
optimized that Dell had put on and reinstalled with a copy AOL had
sent. Then installed Norton SystemWorks Professional 2002. Now the
computer is really sluggish. It's as slow as my 400MHz Pentium 2.
I did ctrl+alt+del to check cpu usage and it was at 100% so we
rebooted and it mostly stayed between 0-10% with a few spikes up to
22%. But it's still pretty slow.

Does anyone know what is causing this? I've never had this happen with
my Packard Bell or HP. Could it have anything to do with all the
Microsoft patches Dell installed? I know some of those patches/updates
have messed up people's computers so I thought maybe that could be it.
So does anyone have any ideas?

I just checked a few of the 2400 systems advertised at www.dell.com It appears
that in each case even though the base system comes with 128MB, there is a
highlight on the upgrade choice to 256 MB with the words "Dell Recommended". So
I think maybe Dell should be let off the hook at least a bit here, and maybe the
finger should be pointed more towards Microsoft and their suggestion that 128 MB
works fine. Also, never overlook the old "buyer beware" motto.

BT


"PC Gladiator" wrote in message
...
To many people 128MB sounds like a lot of memory especially if they are
replacing an old system that may have had 64MB. Believe it or not there are
many PC buyers that aren't tech weenies like many of us in here.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...on/sysreqs.asp states:

a.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
supported; may limit performance and some features)

The integrated video controller will allocate 32MB of that 128MB for video
and that leaves a VERY SUBSTANDARD 96MB of memory for XP and user apps.
This system is designed from day one to be a DOG and a user that isn't
highly technical won't realize he purchased a mongrel until he tries to do
something besides read email.

Does Dell (and others) have no obligation to offer a base configuration that
performs to a *reasonable* expectation? IMO offering these systems with
128MB is saying you don't care about anything but allowing the system to
boot up. Unfortunately the customer can't take this dog for a test drive
and see how inadequate it is. That's why Dell (and others) need to make
sure they don't burn the customer from the get go with a system that doesn't
have enough memory to perform adequately.

PC Gladiator wrote:
To many people 128MB sounds like a lot of memory especially if they
are replacing an old system that may have had 64MB. Believe it or
not there are many PC buyers that aren't tech weenies like many of us
in here.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...on/sysreqs.asp
states:

a.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
supported; may limit performance and some features)

The integrated video controller will allocate 32MB of that 128MB for
video and that leaves a VERY SUBSTANDARD 96MB of memory for XP and
user apps. This system is designed from day one to be a DOG and a
user that isn't highly technical won't realize he purchased a mongrel
until he tries to do something besides read email.

Does Dell (and others) have no obligation to offer a base
configuration that performs to a *reasonable* expectation? IMO
offering these systems with 128MB is saying you don't care about
anything but allowing the system to boot up. Unfortunately the
customer can't take this dog for a test drive and see how inadequate
it is. That's why Dell (and others) need to make sure they don't
burn the customer from the get go with a system that doesn't have
enough memory to perform adequately.

Dell and others are just trying to compete in the $600 market and that is
all. There is a huge group of people who will not pay over $1000 for a PC
no mater what but if you bring that price down to say $699 they'll jump on
it. Fact is the PC performs, not as good as you are me would want but to
those folks buying $600 PC it may perform just fine.

There are a couple of old saying that apply here very appropriately.
1) Let the buyer beware.
and
2) You get what you pay for.

The average consumer should understand that if the bottom price for a PC is
$600 and the top ones lets say $3000, a PC that cost the least isn't going
to be the best PC available. It's really simple common sense NOT used by
the consumer not Dell trying to burn the consumer.



--

Rob

So if they "recommend" 256MB why are they selling the base config with
128MB? It is because they know the system *needs* 256MB to perform to a
reasonable level with the hardware and software Dell has decided to put
together in this system.

While XP will "work" with 128MB Microsoft, Dell isn't providing 128MB! 32MB
is being taken for the onboard video controller leaving 96MB and Dell
*knows* that isn't enough for ANY system these days.

Yes, I agree the buyer should beware of Dell (and anybody else) selling PCs
with this combination of hardware and software. The low end novice buyer
will focus on the speed of the CPU and think they are getting a fast system,
not knowing or understanding PC performance requires more than that.



"BT" wrote in message
.. .
I just checked a few of the 2400 systems advertised at www.dell.com It
appears
that in each case even though the base system comes with 128MB, there is a
highlight on the upgrade choice to 256 MB with the words "Dell
Recommended". So
I think maybe Dell should be let off the hook at least a bit here, and
maybe the
finger should be pointed more towards Microsoft and their suggestion that
128 MB
works fine. Also, never overlook the old "buyer beware" motto.

BT


"PC Gladiator" wrote in message
...
To many people 128MB sounds like a lot of memory especially if they are
replacing an old system that may have had 64MB. Believe it or not there
are
many PC buyers that aren't tech weenies like many of us in here.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...on/sysreqs.asp states:

a.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
supported; may limit performance and some features)

The integrated video controller will allocate 32MB of that 128MB for
video
and that leaves a VERY SUBSTANDARD 96MB of memory for XP and user apps.
This system is designed from day one to be a DOG and a user that isn't
highly technical won't realize he purchased a mongrel until he tries to
do
something besides read email.

Does Dell (and others) have no obligation to offer a base configuration
that
performs to a *reasonable* expectation? IMO offering these systems with
128MB is saying you don't care about anything but allowing the system to
boot up. Unfortunately the customer can't take this dog for a test
drive
and see how inadequate it is. That's why Dell (and others) need to make
sure they don't burn the customer from the get go with a system that
doesn't
have enough memory to perform adequately.

Sorry, I don't buy a word of this. A consumer purchasing merchandise has a
reasonable expectation to believe the merchandise will be suitable for the
purpose for which it has been designed. The combination of hardware and
software in the base 2400 config doesn't meet that standard in my book and
Dell does itself NO good selling systems that performing poorly and that
they KNOW will perform poorly. The title of this posting is living proof.

It is very interesting to note that Dell's minimum memory for every other
system is 256MB but for the 2400 it is 128MB.

Yes they'll sell cheap PCs and take peoples' money. Will the customer feel
they got a decent product? Probably not. And all because Dell won't put
another 128MB of memory in the base config. IMO that is an absolutely
stupid business decision.

And their website for the 2400 uses these words, including performance:

"Affordable Performance with Essential Technology "
"Memory: 128MB to 1GB DDR SDRAM at 266MHz or 333MHz for superior
performance."

And then this from Dell's own popup!

"To determine how much RAM you need, factor in the demands of the
applications you want to run simultaneously as well as the operating system
(256MB of RAM is recommended by Microsoft for optimal operation of Windows,
for instance)."

Of course you have be able to dig deep enough to find this one...



"Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message
...
PC Gladiator wrote:
To many people 128MB sounds like a lot of memory especially if they
are replacing an old system that may have had 64MB. Believe it or
not there are many PC buyers that aren't tech weenies like many of us
in here.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...on/sysreqs.asp
states:

a.. 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum
supported; may limit performance and some features)

The integrated video controller will allocate 32MB of that 128MB for
video and that leaves a VERY SUBSTANDARD 96MB of memory for XP and
user apps. This system is designed from day one to be a DOG and a
user that isn't highly technical won't realize he purchased a mongrel
until he tries to do something besides read email.

Does Dell (and others) have no obligation to offer a base
configuration that performs to a *reasonable* expectation? IMO
offering these systems with 128MB is saying you don't care about
anything but allowing the system to boot up. Unfortunately the
customer can't take this dog for a test drive and see how inadequate
it is. That's why Dell (and others) need to make sure they don't
burn the customer from the get go with a system that doesn't have
enough memory to perform adequately.

Dell and others are just trying to compete in the $600 market and that is
all. There is a huge group of people who will not pay over $1000 for a PC
no mater what but if you bring that price down to say $699 they'll jump on
it. Fact is the PC performs, not as good as you are me would want but to
those folks buying $600 PC it may perform just fine.

There are a couple of old saying that apply here very appropriately.
1) Let the buyer beware.
and
2) You get what you pay for.

The average consumer should understand that if the bottom price for a PC
is
$600 and the top ones lets say $3000, a PC that cost the least isn't going
to be the best PC available. It's really simple common sense NOT used by
the consumer not Dell trying to burn the consumer.



--

Rob

I don't disagree with you, but I think we have to understand that there are
all kinds of users out there, including those who only use their computers
for sending email, some casual web browsing and the odd venture into
Microsoft Works. For these users, 128MB, Celerons and all the other hardware
limitations we are speaking about are just fine, thank you. If they need to
wait a few seconds while applications load or update, that's no problem.
They just want a computer that works and meets their budget.

Tom Swift

"PC Gladiator" wrote in message
...
So if they "recommend" 256MB why are they selling the base config with
128MB? It is because they know the system *needs* 256MB to perform to a
reasonable level with the hardware and software Dell has decided to put
together in this system.

While XP will "work" with 128MB Microsoft, Dell isn't providing 128MB!
32MB
is being taken for the onboard video controller leaving 96MB and Dell
*knows* that isn't enough for ANY system these days.
snip

Tom, have you ever worked on one of these systems (XP/128MB/onboard
video/slow drive)?


"Tom Swift" wrote in message
s.com...
I don't disagree with you, but I think we have to understand that there
are
all kinds of users out there, including those who only use their computers
for sending email, some casual web browsing and the odd venture into
Microsoft Works. For these users, 128MB, Celerons and all the other
hardware
limitations we are speaking about are just fine, thank you. If they need
to
wait a few seconds while applications load or update, that's no problem.
They just want a computer that works and meets their budget.

Tom Swift

"PC Gladiator" wrote in message
...
So if they "recommend" 256MB why are they selling the base config with
128MB? It is because they know the system *needs* 256MB to perform to a
reasonable level with the hardware and software Dell has decided to put
together in this system.

While XP will "work" with 128MB Microsoft, Dell isn't providing 128MB!
32MB
is being taken for the onboard video controller leaving 96MB and Dell
*knows* that isn't enough for ANY system these days.
snip

Not the specific configuration you described. I have worked on more ancient
computers, however. Drove me nuts. But the computers' regular users could
care less.

Tom Swift

"PC Gladiator" wrote in message
...
Tom, have you ever worked on one of these systems (XP/128MB/onboard
video/slow drive)?


"Tom Swift" wrote in message
s.com...
I don't disagree with you, but I think we have to understand that there
are
all kinds of users out there, including those who only use their
computers
for sending email, some casual web browsing and the odd venture into
Microsoft Works. For these users, 128MB, Celerons and all the other
hardware
limitations we are speaking about are just fine, thank you. If they need
to
wait a few seconds while applications load or update, that's no problem.
They just want a computer that works and meets their budget.

Tom Swift

"PC Gladiator" wrote in message
...
So if they "recommend" 256MB why are they selling the base config with
128MB? It is because they know the system *needs* 256MB to perform to
a
reasonable level with the hardware and software Dell has decided to
put
together in this system.

While XP will "work" with 128MB Microsoft, Dell isn't providing 128MB!
32MB
is being taken for the onboard video controller leaving 96MB and Dell
*knows* that isn't enough for ANY system these days.
snip