pc slow since reinstall

[allister]

hi,

i have had a major crash due to a power surge and lost my motherboard,cpu,memory and power supply.. well i have reinstalled all of these and reformated hard drive and put a fresh windows 2000 profesional install on. i found it to be very slow once everything was on and have got all the updated off microsoft. my system is the following :

2000XP+ athlon cpu
syntax motherboard
256 ddram 2700
400 watt power supply
3 X 120 gig drives


the problem seems to be opening windows or menus like file > open etc also swapping between windows or open programs they stick (unreponsive) for aprox 20 secs before they do anything

i have installed all the drivers installed and have no conflicts

any help much appreciated

thanx

allister

 

[wolluf]

I would try another clean install. If still problems, would suspect one of the new hardware elements (assuming it all worked ok before power surge).

 

[beavisandbutthead]

have you checked task manager to see if there are any processes hogging ram or the processor? I have seen macafee take over the processor and machines were slowed down considerably.

 

[TampaScorpion]

Allister,
I would check to make sure system reports that you have 256MB of RAM as you have indicated. The second thing I would do is check the size of your Swap File, third thing defrag the hard drive. After installation your hard drive will be EXTREMELY fragmented. Also did you partition your hard drive(s) into resonable partition sizes (Don't create 120 GB partitions). Also Win2K runs much better when the drives are in NTFS format.
Hopefully some of these suggestions help.

-J.D. Hill

 

[wolluf]

TampaScorpion

'After installation your hard drive will be EXTREMELY fragmented' - no it won't - its at its LEAST fragmented just after a clean install (he reformatted drive).

And what's the basis for 'Also Win2K runs much better when the drives are in NTFS format'? There's lots of articles on this - suggest little difference (fat32 a little quicker on smaller partitions, NTFS on larger - both ok). NTFS will give you better security & recovery.

 

[TampaScorpion]

I disagree with your assesment of the fragmentation level of a hard drive. I agree that data files will have no fragmentation and most of the disk is not fragmented, the system files (and installed software) will cause great fragmentation on the system.
I suggest trying a "clean" install, then run the defrag utility (I have done this many, many times). You will see that it takes about 15 - 20 minutes to defrag the data that is sitting on the drive. From a clean install I would consider that extremely fragmented for the files that are there.

As far as the NTFS vs FAT32, I agree on your comments, but it sounds like Allister did not partition the 120 GB drive, and if running FAT32 could be a possibility of the slow down. And yes, I have seen this debate a lot, but just offering suggestions from my own experiences.