why is this laptop so slow?

  palinka 13:58 25 Feb 04
Locked

Over the past few months i've been helping an elderly friend who bought a laptop. Now that i've had time to compare his with my own (bought at the same time, from same retailer, and for roughly the same price tho his may have been a little cheaper than mine)I notice that the specs are totally different.
Mine is an Acer Aspire 1310. It has an AMD Athlon XP2000+; 663 Mhz; and 224 Mb Ram.
His is a Compaq Evo N1015v. It has a Mobile AMD Athlon XP1700+; 524 Mhz; and 112 Mb Ram (tho the Compaq diagnostics info says 128 Mb ram)
Both OSs are Windows XP. I have MS Office installed; he has MS Works ( and also he has MS Money and MS Autoroute). He also has Norton AV; I use AVG; his usage is chiefly for email. When I timed the complete scan by Norton it was 37 minutes which gives you some idea of the speed (or lack of it).The differences in speed are enormous.
What I would like some advice on is which of the various details I've listed is most affecting speed on my friend's computer? Would more RAM improve things? or is there anything else that would do it?

  Stuartli 14:03 25 Feb 04

Part of the RAM may be being used for graphics.

When I had Norton AV scans did take quite a time to do, but are far quicker (on a much larger HDD now) using AVG.

  palinka 14:20 25 Feb 04

Stuartli, would those graphics be in Autoroute?, or in Money?
There's nothing else that I can see that would fit graphics "hunger".
He used to have an Encyclopaedia installed as well and I deleted that, but it didn't appreciably improve speed.

  palinka 16:48 25 Feb 04

bump. I'd really like to get this solved before I return his computer to him on Friday, so please keep the ideas coming.

  pinka 16:57 25 Feb 04

that the memory is at fault here. 128mb is the bare essential for XP. i have advised all my friends to install 256mb as a minimum and they have all had a better experience since.

  Stuartli 17:43 25 Feb 04

For the screen display i.e. graphics

  palinka 18:41 25 Feb 04

Yes, my first thought was the memory. Right clicking on My Computer>Properties brings up 112 Mb. But Compaq "Diagnostics " says 128. Even so that seems a bare minimum.
Can anyone advise whether installing extra Ram would cure the problem? I don't want him to go to the expense of extra Ram if it won't make a real difference.

I have a compaq presario laptop with 512mb ram and an AMD xp2500 processor I can't complain regarding speed.

People on this site do/have said that windows XP is a memory intense O/S and 256mb should be the starting point.

  palinka 22:11 25 Feb 04

Thanks everyone, that seems pretty conclusive.

  duplo 23:09 25 Feb 04

Its the RAM. You need way more than 112 MB for XM, 256 minimum.

  woodchip 23:22 25 Feb 04

Well the more Programs, or should I say files then it will take longer but you cannot compare as setup is different. Both Hardware and Software

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4

20 groundbreaking 3D animation techniques

How to mine Bitcoin on Mac