[candle86]

Ok so this i am totally unable to explain. Me worked fine on my P3, it also ran great years ago on an XP1900+ but on this P4 2.0 it lags, kinda like im tring to use it again on a Pentium1. Anyone know the issue here? Installed the ME Service Pack, KernalEX, MP10, and Revolution Pack 9, it speed up a little with these but still lags if i do anything. The only other programs installed are Firefox2 and winrar so far.

This post has been edited by candle86: 15 August 2010 - 11:16 AM

[dencorso]

Is your current HDD SATA?

[candle86]

no Western Digital ATA100 80gb. I installed the Intelchipset inf untilitly, so the proper 845g drivers are loaded. Which I will add hunting down drivers for this Deminsion 2400 wasnt easy, im using HP sound card drives, an Abit USB2.0 driver, intels one IGP driver and chipset driver lol.

now oddly i tried 98SE out with my 10gb Hard Drive and 98SE simply flies, so this doesnt make alot of sense to me. I might just install 98SE if i cant solve this, but im one of the weirdo's that liked ME

This post has been edited by candle86: 15 August 2010 - 03:06 PM

[dencorso]

Let's make a test. Create a partition image of your Win 98 boot partition from the 10 GB HDD, format that partition and install just a *plain vanilla* Win ME in it, and let's see how does it behave. You may use this program to create the full disk image: Partition Saving (or you may use any alternative listed in this thread).

[candle86]

lags like crazy, didnt ghost 98, as it's not critical to anything lol, but ME lags like nuts but 98SE like i said ran fine, thats 100% clean no drivers, no nothing. Lag continues with installing drivers. Lags on such things as opening the windows start bar, opening the documents folder or my computer. It eludes reason to me.

and that was with the 10gb reformated and ME installed with the ME disk.

This post has been edited by candle86: 15 August 2010 - 05:17 PM

[dencorso]

That oughtn't happen, not with plain vanilla ME. It beats me as to why it does. Sorry!
Enter Device Manager: is the HDD in compatibility mode? How much RAM does the machine have?

[candle86]

dencorso, on 15 August 2010 - 07:57 PM, said:

That oughtn't happen, not with plain vanilla ME. It beats me as to why it does. Sorry!
Enter Device Manager: is the HDD in compatibility mode? How much RAM does the machine have?

HD is running normal, and has DMA enabled which is default, and the drive does support DMA mode lol. The controller is the 82801DB Ultra ATA Storage Controller, and the primary and secondary PIO are intel aswell not generic. Though floopy disk A is running in combatabilty mode which is very odd considering i have my floopy drive disabled as it's broke, and in bios i have the floppy shutoff lol. Could it be my 80gb is multi partitioned with 20gb FAT32 and the other 60gb is NTFS for running XP on. Also running 512mb with 8mb sent to video so 502mb of system ram

This post has been edited by candle86: 16 August 2010 - 02:25 AM

[dencorso]

candle86, on 16 August 2010 - 02:24 AM, said:

Could it be my 80gb is multi partitioned with 20gb FAT32 and the other 60gb is NTFS for running XP on?

No, because you've got the same results with plain vanilla ME on the 10GB HDD. It totally beats me.

[candle86]

dencorso, on 16 August 2010 - 03:31 AM, said:

candle86, on 16 August 2010 - 02:24 AM, said:

Could it be my 80gb is multi partitioned with 20gb FAT32 and the other 60gb is NTFS for running XP on?

No, because you've got the same results with plain vanilla ME on the 10GB HDD. It totally beats me.

the only thing that might affect that is the 10gb is a 4200RPM Quantum drive while the Western Digital is a 7200. The Quantum is ATA33 while this is ATA100

[Jolaes]

Try determining if there are other conflicts in your system as well.
Even if everything seems OK with the drivers (no yellow excl. marks) there is a chance that Windows allocated overlapping resources to two or more of your hardware units. Windows thinks its okay to do so but it really should not.

One way to investigate the issue is to disable / disconnect each device, one by one, strictly one at a time, until the error has gone.
(secondary HDDs, IDE channels, optical drives, USB ports and so on.)
Or you can try shuffling resources: first disabling PnP resource assignment in BIOS (forcing non-Plug n Pray).

In my experience, generally, certain resources are better not shared in win9x (IRQ 11, 14, 15 etc.) unless unavoidable.
For me, on several machines, VGA resource conflicts with IDE controllers were the most common, followed closely by LAN controllers against all sort of devices (USB controllers, audio card drivers etc.

[candle86]

no IRQ conflicts, checked that first. No abnormal IRQ conflicts. VGA and ATA controllers are assigned to unique IRQ's like normal. I'm just going to install 98 on here.

[Jolaes]

Good idea, I concluded the same, just thought that ME is your only option for some reason.
As you can see, Win98 FE and SE are far more popular than ME. Must be for a reason... What is it one can do under ME but cannot with 98? Nothing that would really matter. ME has the same limitations as 98, just denies you using your hardware with non wdm drivers and blocks real mode DOS.
Not a bit more stable or up-to-date than 98.

[sp193]

Quote

no Western Digital ATA100 80gb. I installed the Intelchipset inf untilitly, so the proper 845g drivers are loaded. Which I will add hunting down drivers for this Deminsion 2400 wasnt easy, im using HP sound card drives, an Abit USB2.0 driver, intels one IGP driver and chipset driver lol.

I did something similar before - installing the Japan Edition of Windows 98SE on a Compaq Presario 2837AP (I think that it had an Intel 845 series chipset, but I can't remember which model exactly)... and it lags more than Windows XP (For no apparent reason).

It had an older version of the ATI catalyst drivers installed (Mobility Radeon 9500 was claimed to be unsupported by ATI!), Intel Chipset driver... and Windows 2000's USB 2.0 drivers (From this site; It was from the thread about the USB 2.0 stack).

Somehow I think that the lag is caused by some issue that Windows 98 has with the Intel 845 chipset...

This post has been edited by sp193: 17 August 2010 - 09:45 AM

[dencorso]

But... but.. the OP reported (in post #3) that for him Win ME lags but Win 98SE does not.
Hence it *cannot* be a common Win 9x/ME-family issue.

[candle86]

nope. 98SE runs fine just ME lags, but i installed 98SE and all is good. As for my ME disk its Windows ME Upgrade, I used my 98 upgrade disk to do a clean install. For 98SE i simply inserted my Windows 3.1 disk lol.