Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
486 66, 32 meg, 1 gig hd (600 meg free), win 95, dos 6,2 (My motherboard origianlly came with a DX 33 processor, and I switched it for a dx 66, so input output may still be at 33 level, restricting the true 66 performance)
.... I increased ram to 32 meg, from 8 meg. Seems about same speed to finish the defragger. I thought the 32 meg would make the Defragger a little faster.
.... I would like to compare my defragger speed (the download from Surecool, of Me-defrag).
.... First, defrag your system, so its basically defragged. Then repeat, and on the second defrag, time your defragger, to the 5% point (mine took 1 min. 32 secs to get to 5%), to the 10% point (mine 1 min. 50 secs from start to get to 10%), then to 100% (finished - 2 min. 10 secs from start).
.... List also your basic system specs : processor & speed, main memory, Win version, HD size (& amount of hd free). .... Look forward to comparing Defrag times.
Interesting. Alot could depend on the access speed of the HD and since it's already defragged the total time would also be a function of the used space on the HD. But it would be interesting to have real life comparisons.
33 and 66 mhz chips have the same board speed--33 mhz. It is only the 66 chip which has doubled its speed.
0 
Follow up to first post above: Well, I thought I would use the defragger speed comparison, as a debugging indicator, so see if my system is bogging down, and not as fast as it should be with the newly added 32 meg of ram (up from 8 meg).
... And the defragger race, well, I thought that getting to 5% done, in one minute and 32 secs on my system, for example, was quite long, and may signify a bogging down problem, that I can further look into. If its not normal, or similar, to others results here.
... If my speed defragger speed results, are similar to others here, then maybe thats all the speed from my system setup is expected to have. I look forward to others defrag speed results. Thanks again for the system speed debugging help.
0
http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/53820.html
In this post WhitPhil explains how applog works with the optimization of defrag which is what is happening during the first 10% of defrag. It is a good read.
Considering all of the variables involved with defragging a particular HD, I would suggest that defrag is not a good benchmarking tool.
I did not perform a search but I have in the past for "benchmarking". I found them to be too labor intensive and time consuming for me to care all that much to use them but I am sure Google would turn up with many options.
0
Tall_Man...Here's your first comparison. I have an HP 6630, 500Mghz. Celeron, 192 Megs RAM (increased from 64), 10 Gig HD (although the C: drive shows max capacity 9.49 Gigs= 2.18 used and 7.30 free). I'm running Win 98 SE's standard defrag that comes standard with OEM installation. Ran full defrag and these are the times for the second time thru; 1:12=5%, 1:30=10%, 2:00=100%. These times are in standard mode with all programs running shut down (i.e.-off-line, no virus scan or firewalls, screen saver off) I did not try either DOS or Safe mode.-Binks
0
This whole thing, frankly, is ludicrous! It's like saying, let's have a race, with each of us running across our back yard, and then post our times here to see who is fastest... (What, that wouldn't be fair because our back yards are not all the same? Golly, I never thought of that.)
0
I thought of that.....i'm sure Tall-Man did too. I really don't think its the fastest time that he's looking for.....just something to compare his to. I'm defragging 2 gigs of storage on a 10 gig hard drive. He's defragging 400 megs on a 1 gig hard drive. I don't expect to beat him, just giving him a comparison.
0
A comparison of what?? Any comparison of the two such as you suggest has absolutely no useful meaning. He is faster. So what does that mean? Back to the race across our yards...
0
hey rac....I'm not try to argue this point. I agree we're comparing apples and oranges. But if you look at the figures that TMan and I posted.....I'm defragging 10x the HD space with 5x the amount of programs stored and my times are still beating his. So I'd say his speed is a lot slower than mine. TALL_MAN...Re: the posts by Bryan & WhitPhil, I have taskmon turned off in MSConfig/Startup and don't show any applog files, which may be why I get a pretty quick defrag.
0
Thanks Binks!
Since my time for the first 5% is somewhat near yours, and you have much faster processor, I guess my system is not too far out of wac, at least in defragger mode. Thats what I was looking for. However, I could have sworn, a few months back, that first ten percent, went in 1/4 the time its doing it now. But Binks, thanks for the relative comparison. Thats what I was looking for. Jsut to se if mine, was crazy off the mark. Im not trying to beat anyone in a race, per se'. (smile)
... I did finally get to pcpitstop,com, and they seem to think, my memory, and processor, are not up to par, compared to simialr equiped systems, tested there. Ithink, they said, they had four systems similar to mine, and mine was bottom dead last. About 45% of the performance of the memory and processor, of similar systems to mine. That may reflect, i only have 64K cashe. Inoticed in my relatives system, with only a 486 33, has a 256 k cashe, and it beats me in defrag, maybe by 30%. It moved the data in defrag in blocks, three times the size of the blocks being moved in my defrag, in my system.
... I have another motherboard, that came with the 66 processor, that has 72 pin simm memory. With no mem installed. And I dont know for sure, if its a good board, though, it may be good. I could get 32 meg for that one, and it likely woudl have much better cashe, and likely be faster. Would cost abou7t $20 for the memory to find out, I suppose.
... But I just saw the XP announcement. Minimum system requirements, are something like 300 mhtz proccessor, I think 128 ram, something like a 2 or more gig hd, AND, WIn 95 is NOT upgradable to XP. So, with some 700 mhtz Hewlett Packard systems being sold for only about $650 or so in Kmart,it may be best to jsut use this 486 for 6 to 8 months, where it becomes essetially no value, but use it for the good workhorse applications, then finally make a leap to XP, and a 1000 mhtz processor system, being sold for $600 in about 12 months.
... The other factor that would provide interest to upgrade, is some type of all new, 1000 kbs dialup type modem system, attacked to the above. And the last stimulus to upgrade, a further improvement in the video display, to more and more like true 3d visual looking at the monitor. IF all three of those came in 12 to 15 months, with further tweaking of XT as well, and continued better price perfomance in the price fo systems, that woudl be a great time for a leapover the win 98's, etc, and to buy a new system.
... IN the mean time, thiis 486 seems to work pretty well, given its limitations.
... Thanks everyone for their reply's and insights.
0  |
 updated VGARTD.VxD
|
Program.exe
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
