Which Version Of XP do you have running?

[doogle]

Hi,

I've saved up the pennies to buy a brand spanking new Macbook Pro 15¨ 2.33Ghz Intel Dual core with 2GB mem.

The problem I have is that with Windows XP Home running (via Bootcamp) it is much slower (bootup, converting movies, etc) than my desktop which is running XP Pro (P4 3.0Ghz 2GB mem with a much slower graphics card).

I must admit I was expecting the reverse situation.

Program-wise they are on a similar setup. I have scanned for Viruses , downloaded all the windows updates, optimised the settings on the MBP but it doesn't make much of a difference.

I was wondering if it was due to me running XP Home instead of Pro.

Does anyone have any suggestions or experience with running Home vs Pro? Or am I going to have to buy a new copy of Pro?

Thanks in advance.

[other]

I'm not sure there is much difference between the two versions in terms of performance, I'm using Win XP Pro because its what I bought a while ago but I don't see any reason for it to be faster than XP Home.

[bdj21ya]

I run Home on my MBP. I only use it for BF1942, but it runs that great. The one difference you should know about is that a notebook processor does not run at full speed when running on battery power. It throttles back to save battery power. Do you notice a difference when you are plugged in to AC power?

You might try reformatting and reinstalling. With XP, I've noticed that sometimes you just get the short stick and a fresh install works better.

[Paul2660]

I am sure there are alot of differences, I only know of one, the number of processors. At least in the old days, XP Home would support up to 2 processors and XP pro was 4. Now with dual cores I am not sure how the count works anymore.

IMO there shouldn't be any performance diff. between the two home and Pro on your machine. On my Macbookpro, 17", when I get a clean boot, XP pro runs very well. I use it mainly for CS2 work and raw file conversion and both of these are handled very fast on the macbookpro. So far I have not seen any real slow downs and have seen very good performance.

Paul C

[doogle]

I agree there should be no slow down between Home and Pro. I am running the system on AC power.

Was looking at other options and I used Microsoft's update
¨Computers that are running Windows XP Service Pack 2 and that are equipped with multiple processors that support processor power management features may experience decreased performance¨

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256

Which didn't make a difference.

Then I ran Intel's CPUID programme.
http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df-external/filter_results.aspx?strTypes=all&ProductID=2558&OSFullName=Windows*+XP+Home+Edition&lang=eng&strOSs=45&submit=Go%21

It reports my Cores as running at 0.99 Ghz instead of the expected 2.33 Ghz!

What's happened to the 1.34Ghz difference? Has anyone else run this app on their MBP? I guess this is a power saving mode any ideas how I can change this?

Thanks

[doogle]

Well finally admitted defeat and went for BDJ21A's suggestion of the reformat and reinstall.

I also slipstreamed my windows disk with nLite, what a great little programme.

To my amazement the new install is much better and faster for no obvious reason. What is going on? Are no 2 installs of Windows XP the same?

I just wish I had seen this programme before I went and bought a new copy of windows.

It lets you build a full install CD of Windows from those OEM recovery disks you get with computers.

http://winfuture.de/xpisobuilder3_en

[zarmanto]

Glad to hear that you're running faster... bummer about that extra Microsoft tax. To answer one of your previous posts, (though, it's really only as a curiosity, since you've already successfully fixed the problem) I suspect that Intel's CPUID program is returning the current operating speed of the processor, vs the maximum speed of the processor, and that if you were to put the system under a heavy load, and then rerun the program, it would yield slightly different results. Windows itself usually also returns the current operating speed, alongside the maximum speed, under the System Properties:General tab. (Right click on My Computer, and click on Properties.)

Hope that makes sense!

[doogle]

Finally found the solution to why my MBP was running at 1Ghz.

It's the battery.

As reported in other forums, if you run the MBP without the battery installed the CPU slows down to 1 GHz instead of 2.3 Ghz.

It's been designed that way, apparently!

Although nobody has put forward a good reason for this ¨design¨ function.

Any offers?

[bdj21ya]

You didn't know about that? It saves power. Longer battery life, less heat, etc. It's pretty standard in all mobile chipsets these days.

[zarmanto]

He said he removed the battery... not the AC Adapter. There's no good reason that I can think of for the hardware to run in a crippled state when you're running exclusively off of AC power, with no battery installed.

Yeah... That's a puzzler, Doogle.

[doogle]

Apparently it's to do with power surges.

The battery acts as a power regulator to avoid spikes in power. Which apparently could overheat the processor. So without the battery the CPU slows down to avoid overheating.

Sounds like BS to me!

I thought that's what the fuse and the adaptor were for. And if there really were such extreme power surges why don't we see lights flicker as the power surged?

[Evinyatar]

Actually that is because the power supply may not be powerful enough to sufficiently power the system all on its own. Under heavy stress, the system is powered by both the PSU and the battery. Throttling back the CPU ensures that the computer doesn't draw too much power from the power supply, since that could overheat it or cause system instablity. And yes, that's what fuses are for. But fuses don't automagically save all your documents or make backups.

[ryanfido]

He said he removed the battery... not the AC Adapter. There's no good reason that I can think of for the hardware to run in a crippled state when you're running exclusively off of AC power, with no battery installed.

Yeah... That's a puzzler, Doogle.


I would think that with the new mobile intel chipsets, the theroy that follows the hybrid cars applies to mobile computers.. but yes, i also feel that pure AC shouldn't make any difference.