SP2 Slows Down Dual-Core Processors
You're going to love this. You spend a bundle on a fast motherboard. Like a smart user, you follow Microsoft's advice and do all the necessary upgrades and patches. Then you find out that if your motherboard has multiple processors that support specific processor power management features, your system will experience decreased performance. Or in Microsoft's quaint way of putting it, you'll experience "unexpected behavior."
It happened to me. My Intel motherboard has dual-core processors. A while back I noticed a slowdown -- sluggish access opening files and loading apps. I did the usual: scratched my head a lot, cleaned my Temp and Internet cache folders, did anti-spyware and antivirus scans, defragged the hard drive, and said nice, soothing things to the computer.
Apparently enough people have complained, so Microsoft’s posted an article to address the problem, encouraging people to switch to Linux or, as a last resort, a Mac. [kidding and ducking]
Seriously, I found out about the problem from Ron H. of Sunnyvale, California. He told me about a Microsoft hotfix. The details are in a concisely titled Microsoft Knowledge Base article: "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."
Quick aside: If you don't have a system with a dual-core processor, you might take a look at another of Microsoft's recent articles -- Computer Speed and Performance May Decrease -- that deals with memory leaks.
A Hotfix Snag
If you want the hotfix, you've got to call Microsoft support. I'd rather clean the oven.
So I did a little digging and found a nifty, albeit dangerous, Web site. It's called The Hotifix and they have lots of those hotfixes doled out by Microsoft's support people. And yes, they've got a copy of the 896256 hotfix ready for you to download and install.
I installed the hotfix, rebooted, and paid attention to my system for the last three weeks. Did it help? Yep, it sure did, but not for everything. Docs open faster in Word and Excel, but loading a giant project in Microsoft's Movie Maker is still slow. Eudora loads faster, but Copernic's Desktop Search indexing doesn't appear to be faster.
I don't understand the dynamics behind the hotfix and dual-core processors. But I also don't care. If I can squeeze more performance from my system without spending money, I'm thrilled.
Proceed with Caution
If you don't have a dual-core processor, using the hotfix may not do your system any good. OTOH, it may cause irreversible damage. If you try the hotfix, do so at your own risk. In fact, my attorney, Bernie (with the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe), strongly urges you not to take legal action if your PC becomes, as they say in tech circles, FUBAR. Either way, back up before you try the hotfix, okay? (Ain't avoiding litigation fun?)
The Registry Setting
If you read the Knowledgebase article, you're going to see a Registry setting. You may be tempted to try it. Do it, sure, but it won't do any good.
I chatted with my Windows expert Ed Bott. He reads things carefully, especially Knowledgebase articles, and he pointed out that the Registry fix is used to turn off the effects of the hotfix. So unless you've installed the hotfix, the Registry setting won't do anything to your system.
"After you install the hotfix that is described in this article, you may use registry settings to disable the new performance state policy behavior..."
More Tomorrow
Many of you are probably wondering what kind of motherboard you have and if it's a dual-processor. So whether you can use the hotfix or not, I'll have more on Tuesday to help you figure out what kind of motherboard you're using.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
Personally, I will not employ SP2. Just for the simple reasons decribed above. Slow processing regardless if dual core or not from my experiances.
I always advise my customers to steer clear of SP2.
I can live with out another M.S. goober.
Don't use IE, get sp1 patches, update your security arsinal and you will be fine. Or put up with a sluggish pc. Your choice!
Hey Bill, learn to spell!
In the article you seemed to throw around: dual core, and dual processor. Can you or someone reading this make that distinction.
I am awaiting a dual core AMD (I cant believe that someone working for PCWorld would actually have an Intel *shudders*) that I bought recently for a build and I would like to know if I need to employ the hotfix.
You know, for the technically-inclined, you may get along just fine without SP2. Would I recommend it for the general public? WITHOUT A DOUBT!
Let's face it. Most of the people in this world that use computers are stupid, or ignorant, take your pick of adjectives. If this wasn't the case, mass-mailing worms would be futile because people wouldn't be stupid about opening attachments that are suspicious, and so on. I've tried to get some people to convert to Firefox, which I use fulltime, but the fact remains that there are some websites that simply will not work without IE. Blame whoever you want, but that won't change a blasted thing. Firefox has kept my PC free of any and all drive-by installations of spyware for over a year and a half (seriously, I have never had spyware on this machine since switching to Firefox). I've found that it's a lot more of a headache to try and show them how to switch between the two for various sites than it is to set their system to automatically update itself with Microsoft patches and make sure they have good antivirus and spyware scanners installed that also auto-update themselves (Norton and CounterSpy are my two respective favorites).
Personally, the systems I use at home and work are generally fast enough that I don't notice any speed problem with SP2. And since any system I load up with XP has SP2 right from the start now, I wouldn't know any different anyway. Actually, you might find this harder to believe, but where I work we standardize on Dell Optiplex PCs, and I've found that Windows 2000 SP4 actually runs noticeably slower on them than XP SP2, even with limited amounts of RAM (some only have 384MB). I'm not sure if this is a driver issue or what, but the systems appear to be optimized for Windows XP, so I have no qualms about installing it on any system. Additionally, there are many security enhancements in SP2 that help to save users from themselves, so I'd say it's worth sacrificing a little speed to make a system more secure for the average user.
Thanks, fellow Firefox advocate. I can no longer use any less of a browser, and find it funny that so many other browsers copy things first inplemented by Firefox (including explorer). I suppose I will be installing the hot fix on my machine.
If I didnt play games than it would be Linux all the way. Im tired of Microsoft using their monopoly as a reason to make crappy products. But unfortunatley there wont be any companie that can challenge them into putting the effort into their products that they should.
buy xanax ViaValT8898111-01-01-22