At 10:03 AM 2/18/2002 -0500, Bob Jones wrote:
>1). Andrew Jenkins
>suggested: bad memory
>result:ran all type of diagnostics, everything passes. I also removed memory
>boards to see if anything changed.

bad memory is therefore unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

>2). Mike Reagan
>suggested: On-line DRC
>result: I had checked this before my post that both machines had same
>properties checked throughout. I tried with DRC on and off and while
>slightly better with it off, it was still totally unacceptable.

On-line DRC can obviously affect speed, but this is not likely to be the 
problem, though it could be making it worse.

>3). Clive Broome
>suggested: network
>result: These machines are on a network, but they always have. The slow
>machine is the host.

Bingo, I suspect. It might be an easy test to pull the network cable and 
work locally only. See if that improves speed. If the system locks you out, 
you are truly running over a network and many of us will be inexperienced 
with the condition. I've read messages here relevant to that.

>4). Brian Guralnick
>suggested:CPU type and cache
>result: I'm not sure how to check this, but these machines are the same make
>and model bought on the same day at the same place.

Unlikely to be the problem.

>5). Rene Tschaggelar
>suggested: Microsoft Office
>result: The Microsoft Office suite is on both machines. Only Internet
>Explorer and Microsoft Outlook Express have been updated in the last 4
>months or so.

Possible, unlikely according to my intuition. Not ruled out.

>6). Lloyd Goode
>suggested: NT operating system, (bad font)
>result:my systems are running Windows 98. (my fonts to this forum corrected)

W98 piece of junk for running Protel, NT better, W2000 best. XP unknown 
quantity. W98 definitely can cause problems, but I haven't seen anything 
like what Mr. Jones is reporting. Most severe problem is that editing DRC 
rules can cause low resources, any additional burden can crash Windows. 
Workaround: run Resource Monitor, exercise caution under alarm conditions. 
With this workaround, W98 is tolerable. W2000 much, much better, no 
problems except an obscure refusal of Protel 99SE to fully shutdown 
sometimes, harmless. (It appears to shut down, but a process is still 
running, but it is, as I recall, terminable with the Task Manager.)

>7). Harry Selfridge
>suggested: DRC and file read
>result: The DRC result was stated above. I'm on a network and the file is
>being read from the host (slow computer). So the file is the same with the
>same DRC rules

Unlikely to be the problem.

>8). Sar Saloth
>suggested: cache and virtual memory
>result: while I expect this to be the problem, I have yet to look into this
>completely.  I will follow Sars' advice today and post results. This cache
>stuff makes me crazy. Where to find all this info?

Possible.

>9). Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>suggested: operating system, video card, database size, re-viewing file
>result: windows 98
>  I thought that maybe it was the video, I loaded newest drivers and did
>diagnostics and nothing improved.

What video card? Refresh our memory if you already mentioned it. ATI cards 
have known problems with Protel, solved by using user-recommended cards, 
such as the Matrox G450 I'm using.

>The file size is 3,017kb using Windows File System. This is typical of
>boards that I've been doing.
>I don't believe reviewing this file would help. I've tried other files to
>see if the speed would be different and the results are the same.

File size, per se, unlikely to be the problem. Nature of file not ruled out.

>10). JaMi Smith
>suggested:DRC, CD install
>result: DRC has been addressed and only slight difference. The software was
>installed from the same CD.

Unlikely.

>I want to thank all those who responded. I may have sent people in the wrong
>direction by comparing 2 machines. Forget that there is another machine
>involved, it should not take 8 seconds to move text on an 0805 type part and
>2 minutes plus on a larger chip.

That the other machines are slow may point to a possible solution, i.e., 
what is common about the machines that is not common to those of users with 
properly functioning installations?

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to