I think you're just getting caught up in the processor workload involved in calculating the pixel values for four displays running at fine resolution and high colour values. With simple non-graphics output this would be done in the CPU, not the graphics card.

To improve matters, run at the lowest resolution you're happy with and 16 bit colours (32K) rather than 24 or 32 bit, you're unlikely to see the difference unless you display a lot of pictures.

Changing to a more up to date system architecture might also help, particularly Pentium D or higher processors which can multi-thread.

Thinking about it CC, you might like to ensure that you are running separate instances of IE for each window, i.e. click on the internet explorer shortcut each time rather than using Ctrl-N. That should give you better scheduling.

yup - already doing that Kayak - turned off tabbing too.

"With simple non-graphics output this would be done in the CPU, not the graphics card." - ahha - that makes sense because when i changed to 16 bit mode today the performance was great. Of course I was one screen down as well but i'll find out tomorrow whether that was the contributing factor as it'll be running tomorrow.

thanks for the help - i'll let you know how I get on.

CC

If you have a spare computer running XP Pro you could run a remote desktop from the spare on one of your screens. Remote desktop uses fewer resources than IE or most streaming applications. And if it does go wrong, you should be able to activate the local screen on your spare computer.

thanks everyone - quick update - turned on the 4th monitor this morning and performance was appalling. Then realised one of the screens was set to 32 bit quality rather than 16bit and voila everything is perfect now.

need to find a better solution than this as my screens aren't at as high a resolution as i'd like but at least everything i can see is working properly.

My XP Pro laptop is taking an age to boot up, inevitably due to my protection software such as AVG, Diskeeper, etc.

I could live with the delay more easily if I could skip the sign in screen that comes up early in the sequence. Then I turn the machine on and go off and make a coffee!!

Can someone point me to a reliable URL of anything I can do - but preferably without a registry entry change which scares the heck of out me.

If it makes any difference I'll mention that this is a stand alone machine and not networked to anything.

Thanks in anticipation.

TP

TP

Go into Administrative Tools - Local Security Options. I think there is an option in there somewhere, but I can't remember what it is.

Thanks Opt,

I've had a look around there, but did not spot anything refering to that sign in box.

It's probably there - but I need a closer clue someone please.

TP

TP, Control Panel/Users and Passwords, uncheck "Users must enter a username and password" and enter your user details there.

Sorry K,

Not on my XP Pro.

I have User Accounts in my Control Panel. No ref to Passwords.

Is the fact that I have a user called ASP.net a clue to the problem. The XP Pro on my studio machine does not produce a login box and that machine only has two users, Myself and Guest.

TP

Sorry I have W2000 but there should be a similar option somewhere. The Help function in Windows while normally useless should actually be of use here.

TP re paswords, go to user accounts click on user name, that will open up the list on passwords on XP, alter from there. Hope that helps.
opto

Opt

" click on user name, that will open up the list on passwords on XP,"

Sadly not in my version of XP Pro.

I get the three user names. My own, guest and asp.net.

If I click on my own I can alter my password - which I have left blank anyway - but there is no direction towards altering the login screen....

K.

"The Help function in Windows "

Yes this was what made me think I could not have a third user. I have that ASP.NET and I can't remove it even if it was safe to do so as it is password protected and I think MS put it there in an upgrade.

TP

TP

I've just had another look but can't find the option yet. As a work around, you could put the computer into hibernate mode rather than shuting down. This makes restarting much quicker.

Opt,

" you could put the computer into hibernate mode rather than shuting down."

Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that.

But that's why I am here. Not to make money - never have. But my PC works wonderfully with all your help.

TP

.

I might even learn how not to triple post!!!

TP. I use Hibernate & can confirm that it is quicker to boot up - But - (there's always a 'but' isn't there) I have a feeling that someone posted on this thread some time ago that Hibernate creates a lot of fragmentation issues.
Or did I dream it ? :-)

Edit: Or should I have said might create fragmentation issues

I've not heard of it causing defrag problems, but the hibernate routine does create a file the same size as the installed RAM. These days, that may well be 1GB or more so that size of file could make defragmentation difficult. You could always delete c:\hiberfil.sys before defragmentation.

B & O,

You are right about that hiberfil.sys file needing to be removed to get a total defrag. I had that problem when I first installed Diskeeper and had to remove it to get a full defrag.

Having said that I have just come out of Hibernation and a Search did not find that file. Maybe Diskeeper can deal with it once installed without it being there.

What I have heard is that you need a full re-boot from time to time to give XP a chance to tidy up its registry etc. With that in mind I'd use Hibernate normally and a full close down every few days.

TP