 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow?
|
|
|
Subject: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Mark Cohen Date: 04 Sep 04 - 09:29 PM I've had my Dell laptop with WinXP for a few months now, and sometimes I feel like I'm back to DOS 3.1 on my Epson Equity I. It takes a good 5 minutes to finish booting up, and I have the same programs loading at startup as I did when I was using Win98SE: mainly, Norton Antivirus, ZoneAlarm (I know, that's supposed to be slow and bloated, but it never slowed me up as much on 98), and an HP printer. I don't do any fancy gaming or graphics, and rarely download big music files. Even loading M$ Word takes forever. I suspect some of the problem is Norton, which insists on searching every file (including some I have in a filing cabinet in the bedroom closet) for viruses every time I turn around. But still, it seems like I'm forever waiting for the wheels to turn. Sometimes I'll see an error message or dialog box, and the little "ding" sound comes about 10 seconds later...like one of those old movies with a slipped soundtrack. And I'm always getting messages saying, "We're sorry, but [some program I never heard of] has encountered an error and has to close. Send Microsoft an error message?" Didn't somebody on Mudcat say a few months ago that when you went to XP from 98 you could say goodbye to system crashes and major error messages? Now, to answer some of the standard questions: I run WinXP Professional on a Dell Inspiron 1100 with a Pentium 4 processor, 256K RAM and a 40GB hard drive. I run Spybot Search and Destroy and AdAware almost daily, and never pick up more than the standard tracking cookies, so I don't think I'm infected with some horrendous spyware/malware. I update my virus definitions at least twice a week and do a full virus scan at least monthly. I defragment my hard drive about twice a month. I even run Norton's WinDoctor occasionally to clean up unused shortcuts and the like. I usually use Netscape to access the internet, sometimes use IE, don't use Outlook for email, and I frequently clean out my cookies and history folders. Would adding more RAM help? Or am I missing something else obvious? Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: hesperis Date: 04 Sep 04 - 10:01 PM WinXP does take up more RAM than 98. It loads more unneeded services on startup than 98 does... I had a link to a site that explained all that but I can't find it now. Just look up winxp tweaking on google or some such. There's one site that tells you exactly what each of the services does and whether it's completely safe to turn them off or not. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Bert Date: 04 Sep 04 - 10:01 PM It is written in C. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Bassic Date: 04 Sep 04 - 10:22 PM From what I am told....Norton is just big...bloated and gets in the way of everything.......even the things you want! Try AVG for antivirus, it is updated almost daily so seems to be well on the ball, and Outpost for Firewall. Both seem to work fine for me, are relatively small and never seem to cause conflicts......whats more, they are both free. They might not have all the "bells and whistles" and flash interfaces of some of the "pay to use" stuff that is available but they simply do what they are supposed to do......quietly and effectively....and dont use masses of your PC`s precious resources in the process! It may also be a good idea to trim your "Start Up" to the things you really need, Shep`s help pages show you how to do this. Yes, Shep is from Hull and sometimes uses Hull spulling but he knows his stuff and has kept my "bitza" system runing fast and clean! Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Mark Cohen Date: 04 Sep 04 - 10:29 PM Yes, I have weeded out my startup menu, but I'll try that link to see what more I can do. I'll try checking out the other AV program. I've liked Peter Norton's stuff since the days of DOS, but NAV may have gotten too bulky for its bytes. Keep those cards and letters coming, folks...much appreciated. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:12 PM Mark, I have a Norton Antivirus scan scheduled each evening to start at 9pm. If I try to start up the computer after the time passes, it is very slow to start because the scan starts up when it can and muscles in on everything else. If you have a startup scan scheduled it will have the same effect. Try setting it to run at a time during the day when you know the computer will be on but aren't needing to use it at full capacity while the scan runs. I'd be leery to drop Norton myself, especially for a free antivirus. It has been said that "you get what you pay for." Some free programs I happily use, but when it comes to catching the nasty stuff and the fast turn around from when a virus is launched to when the fix appears, I'll continue to trust Norton. I'd rather have the slow computer and the assurance that it is doing the trick. This isn't to pick on Bassic's choice--there is also a question of how you log on. Since I have DSL it makes my computer a sitting duck for lots of stuff out there cruising around looking for computers to infect. The following was the introduction to a recent online newsletter sent by the Anonymizer folks (I have Anonymizer in place also, but don't use it as well as I could. I can't always get the firewall to let it work properly).
"If you are assuming that most of these reports are generated by worms that attempt to propagate, an unpatched system would be infected by such a probe," the center, which provides research and education on security issues, said in a statement. The drop from 40 minutes to 20 minutes is worrisome because it means the average "survival time" is not long enough for a user to download the very patches that would protect a PC from Internet threats. If you use a dialup connection, you still need all of the antivirus protection, but your computer isn't sitting at the same address day in and day out, and it makes it a harder target to hit. In theory, anyway. That is probably changing quickly these days also. I didn't start using a firewall until I switched to DSL. I also use a router to distribute the signal between computers. It used to be that a firewall is unnecessary for a dialup connection. Is that untrue today? (Probably, but I don't really know.) Good luck sorting it out! SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:26 PM Obviously, use CTR,ALT,DEL and see what is running in your backgroun.
Agreed Mr. Simon Norton is almost too much....but, there is none better for digging into hex-dec files of your HD and rooting out the lost thread, data, files or history. If you need "recovery" his system cuts to the original underpinnings.
Sincerely,
If I may ask? Why would YOU be "so slow" as to buy XP after the horrific reviews? (Networking promises - for a use that was not networked?) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:30 PM Mark you've been around "here" long enough to know.....
A thread like this....belongs below.
Sincerely,
It's like asking, RE: Tech: Is Kerry's Teleprompter using XP? - is that why he is so slow to catch-on "its the medals baby - its the medals." |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Mark Cohen Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:31 PM Thanks, Maggie. I don't have an automatic scan set up for just that reason. I run the scan when I'm not going to be doing anything else on the computer. However, I did check the "options" for NAV and found that there's an "Office Plug-in" that scans all Office documents for viruses. I'm going to try disabling that. I think that may help a bit, since I often see the little NAV virus scan window popping up at times when the system is slowest. Maybe that, and some serious surgery on my startup page, will help. It would be nice if the startup window (under MSCONFIG) told you which programs those cryptic files belonged to. But I suppose that would be asking way too much of the rogues from Redmond. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Mark Cohen Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:46 PM Garg, I switched to XP because I needed to upgrade to a computer with a bigger hard drive (so I could make video CDs of my daughter to send to my mom), and the new machines all came with XP. Yes, I know, I could have gone to Linux or something more reasonable than Window$, but I wanted a laptop and I didn't want to spend a long, long time researching and shopping. There were also a number of reasonable reviews indicating fairly good experience with XP: including the apparently inaccurate bit about freedom from crashes. I didn't want to agonize about it. You pays your money and you takes your choice. As far as your second question, current 'Cat procedure separates "Tech" computer questions from other non-music threads and leaves them on top. I happen to agree with that. You disagree. That, as my late father used to say, is why they make chocolate and vanilla. And I agree with you about Norton. Though I admit, things have gotten a wee bit more complex than they were in 1985, when I felt a more comfortable using Unerase to root around my 256KB Epson. Similarly, when I do use C-A-D to check "active processes," I haven't the faintest idea of what all those processes are doing, what programs they came from, and what would happen if I mucked around with them. Obviously, to paraphrase Dr. McCoy, "Dammit, Greg, I'm a doctor, not a computer technician!" Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 05 Sep 04 - 12:45 AM Ahhh...how to "become a tech?"
Mess with the damn files....unlike a patient...they don't die forever.
Shut things down until your machine shuts down.
Pop things into google and research ((yeah there are things like eski.exe or nsnyal.exe that don't appear - but re-name them so they won't boot....if you are afraid of editing your files....you can always change an extension *.XEX back to EXE)) Basicly, all you need running are Explorer (nice trick clones - ouch - my ports ARE open and you had my machine - thanks for giving it back) and Systray and ZoneAlarm (a separate logger system is also helpful) FOUR/FIVE max.
You are sort of saying.... you admit a "plumber" is smarter than a "doctor" because he will deal with the shit others leave behind.
Live with the pain, or learn and opperate on the problem....or pay the bills to HS (barely) grad.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Mark Cohen Date: 05 Sep 04 - 05:16 AM Good point. There's also the question of how much time I want to spend messing with it. Again, my choice. Thanks for the suggestions, though. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: mack/misophist Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:16 AM Try putting 98SE on it, if you're still got the disc. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:42 AM Mark, I went looking through my computer for the little program I used for a while to lighten the load on the Start Menu, and have tracked down the original web site for it. There is a little freeware program called Startup Control Panel that lets you pick and choose the programs that may start in your start menu. I cleaned mine out, but I cleaned a bit too much and I've never been able to get my handy (but slow to load) Windows Office Shortcut bar to load automatically again. I have it as an icon so I can still load it, but be careful with this program--it really does work and sometimes you can trim more from the menu than you planned. Maggie |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Sep 04 - 03:19 PM A brief comment while I'm back from Winfield to slop the hogs . I use WinXP Pro on my main desktop, and have no particular problems with speed. Norton does slow down loading programs, because in default setup it insists on scanning all program files before letting them load. Word is especially slow coming up, but the minor annoyance is worth knowing that the AV is in there working. While I'm camping at the festival, I'm using WinXP on a fairly recent Dell laptop, and there it's a real dog. The problem is not exactly with WinXP, but comes mainly from the fact that most laptop hard drives are MUCH SLOWER than what is common in desktop machines. The specs don't reflect the slower speed, but the desktop drives simply do not match the performance of desktop HDs. (At least NONE that I've seen perform like a good desktop drive.) Because of the "bloat" in OS size with WinXP I personally would be reluctant to try to use it with less than 512 MB RAM, if there's an option to put some more in; although your 256 MB should be sufficient for stable - if slower - operation. IF you want decent operation with low RAM you do need to keep a LARGE bit of free disk space for swapping (called memory management). WinXP will only use 10% of the free disk space, so you do need more free space than you might expect. WinXP will try to run "legacy" programs that aren't really compatible, mostly because of direct disk access that XP doesn't like. It is possible that resetting any suspect (older) programs to run in Win98 mode may help with error messages and hangs. Back to camp. Be back in a couple of weeks. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Sep 04 - 03:29 PM Shouldn't rush, but: Of course it should have been "the laptop drives simply do not match the performance of desktop HDs." John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Sep 04 - 06:38 PM If you place a copy of the icon in the folder called 'Start Up', it will load on boot. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Mark Cohen Date: 05 Sep 04 - 08:01 PM I knew I could count on you, John! NOW it makes sense. I just couldn't figure out why if I had such a fast processor, my computer was running at Model T speeds. Hmmm...guess the Gates gang isn't smart enough to make an XP version for laptops that takes the slower disk speed into account. Nah, they probably just don't care. I think I will add the extra RAM, though. I did discover something interesting that other folks might want to try. Under the Advanced tab in "System Properties" (right-click "My Computer" from the desktop and choose "Properties" from the menu), there's a button for "Performance Options." There are radio buttons for "Adjust for best appearance" and "Adjust for best performance" -- as well as, of course, the one that says "Let Windows choose what's best for my computer." Then there are a dozen checkboxes below that, which do very important things like making the icons in taskbar slide over when a new one is added, or have a menu item fade out after you click it. When you select "Adjust for best performance," lo and behold, all those boxes get unchecked. That must free up a fair amount of processor resources. I can live without shadowing under my cursor, thank you very much. I'll also try increasing the size of the swap file, as soon as I remember how to get back to the place where I can do that. John, if those hogs have been hanging around with you for a while, they must be some of the smartest hogs in the world. Thanks so much, as ever, for your knowledge, and your ability to communicate it clearly and effectively. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:07 AM Mark, When you have your computer on and running, do "control, alt, delete" to bring up the Task Manager and look to see how many programs are running. If things like RealAudio and QuickTime are running, then they've loaded when the program started. You can use that little program I linked to to tell those programs not to automatically turn themselves on when the computer starts. They can come up on demand. I'll take a look at the System Properties Advanced tab on the kids' computer. They've complained about XP being slow (I did put in the Service Pack, so that could be part of it). Thanks for that tip. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Mark Cohen Date: 18 Apr 05 - 02:29 AM Just to provide some followup... I added more RAM -- from 256MB up to 640MB -- and that seems to have fixed the problem. I did it so I could run Dragon Naturally Speaking, which I like--much more than the earlier versions. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:30 AM Let me 2nd or 3rd or whatever the count is at... Norton sucks... AVG is great! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: GUEST Date: 18 Apr 05 - 04:57 AM those pop-ups that tell you some system you didn;t know you had has shut down, and to tell microsoft, are a hoax - like the e-mails that tell you your address has sent out vast amounts os spam. Don't click on them. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Rasener Date: 18 Apr 05 - 07:01 AM Mark Adjusting the virtual memory(swap file) To change the size of the virtual memory paging file You must be logged on as an administrator or a member of the Administrators group in order to complete this procedure. If your computer is connected to a network, network policy settings might also prevent you from completing this procedure. 1. Open System in Control Panel. 2. On the Advanced tab, under Performance, click Settings. 3. On the Advanced tab, under Virtual memory, click Change. 4. Under Drive [Volume Label], click the drive that contains the paging file you want to change. 5. Under Paging file size for selected drive, click Custom size, and type a new paging file size in megabytes in the Initial size (MB) or Maximum size (MB) box, and then click Set. If you decrease the size of either the initial or maximum page file settings, you must restart your computer to see the effects of those changes. Increases typically do not require a restart. Notes • To open System, click Start, point to Settings, click Control Panel, and then double-click System. • To have Windows choose the best paging file size, click System managed size. • For best performance, do not set the initial size to less than the minimum recommended size under Total paging file size for all drives. The recommended size is equivalent to 1.5 times the amount of RAM on your system. Usually, you should leave the paging file at its recommended size, although you might increase its size if you routinely use programs that require a lot of memory. • To delete a paging file, set both initial size and maximum size to zero, or click No paging file. Microsoft strongly recommends that you do not disable or delete the paging file. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:13 PM A bit on "temps." How To Move the Paging File in Windows XP (Knowledge Base Article 307886) gives instructions for moving and/or resizing the memory paging file in WinXP. No separate programs are needed. This is probably where The Villan got the instructions posted above(?). I would suggest consulting the "original" since there are some comments about when/why that may be helpful. Knowing "how" is only part of the answer. Knowing "when to" is important. How to set performance options in Windows XP (Knowledge Base Article 308417) gives some additional information on settings that may be helpful – or just something you might want. If there really is a problem with memory management with a WinXP system, you should look at How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP (Knowledge Base Article 314482). For most, adding a bit of memory and making sufficient free space on hard drives is a better approach than messing around here, but sometimes the easy ways aren't available. In WinXP, memory paging is done in a separate hidden file that is usually in the root (C:\) folder. The default file size is 1.5 times the installed RAM. Generally, the default size should be sufficient and you should not need to change it, assuming you have adequate RAM and free space on your drive(s). The last article gives a more complete description of how creating a separate paging file (Pagefile.sys) in a separate partition on a separate drive may minimize interference with other calls to disk, with a little more explanation about what really is needed than is given under "How to manage computer memory" in the second article (308417). This kind of change should rarely be really needed, and requires having a separate drive, preferably one where you can create a partition just for the pagefile. Moving the Pagefile.sys to a different place on the same drive will not generally help. MOVING the Pagefile.sys file to another drive may cause problems with system recovery diagnostics. In addition to the Pagefile.sys memory management pagefile, Windows NEVER operates directly from the file stored on disk. No processor operations can occur until the file is loaded into memory and this may/may not require use of the memory pagefile; but Windows always creates a "mirror" .tmp file in the same folder as the original file, and all operations are done on this temp file. The original file is accessed only once when you open it, to read it into the .tmp, and whenever you do a Save. I don't know if it's true of all Windows programs, but many of them create a new .tmp file each time you save the file, without deleting the original/previous .tmp. While there's no stated limit that I've found for how many of these .tmp files can be used, or how much disk space they can use, I have encountered "lockups" when the number gets very large. (> 35 .tmp files of a .doc of about 82MB, with 3 or 4 other smaller .doc files open, in one recent instance. Note that the specified "maximum filesize" for Word is 32MB, but I ignore it a lot.) Since all of these .tmp files are "open" you can't delete them until you close the program that made them. Probably only the last one is actually in the memory Pagefile.sys, but the others just don't get a "closefile" as long as the program is running. Closing the program will clear them automatically, and when you reopen the program (at least for Word) you should get an offer to "save the last recovered (.tmp) version." If you "push the limits" by working large files and/or make lots of changes per session and save after each change, you should be sure that your "autosave" in Office programs is set to a reasonably short interval: Tools|Options, Save Tab, "Save AutoRecover info every [10] minutes" or so isn't generally too intrusive and gives good enough safety. Setting it in Word generally applies the change to all Office programs. Of course if you Save after each significant change it may be unnecessary… In addition to the Pagefile.sys (memory management temp file), and the .tmp copies of the file(s)/document(s) you're working on, Windows has a \TEMP folder that's available for general use by programs. The default limit for this folder is, I believe, 10 percent of free drive space. It can be changed, but unless you have very limited drive space shouldn't need to be. IE has its own "Temporary Internet Files" folder, and since IE is an "integral component" it should always be present. Many other programs may create their own individual "Temp" folders (sometimes in odd places). You can exercise some control over how much "temporary" space some other programs use, and/or where they put their temp stuff, from within the individual programs. Most people will also have (usually hidden) one or more "Spool" folders for printers, faxes, etc. I haven't encountered a situation where default spool size limits are not adequate. I don't use FAX, and have been told that "junk" remnants sometimes accumulate in the FAX Spool, so examination might be justified. Windows Disk Cleanup is supposed to remove these but I've seen indications that "FAX junk" fairly often gets missed. Rarely, you may find a "junk file" in a printer spool that failed to print and "resists removal," but usually these are easy enough to find just by "opening" the printer. (Start|Settings|Printers and Faxes, double click the printer to see what's in the spool.) Most space and memory problems are handled quite well by WinXP with default settings, unless you simply have inadequate RAM and/or HD space for what you try to make it do. Unless you specifically require FAT32 hard drive format for some known reason, such as using another OS on the same machine, using NTFS format on you hard drives is definitely preferred for WinXP. FAT32 is acceptable, but makes the OS work a lot harder. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: wysiwyg Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:35 PM I dunno about you-all, but on a regular basis, I have fantasies of bringing my CPU along to a MudTechMeet where people like JiK are waiting to operate on my PC, install cool new crap, config it all bestest, and show me what they did. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: annamill Date: 18 Apr 05 - 12:50 PM I've been using XP on my Gateway for sometime now. I did discover that my scanner caused a long bootup problem. When I disconnected the scanner, which I rarely used, it was much faster. It has to test each device to make sure they're working. Might be the problem. Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Louie Roy Date: 18 Apr 05 - 01:44 PM Mark I went to an HP XP 3 or 4 years ago and I was disappointed from the word go.I finally found out that HP put all of there crap into there own product and removed a bunch of microsoft pages that you need.To give you an idea what they did to load there program it took 8 disc and it was all garbage.I have a friend who is an excellent computer person so he went in and deleted nearly all the crap that they had insstalled and my computer started to work like it should.I've also found out since that time that Dell and Gateway does the same thing so the first thing I'd do is find out how many disc it takes to load all the programs that you don't need or want that Dell has installed on there own product Louie Roy |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM WYSIWYG - Actually, I don't find it too difficult. 1. Make sure you have a machine that meets at least double the listed minimum requirements for the OS. The most critical places are RAM and HD space. ALWAYS double the RAM listed, and 4x is better.* *With early Win95/Win98 you could have "too much RAM." Current systems will handle more than is useful for most people. If you use the appropriate drive format(s) the 2 (or 32) TB max for current OSs isn't going to cramp your style much. 2. Install the OS FIRST, and make sure it's working. With earlier operating systems there were often a few choices, and with Win2K there are quite a few "security" options to set up, but with WinXP "out-of-the-box-defaults" will take care of almost everything for most people. Any "special settings" should be only because you know your system needs them. For most people, the connection to their ISP is probably the most "difficult" thing they should need to do. 3. Make sure that programs you add are certified "Windows Compatible." There are quite a few programs that aren't, and you can make decisions based mostly on makers' reputations to decide whether to let a few of them on; but this is a place to get into trouble. 4. When you have a Windows problem, **LOOK IN WINDOWS FIRST to see if there's a way to fix it. Adding on "utilities" that "shortcut around" perceived problems is one of the surest ways to cripple or kill your system. **If you use a Win system, you should have the Microsoft Knowledge Base and Support Advanced Search page bookmarked. Look there first. Even if you don't find the answer, you'll likely find clues to where else to look - or just things to think about. (Practice looking a bit before you have that big problem?) 5. Be aware of what your machine is doing, and find out what's going on if it doesn't act right. GO TO THE ONES WHO WROTE THE PROGRAM(S) INVOLVED FIRST. (See immediately above.) 6. Keep ALL of your programs up to date. Security Fixes are a necessity created by the world we live in, but new drivers etc. happen fairly often too. 7. Think before changing things. 8. Think before changing things. 9. Think before changing things. 10. Think before changing things. 11. Of course, AV, AntiSpyware, AntiAdware, etc should be selected with some care, and should be on the machine before you connect to the web. You should be signed up for automatic updates for your OS and for your AV, as minimums. Check other security programs regularly. Modem/Network programs and hardware may cause some planning requirements, so you should plan first before installing unusual stuff. 12. Backups are essential, if only because you need to keep the machine content down to "useful" stuff, and the ***backup is a good way to get obsolete stuff out of the way. ***A backup isn't a backup until you have verified that the files can be restored from it. See previous on the WOM (write only memory). By the time you do these easy ones, you'll know what else is important. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Apr 05 - 02:49 PM I ran 98SE on my home built desktop for three years, at a "Crash" rate of one per month. One year on from changing to XP Pro, no crashes, no problems, except that, like your laptop, it is slow. I ditched NAV for AVG free about six months back. It updates daily, in an average one minute, and has, to date, never missed a virus. I use Adaware 6, set to scan on demand, and Zonealarm. It's still slow, but nowhere near as slow, and thanks to the info on this thread, I reckon that may be curable. I'm going to try the sources named here, and will report results. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:00 PM Comments posted earlier about the slower hard drives on laptops were pretty brief, so a little more might be helpful. Most early desktop hard drives had a "Park" position for the read/write heads so that there was a place to put them where they couldn't crash into the data surfaces when you moved the machine. With very early drives, you had to execute a "Park Heads" command before turning the machine off, if you didn't want to risk damage when the machine was moved. In some of these drives, the heads actually were locked in place by a mechanical latch or detent when you parked them. Slightly more recent desktop drives incorporated an "autopark" so that any time the power to the drive was off, the heads were moved to a position where they could only hit a "dead track" at one end or the other of the disk if the drive was "shaken or stirred." Sometimes the "autopark" position was fairly securely "detented" and other times not. "Modern" desktop drives usually move the heads to one end of the disk during shutdown, and usually hold them there with reasonable security; but with newer read/write head design and better magnetic coatings the risk of damage to the data area is very low for the kinds of bumps and bangs expected for desktop machines. Since laptops may be jostled around quite a bit even when the drive is running, and may experience very large shocks during transport, it remains necessary to remove the heads from the data area any time they're not actually performing a read/write operation. Because of the higher shock levels that are expected, when the heads are "parked" they must be fairly firmly restrained. Specifications for hard drives may (rarely) show an "initial data acquisition time" or "initial seek time" which is the time required for the heads to move from the "parked" position to any place on the disk and to read a cluster. This is invariably an interminably long time – on the order of 4 to 20 times the "read time." (time is a relative thing) The "read time" (various terms may be used – "seek time" and "data acquisiton time" are others) is the time required for the heads to move from one cluster in the data area to another cluster, and read the new cluster into RAM. Read time numbers are very closely comparable for desktop and laptop drives, and are the only thing commonly reported on the box for either. On a desktop, it's okay for the head to just sort of "loiter" wherever it happens to be, so the next request for it to read or write something can be quickly executed. Since the laptop may be jostled about at any time, the head may "loiter" briefly, but anytime there's a significant pause in the read/write requests, it MUST GO TO A SAFE PLACE – i.e. it goes and parks. A laptop drive may be nearly as "fast" as a desktop drive for reading a single file into RAM, but in a very large percentage of the "reads" it will need to come from the parking spot for each "continous read." Given that a simple operation like opening Word with no document in it may require opening and closing nearly 1,000 separate files, it is pretty easy to see that even a few "parks" while all this happens is going to make the laptop drive look pretty slow, since each "return from park" takes as long as reading 10 or so clusters. A normal destop hard drive likely would not survive long in laptop use, since it lacks the "physical security feature" of parking the heads where they can tolerate being moved. Those of use who use "external drives" of common kinds to transport data from one place to another do assume a significant risk, since these drives are not meant to be moved around. It is absolutely imperative that an "external desktop" drive of this sort must be allowed to come to a FULL STOP before being moved at all, and then must be handled carefully when being carried about. The packing it came in, or a close equivalent, should be used where possible anytime one is being moved. "Transportable" external hard drives are available, generally at about 4X (?) the cost of "desktop external" ones, for those who really want something "portable." These kinds of hard drives should incorporate the same "head park" and other shock tolerant design features as in laptop drives. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:09 PM Don - Probably adequate memory is the easiest "speedup" for WinXP for those moving from an older system. On very old machines, processor speed may be a factor. "Adequate" hard drive space is necessary, but it's hard to be specific about what you need without looking at all of the load you've got up. It's generally helpful to keep at least 20% freespace on the primary drive/partition. If you don't have a specific need to keep an older format, NTFS is the recommended one for WinXP drives, and it does allow use of some automated utilities that may make response a little faster in many cases. It depends some on what kinds of programs you usually run. (It usually also makes defrag somewhat less tedious.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Apr 05 - 05:08 AM Ziff Davis / PC Magazine have periodically published extracts from the book Hacking Windows, published by Wiley. The recent article Speed Up Your Boot may be of interest for those who feel they're really having problems with WinXP startup speed. There are links at the beginning of the article to separate chapters on: Speeding Disk Access and Speeding up network and internet access The article on speeding up boot suggests a couple of things that are possibly questionable, especially if you rely on outside service persons for help with your machine, since they can introduce some "unexpected" behaviours that may make normal recovery procedures fail. Make notes, and/or discuss the changes with your "techie" before diving in too deep. You may otherwise encounter the problem paying your tech to fix something you changed on purpose. If your tech finds a machine that won't boot to his/her diagnostic disks, (s)he may assume that's the problem instead of knowing that you disabled boot from the "normal" drives and really do have another problem. A comment made here may indirectly explain some slow operation in a laptop that's used intermittently, although the effect would be small. The "boot files" are not cleaned up by normal drive defrag. WinXP instead relies on a separate utility that runs automatically during machine "idle time." If the machine is never turned on and idle, the boot files can become both fragmented and splattered around on the disk. While this mainly affects boot, "unmovable" files that are fragmented and dispersed could prevent normal defrag of the rest of the disk from doing efficient cleanup. An interesting description, even though it's probably of marginal help. The article on speeding up disk access deals largely with using the "Intel Accelerator," which is a separate program you can download and install that, it is claimed, does work – in certain cases. Very specific instructions are given for determining whether it will work on your machine, and must be followed exactly. The "Accelerator" can be used only if you have an Intel processor and certain specific BIOS/motherboard chipset combinations. Prior installation of other utilities may be required. It is advised that inappropriate use can completely disable your machine. But it works well when used in appropriate cases(?). Note the requirement to use the "old version" for laptops. Unfortunately, as noted in the article, the "Accelerator" has not been certified for use with WinXP SR2, so you are "at risk" if you use it there, although the author "thinks it's okay." Intel may have more recent advise on this, and you should get the Accelerator from them if it looks like it might help. DO NOT GET IT FROM A WEB POPUP! 'nuff said. Additional hacks to change Pagefile size and use are included. These are applicable to any machine running WinXP, but "thoughtful usage" is recommended. It's possible that they might be helpful for a machine that's just "overall slow," particularly for a machine with "not quite WinXP specs." Usefulness of the chapter on speeding up web/internet access depends on what kind of connection you use, so you'll have to make your own determination of what might help. Parts of the procedures rely on freeware that I haven't used and can't advise about. Microsoft advice on the TCP/IP settings that the article suggests changing is generally to accept the defaults; but they do admit that changes sometimes may be needed to solve specific problems. The author may be making a common "techwriting error" by assuming a particular setup that he doesn't bother to define, so there is the possibility that the changes he suggests could affect other things he doesn't know you have such as LAN/peripheral network connections, ICS, etc. You should be able to tell if something will be a problem with your setup, if you think about it a bit, so I won't recommend extreme paranoia. If you're a "very ordinary user" you're probably fairly safe with his recommendations. None of this is of much interest unless you have a real problem with machine speed with WinXP on your machine. I would advise against doing most of the things recommended except where you can confirm that they're needed, but there are circumstances where they might be justified, and it doesn't hurt to know what's available. Remember the mantra of the airplane shops: "If it ain't broke I ain't worked on it yet." The double meaning is implicit. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: robomatic Date: 20 Apr 05 - 05:47 AM Taking five minutes to boot is definitely non-standard. I have three computers at home, all home-made desktops. The one using XP is four years old powered by an AMD Athlon 900, which is pretty 'old'. It is perfectly good at booting up XP and interfacing with the internet through an inexpensive router off a cable modem. XP has been mostly good to me with a major crash a year ago that I still don't like to talk about. I've got 256 MB RAM and a 60 GB hard drive. I have never used Norton. I don't have a firewall up. I've used pandasoftware.com on occasion to 'clean' my system right off the web. On the while XP is pretty 'zippy' compared to the other Windows systems. Boots in 30 seconds. And it handles media very well. Most of the time these days I'm using a slower system with Mandrake Linux 10.1. It functions well for most things but doesn't handle viewing multimedia off the web as well as Windows. It is at least as stable, however. I make coffee while it boots, but that's because it's using a processor barely equivalent to a slow Pentium III. Good luck, and BACK UP! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Apr 05 - 06:28 AM WinXP is pretty good normally on boots and restarts. Mickey apparently did at least make an attempt to speed things up. Win2K is really the one that gives me problems. Booting isn't really so bad usually, but if you've made a change and need to re-boot, it sometimes takes 15 minutes to shut down, and then the typical 2 to 5 minutes to get started back up. A couple of people here have complained about WinXP running slow; but I have the impression it's largely because they've put it on an older machine that simply doesn't have the resources the OS needs. The original query in this thread was related to a laptop; and most people don't realize that to make them portable the equipment has to have some quirks that make it perform differently. Anyone who believes their "laptop can do anything a desktop can" doesn't know how to do much with their desktop machine. (IMNSHO) The hacks in the articles linked above are really just band-aids in most cases, but could be helpful if you can find where a system is bleeding. Hold your breath for the next new and wonderful OS. Recent pronouncements for "Longhorn" imply that it may require a good 3-D graphics processor just to run basic functions. No firm announcements yet on minimum hardware, but I'd guess 1GB of RAM to be useful and you're not likely to get by with less than a 250GB HD. It's supposed to retain 32Bit program compatibility, but they'll probably recommend a 64Bit processor by the time it gets here - Xmas 2006???? (Originally scheduled for Xmas 2004, it's been slightly delayed.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Jun 05 - 01:08 PM Bringing this back onto the page again. I have this new system but with the various things I've installed over the last three months is is slowing--dragged down by all of that stuff that wants to load in the system tray. I've kicked out a few (control/alt/delete into Task Manager to see what's there, doing a little research, then kicking it out). At bootup I typically have 60 processes running. Am I correct in assuming that doing this only lasts for this session? I've kicked out Yahoo Messenger and Real and a couple of other things. I'd like them to stay out. If I want to use them, I'll click on a desktop icon and start them. Since I'm recreating my bookmarks I've come back here to find the link to the little Startup Control Panel program. What else are people using? This was discussed on another thread during the week but I can't remember which one now. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Jun 05 - 01:12 PM www.annoyances.org :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Jun 05 - 01:50 PM AKA Macroslop |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Why is Win XP so !!@*#% slo-o-o-ow? From: GUEST,Norval Date: 05 Jun 05 - 05:55 PM Borrowed from this site. http://windowstipoftheday.blogspot.com/ Is Windows XP Running Slowly? If you're having a problem with your Windows XP computer running slowly, check the 'Task Manager'. (to access this utility right-click the Taskbar and select 'Task Manager', then click on the Processes tab) and look to see if the CIDAEMON.EXE is using a great deal of the CPU time. The CIDAEMON.EXE is the Indexing service, and its updating the index catalog. To prevent this problem from happening again you can turn the Indexing service off. Double-click My Computer. From the View menu select 'Explorer Bar>Search'. Click the 'Change Preferences' link. Select 'Without Indexing Service'. (If you don't see this option, it is already turned off). Click 'No, do not enable Indexing Service.' Press the OK button. Note: By disabling this service you will prevent Windows from indexing the documents on your computer. This will slowdown any searching of the documents and your computer. If you don't use the option to search the contents documents it will be no great loss. # posted by UberGeek316 @ Friday, June 03, 2005 |
| Share Thread: |