Re: Computer has slowed way down
- From: "Daave" <daave@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:41:35 -0400
bayskater wrote:
Thanks a lot Daave. I've inserted a few replies into your message
below. "Daave" <daave@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23WNJwb5VKHA.4780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Replies inline.)===============================================
bayskater wrote:
I have an emachines T6520 computer with Windows XP Media Center
edition Service Pack 3 with 2.40Ghz AMD Athlon 64 processor.128 Kb
primary memory cache 512 Kb secondary memory cache. 896 Megabytes
installed memory. My c drive has 150.17 Gb free.
Have you installed all the latest Windows critical updates?
896MB is a weird figure. Might you have 1GB of RAM and some of it is
being used by your motherboard's onboard graphics card?
1GB (or 896MB) is usually more than enough for most XP users. But
when you start running programs that require more physical memory
than you actually have, the phenomenon of paging occurs, which can
really slow a system down! Sometimes all that is necessary is adding
more RAM. A quick way to determine if you are relying too heavily on
your
pagefile is to open Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del) and click the
Performance tab. Then note the three values under Commit Charge (K):
in the lower left-hand corner: Total, Limit, and Peak.
The Total figure represents the amount of memory you are using at
that very moment. The Peak figure represents the highest amount of
memory you used since last bootup. If both these figures are below
the value of Physical Memory (K) Total, then you probably have
plenty of RAM. What are your figures?
Commit Charge (K)
Total 492644
Limit 2216992 (less than an hour since last reboot)
Peak 745692
896 Megabytes installed memory
Above was while sitting on this newsgroup.
When I went up to a web page these figures appeared:
Total 582096
Limit 2216992
Peak 745692
==============================================
896MB = 917,504KB. Since your peak figure never exceeds that, this means
you have plenty of RAM. I wouldn't even bother with the Page File
Monitor program. So, good news! No need to install more RAM. :-)
In case you want to explore this further, you may run Page File
Monitor for Windows XP:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
You might also want to check that your hard drive's access mode
didn't change from DMA to PIO:
http://www.technize.com/2007/08/02/is-your-hard-disk-cddvd-drives-too-slow-while-copying/
and
http://users.bigpond.net.au/ninjaduck/itserviceduck/udma_fix/
=====================================================
As you said ... Whoa Nellie!
The above stuff is over my head. I'm an 80 y/o two-fingered duffer.
I downloaded the page file monitor and when I opened the read-only
file I lost whatever little bit of courage I had.
even to delete the downloaded file may involve having intercourse
with my registry.
LOL
Don't worry about it. Like I said, I'm sure you have plenty of RAM.
I'll respectfully pass on that scientific stuff anf get about dumping
my McAfee.
Stay tuned.
======================================================
That will improve your performace in a BIG way!
===================================================I'm up-to-date on all of Microsoft hot fixes for Windows.
I use AdAware, Spybot Search and Destroy and Super Anti- Spyware
frequently.
AdAware and Spybot S&D were once top-notch, but they have fallen out
of favor with many. Also people running IE8 have reported problems
if they also ran Spybot (but I believe there is a fix for that). And
sometimes AdAware can muck things up performance-wise (or at least
it used to). SAS is a good anti-malware program. I would keep this
one and
uninstall the other two, And definitely run MBAM.
I have McAfee Security system and recently ran a complete
scan with no troubles found.
Both McAfee and Norton are well-known resource hogs. I wouldn't be
surprised if all or part of your problem is because McAfee is
running. I'd uninstall it, using their removal tool if necessary:
http://service.mcafee.com/FAQDocument.aspx?id=TS100507
NOD32 is a superior program, and it is anything but a resource hog.
If you're looking for a *free* antivirus alternative, AVG, Avast,
and AntiVir are all good.
Usually when I try to defrag it says not
necessary to defrag, but a couple of days ago I did a defrag and it
did not help .
Defragging isn't as important to Windows as it once was (that is, an
NT-based OS like XP doesn't need it like Windows 98 did). I would
still defrag, but two or three times a year is probably fine.
I'm far from being an expert, but from what I've read it seems like
I may have too many programs on Startup and too much stuff running
in the back ground using up memory (or is it system resources?)
The way to determine that is by the Task Manager exercise I gave you
above. It might be too many. Or not.
The big
users of memory (using CAD) are:
iexplore.exe 23,088K
msimn.exe 54,900K
msntask.exe 38,544K
Mcshield.exe 101,124K
Whoah, Nelly! Uninstall that beast!!!!! (McAfee.)
explorer.exe 15,348K
AAWService.exe 18,480K
I see no reason for AdAware to have a startup process. Just run it
whenever *you* want to do so. Better yet, uninstall it.
sychost.exe 17,240K
In another post, I see you corrected that: svchost.exe
There are 56 processes listed with CPU usages varying from about 47%
up to 100%
And the top five (and their CPU usage ranges) are?
I think I misstated that - another responder had me look at the
Processes tab and said that when the computer is idle the only
process that should show more tha zero is the System Idle Process. I
replied that was so. There are 56 processes listed with CPU usages
varying from about 47% up to 100% The 47% and 100% came from the CPU
usage at the bottom of the task mgr. page. It was a changing % that
varied from a low of 47% up to a high of 100% ( no top five)
=====================================================
If you wanted to, you could sort by CPU usage. I'd wager that McAfee
would be at at toward the top.
Looking at the startup tab in msconfig I see about 25 items listed.
Some I can recognize as names of programs, but most have names I
don't recognize (such as atiptaxx, PDVDserv,Zhotkey Etc..) I copied
several of the unknowns into Google searches and, mostly I found
vague descriptions and comments such as "Not dangerous, not
necessary, but recommend keeping it unless it is known to be causing
problems" I unchecked about 6 of them and don't notice any
difference in performance.
It's possible to have a whole mess of these and not have a problem
with a performance. If they are not using too many CPU cycles and if
the RAM you have is adequate (to prevent paging), you need not worry
about these. Then again, a few may be problematic. The figures will
tell you.
Finally, my question:
Can anyone suggest a sensible way to approach clearing out
unnecessary stuff in my Startup and Ctl/Alt/Del list of running
processes? It would seem that if I deleted them one-at-a-time, it
would take forever and would be hard to know if taking one out had
made a difference. And, does it seem like this is a good approach to
speeding my computer up?
Use the halving method. Disable all. Note performance. Re-enable
half. Note any changes. Repeat until you narrow it down to one.
So, say you have 40 programs. Disable 20. If performance is just as
bad, then you know it's still the fault of the 20 remaining, so
disable 10 of those, etc.
You can do the same with services in the Services Tab. Just make
sure you check the box next to "Hide All Microsoft Services" so that
you don't prevent a needed service from running!
Keep in mind that using msconfig is a diagnostic exercise. If there
are programs you want to keep but would like to prevent them from
automatically starting at each boot, you really should go into each
program's preferences to accomplish this (this is the preferred way;
otherwise you might find a brand new entry for the same process (!)
appearing in msconfig after the next boot!).
In another post, you had asked about registry cleaners. This page
should explain the reason to avoid them:
http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-xp/61015-xp-fixes-myth-1-registry-cleaners.html
The bottom line is that they don't offer any noticeable performance
boost. And since their use could produce a situation that is
undesirable (like not being able to boot into Windows!), they are
not recommended by most knowledgeable people.
.
- References:
- Computer has slowed way down
- From: bayskater
- Re: Computer has slowed way down
- From: Daave
- Re: Computer has slowed way down
- From: bayskater
- Computer has slowed way down
- Prev by Date: Re: Computer has slowed way down
- Next by Date: Re: Computer has slowed way down
- Previous by thread: Re: Computer has slowed way down
- Next by thread: Re: Computer has slowed way down
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
