Automatic updates crippling legacy machine
in [Help and Support]
|
Prev: Can't connect to the internet?
Next: switching users
From: "db" databaseben at hotmail dot on 27 Mar 2010 16:29 the poor system performance is likely due to have only 384 megs of ram. you will likely see an improvement by having at least 512 megs of ram installed. personally, I would go with 1 gig of ram. -- db���`�...�><)))�> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional - Systems Analyst - Database Developer - Accountancy - Veteran of the Armed Forces - Microsoft Partner - @hotmail.com ~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen > > "henry markov" <hm(a)noplace.net> wrote in message news:O#KFJtQzKHA.5332(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run "well enough" however sometime in the last several months its > responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into > a condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the machine > returned to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps open and get reasonable performance. Has automatic > updates changed in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally) recently in a way that explains this behavior? Oh, > since I know some people will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an adequately sized paging file, is defragged > regularly, etc, etc, such that it really does work decently for anything else I do including software development. > >
From: Buffalo on 27 Mar 2010 16:50 db wrote: > the poor system performance > is likely due to have only 384 > megs of ram. [snip] Really doubt it for what he uses it for. Course, it sure wouldn't hurt anything and ram is pretty cheap these days. Buffalo
From: Patrick Keenan on 28 Mar 2010 05:41 "henry markov" <hm(a)noplace.net> wrote in message news:O%23KFJtQzKHA.5332(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run "well >enough" however sometime in the last several months its responsiveness >became awful most of the time. Using performance monitor I determined that >"automatic updates" was driving it into a condition of more than 100 paging >transactions/second rather continuously. When I disabled automatic updates >the machine returned to its usual condition which is to say I can have a >number of apps open and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates >changed in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally) >recently in a way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some >people will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an >adequately sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that >it really does work decently for anything else I do including software >development. Automatic Updates is just not appropriate for some systems, like yours, and in that case should be disabled. You then assume responsibility for periodically checking for updates manually. In particular, Microsoft Update can take significantly longer than Windows Update.
From: Patrick Keenan on 28 Mar 2010 05:43 "db" <databaseben at hotmail dot com> wrote in message news:0917F807-B7F8-48FA-B81D-13933E17ACD5(a)microsoft.com... > the poor system performance > is likely due to have only 384 > megs of ram. > > you will likely see an improvement > by having at least 512 megs of > ram installed. > > personally, I would go with 1 > gig of ram. Boards of that vintage often had memory capacities below 512 meg. It may already be fully populated. > > -- > > db���`�...�><)))�> > DatabaseBen, Retired Professional > - Systems Analyst > - Database Developer > - Accountancy > - Veteran of the Armed Forces > - Microsoft Partner > - @hotmail.com > ~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen > >> >> > > "henry markov" <hm(a)noplace.net> wrote in message > news:O#KFJtQzKHA.5332(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run >> "well enough" however sometime in the last several months its >> responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance monitor >> I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into a condition of >> more than 100 paging transactions/second rather continuously. When I >> disabled automatic updates the machine returned to its usual condition >> which is to say I can have a number of apps open and get reasonable >> performance. Has automatic updates changed in a significant way (either >> intentionally or unintentionally) recently in a way that explains this >> behavior? Oh, since I know some people will distain the specs of my >> machine note that it does have an adequately sized paging file, is >> defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that it really does work decently for >> anything else I do including software development. >> >>
From: glee on 28 Mar 2010 10:49
"henry markov" <hm(a)noplace.net> wrote in message news:O%23KFJtQzKHA.5332(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run >"well enough" however sometime in the last several months its >responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance >monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into a >condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather >continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the machine returned >to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps open >and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates changed in a >significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally) recently in a >way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some people will >distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an adequately >sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that it >really does work decently for anything else I do including software >development. Henry, You seem to have disappeared, or at least are not answering any of your replies. Since we still don't know what if anything is happening with your CPU usage during the problem, have a look here for what might be involved, even if svchost is not showing high CPU usage: AumHa Forums -- Svchost.exe Uses 100% CPU Resources http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=33303 -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 A+ http://dts-l.net/ |