Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?
in [Windows Performance]
|
Prev: "0x73dd11c7" referenced memory at "0x000000004"
Next: Correlation between number of programs installed and performance?
From: Craze04 on 19 Jan 2010 11:20 Hi, I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a DELL desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80 GB hard drive. Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing really bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive and installed it in and took the old one out. I found that this replacement of the new hard drive really bumped up the speed. Firefox, for instance came up with a much shorter delay. An interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive, Firefox wasnt visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space. Now with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15 MB. However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I now see is that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just as long to start up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does not show until it gets about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as slow as it used to be. Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation between the numebr of applications installed on a computer and the amout of RAM a process needs to properly start up ?
From: SC Tom on 19 Jan 2010 13:27 Craze04 wrote: > Hi, > I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a > DELL desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80 > GB hard drive. > > Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing > really bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive > and installed it in and took the old one out. I found that this > replacement of the new hard drive really bumped up the speed. > Firefox, for instance came up with a much shorter delay. An > interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive, Firefox wasnt > visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space. Now > with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15 > MB. > > However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard > drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I > now see is that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just > as long to start up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does > not show until it gets about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as > slow as it used to be. > > Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation > between the numebr of applications installed on a computer and the > amout of RAM a process needs to properly start up ? It's not so much as the number of programs installed as it is the type of program installed (unless you've loaded so much that you're running out of disk space). All of the Norton/Symantec programs seem to be big resource hogs. One of the reasons that Firefox is taking so long to come up now could be its interaction with Norton. You might try installing another virus program and disabling/uninstalling Norton and see if that makes any difference. Leonard has some good suggestions in his reply, too. -- SC Tom
From: Daave on 19 Jan 2010 13:38 Craze04 wrote: > Hi, > I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a > DELL desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80 > GB hard drive. > > Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing > really bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive > and installed it in and took the old one out. I found that this > replacement of the new hard drive really bumped up the speed. > Firefox, for instance came up with a much shorter delay. An > interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive, Firefox wasnt > visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space. Now > with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15 > MB. > > However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard > drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I > now see is that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just > as long to start up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does > not show until it gets about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as > slow as it used to be. > > Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation > between the numebr of applications installed on a computer and the > amout of RAM a process needs to properly start up ? You answered your own question. :-) Everything was fine until you installed Norton, which is well-known as a serious resource hog. Furthermore, there must be some Norton setting interacting with Firefox in a negative way. Uninstall Norton, being sure to use their special removal utility: http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039 Replace with Avira AntiVir, which is free. Also, it is light on resources. For good measure, also use MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware (free version). And the built-in Windows firewall is more than adequate.
From: Gerry on 19 Jan 2010 15:00 Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option. The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Craze04 wrote: > Hi, > I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a > DELL desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80 > GB hard drive. > > Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing > really bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive > and installed it in and took the old one out. I found that this > replacement of the new hard drive really bumped up the speed. > Firefox, for instance came up with a much shorter delay. An > interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive, Firefox wasnt > visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space. Now > with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15 > MB. > > However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard > drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I > now see is that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just > as long to start up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does > not show until it gets about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as > slow as it used to be. > > Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation > between the numebr of applications installed on a computer and the > amout of RAM a process needs to properly start up ?
From: Gerry on 19 Jan 2010 17:13
Leonard Why pay for what you can get for free. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Leonard Grey wrote: > I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes... > > For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton > Haters Club. And for good reason. > > Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009. > My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem. > Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy > footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer > problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't > find any. > And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced > 7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed. > > I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those > rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can > take it. > PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I > made with respect to third-party firewalls. > > PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend > any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own > decision, is my view. > --- > Leonard Grey > Errare humanum est > > Gerry wrote: >> Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option. >> >> The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance >> implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier, >> particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard >> drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives >> are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard drives are >> commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in this link: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive |