Prev: xvxcv
Next: windows\system32\util.exe
From: Jose on 5 Apr 2010 12:50
On Apr 3, 11:02 pm, "General Mailbox" <nospam...(a)home.net> wrote:
> Daave,
> You brought up some good points.
> I do refer to PacsPortal for program startup suggestions and generally use a
> combination of Spybot S&D and Ccleaner to govern the startup of programs,
> but of course first using the programs own ability to stop loading at
> bootup.
> I do use Avira A/V personal free edition because it does use less resources
> compared to Avast.
> Malware/Spyware have a very low (not impossible) ability to get on my
> machine. I keep a fresh OS installation with latest MS updates archived and
> updated about every 4 months. While I do have to reinstall some programs
> again, it's the easiest method of removing stray files and registries of
> programs no longer desired, which may be dragging the system down (like
> malware/spyware). Either that or spending time doing complete system scans
> with A/V and anti-spyware programs and registry cleaners, then defragging..
> Commit charge and the DMA areas are something for me to check over. Thank
> you for that suggestion as well.
> Please forgive me if I don't get back with you until Monday. Of course this
> Sunday is very special and is being spent with family.
> Bless you and happy Easter!
> B.rgds,
> Kevin
>
> "Daave" <da...(a)example.com> wrote in message
>
> news:%23Ewdbqf0KHA.776(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
>
>
> > General Mailbox wrote:
> >> Greetings.
> >> I have a 10yr old HP8705 800Mhz CPU, 512MB RAM that has slowed down
> >> noticeably in opening programs, ect.  I have been using this computer
> >> consistantly on the ballpark of 6hrs a day for 10 yrs. You can count
> >> on two hands any significant issues I've had with this and less than
> >> a dozen warnings of viruses in its life so far. Processes at fresh
> >> bootup run between 28 and 34. I have these MS newsgroups to thank for
> >> these 10yrs of helping me keep the machine running well.  It had to
> >> happen sometime I suppose.  Something is giving out causing memory
> >> access to fall below average benchmark levels. All 3 DIMMs were
> >> changed out in guessing it might be one or more of the memory chips,
> >> but did not change anything. My CPU is showing 797MHz (800Mhz)
> >> (6x133), so that hasn't slowed down. In my opinion, the temperature
> >> has always been a bit elevated for the CPU (114F avg) never exceeding
> >>      120F.  My readings from Everest Report is: Computer:
> >>       Operating System    Microsoft Windows XP Professional
> >>       OS Service Pack    Service Pack 3
>
> >>      Motherboard:
> >>       CPU Type    Intel Pentium IIIE, 800 MHz (6 x 133)
> >>       Motherboard Name    Asus Pegasus
> >>       Motherboard Chipset    VIA VT82C694X Apollo Pro133A
> >>       System Memory    512 MB (SDRAM)
>
> >> Memory Read
> >>    CPU    CPU Clock    Motherboard    Chipset    Memory    Read Speed
>
> >>      PIII-E    866 MHz    ECS P6VAP-A+    ApolloPro133A    PC133 SDRAM
> >> 840 MB/s
> >> for what I think it should be to
> >>      PIII-E    800 MHz    Asus Pegasus    ApolloPro133A    PC100 SDRAM
> >> 281 MB/s
> >> which is what it is now.
>
> >> Memory Write
> >>      PIII-E    866 MHz    ECS P6VAP-A+    ApolloPro133A    PC133 SDRAM
> >> 190 MB/s
> >> for what I thik it should be to
> >>      PIII-E    800 MHz    Asus Pegasus    ApolloPro133A    PC100 SDRAM
> >> 93 MB/s
>
> >> which is what it is now.
>
> >> Memory Latency
> >>      C3    800 MHz    VIA EPIA    PLE133    PC133 SDRAM    3-3-3-6 178.5
> >> ns
>
> >> for what I think it should be to
> >>      PIII-E    800 MHz    Asus Pegasus    ApolloPro133A    PC100 SDRAM
> >> 2-2-2-5    343.1 ns
>
> >> which is what it is now.
>
> >> While it has been recommended by MS for WinXP to have a better
> >> machine, this has done sufficient for me with e-mail and web browsing.
> >> I say this to save time in anyone who would write "Get a new machine",
> >> unless in this case there is no cure for it, then I would.
>
> >> Thanks to all for your assistance!
>
> >> B.rgds,
> >> Kevin
>
> > Here are the usual causes of sluggishness:
>
> > 1. Malicious software (malware). You need to rule this out first! This
> > page has excellent information:
>
> >http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Viruses_Malware
>
> > 2. Certain programs that are designed to combat malware (e.g., Norton
> > and McAfee). Ironically, they can slow things down because they simply
> > use way too many resources. Sometime they cause conflicts with other
> > programs. And their default mode is to scan your entire hard drive each
> > time you boot up. Fortunately, there are other antimalware programs
> > available that use far fewer resources (e.g., NOD32, Avast, and Avira).
>
> > 3. Too many of *certain types* of programs always running in the
> > background -- with or without your knowledge. (Then again, many programs
> > that run in the background have trivial consequences.)
>
> > To determine every program and process you are currently running, use
> > the Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del) and click the Processes tab. You should
> > be able to sort by CPU usage or Memory usage to get a good ideas which
> > ones are the resource/memory hogs. You should write down the names of
> > all the processes for future detective work (or take a snapshot and
> > print it out).
>
> > Use these sites to determine what these programs are and to learn how to
> > configure them not to always run at startup:
>
> >http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php#THE_PROGRAMS
> >http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/startups/
> >http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm
>
> > Sometimes it is recommended to use msconfig to configure the programs to
> > not run at startup. A better, more thorough program is Autoruns:
>
> >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx
>
> > But before you do this, you should use the preference settings of the
> > program in question. Otherwise, for some programs, they will return to
> > the startup list anyway!
>
> > If you do wish to use msconfig, it may be accessed this way:
>
> > Start | Run | type "msconfig" (without the quotation marks) | Enter (or
> > OK)
>
> > 4. Not enough RAM, which causes the PC to overly rely on the pagefile. A
> > quick way to determine if this is happening 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.
> > 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
>
> > 5. 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...
>
> > and
>
> >http://users.bigpond.net.au/ninjaduck/itserviceduck/udma_fix/

Did you abandon your similar post in the General forum on the same
issue? There are questions there that if you choose to answer them
will help you without resorting to guessing, maybe, should, could,
might be, etc. Look for things you don't need and unwanted items.
There you go... If you just want general information you will be busy
reading and trying things for a long time. If you want help to fix
your system right now, more information is needed.

Spybot is just about the absolute worst offender of Virtual Memory in
XP I have ever seen in my life. It was not so bad years ago, but has
certainly lost it's luster. What has it ever found for you -
cookies? How much of your Virtual memory is it consuming that you
could better use someplace else? But, maybe you have already figured
that out and adjusted it - oops! The maybe word... Don't really know
much about what your system is like.

So far you have provided some information about your system but you
have not provided enough information to even begin an investigation
into your system without resorting to some kind of trial and error or
experimental methods. It all sounds quite ghastly so far.

If you decide you don't want to cure your system, send it to me and I
will cure it and donate it to a worthy cause.
From: General Mailbox on 6 Apr 2010 06:23
Daave,
I hope you enjoyed your weekend.
Thank you again for the suggestions.
It ended up being a long time software aquaintance of mine called Spybot
Search & Destroy. I had version 1.6 installed and never thought it was a
possible cause of memory slowing down. This is what has happened after
uninstalling Spybot S&D;

Memory Read
My expectations: 840 MB/s
Yesterday 281 MB/s
Today 767 MB/s

Memory Write
My expectations 190 MB/s
Yesterday 93 MB/s
Today 158 MB/s

Memory Latency
My expectations 178.5 ns
Yesterday 343.1 ns
Today 124.5 ns

I uninstalled it then ran the Everest report again. My system properties
for
physical memory vs. commit charges never got that close to 512MB that it
needed to use page file, meaning excessive drive access. I am not clear on
how a program can slow up memory, yet not use all of the available memory
first before it slows down.

Thank you!!
B.rgds,
Kevin

P.S. You may see my name again as I usually share what I know a few times
before I move on.



From: Daave on 6 Apr 2010 09:48
General Mailbox wrote:
> Daave,
> I hope you enjoyed your weekend.
> Thank you again for the suggestions.
> It ended up being a long time software aquaintance of mine called
> Spybot Search & Destroy. I had version 1.6 installed and never
> thought it was a possible cause of memory slowing down. This is what
> has happened after uninstalling Spybot S&D;
>
> Memory Read
> My expectations: 840 MB/s
> Yesterday 281 MB/s
> Today 767 MB/s
>
> Memory Write
> My expectations 190 MB/s
> Yesterday 93 MB/s
> Today 158 MB/s
>
> Memory Latency
> My expectations 178.5 ns
> Yesterday 343.1 ns
> Today 124.5 ns
>
> I uninstalled it then ran the Everest report again. My system
> properties for
> physical memory vs. commit charges never got that close to 512MB that
> it needed to use page file, meaning excessive drive access. I am not
> clear on how a program can slow up memory, yet not use all of the
> available memory first before it slows down.
>
> Thank you!!
> B.rgds,
> Kevin
>
> P.S. You may see my name again as I usually share what I know a few
> times before I move on.

Sounds good, Kevin. I have noticed that certain programs can use
disproportionate amounts of resources (not the same thing as RAM).
Spybot S&D is a program I also no longer use. Glad that you identified
the culprit. Happy computing!


From: General Mailbox on 9 Apr 2010 13:03
I wish to make public a correction in my findings as to the reason, for my
system, that memory was slow.
I've discovered, by reinstalling the original OS from scratch, that my
memory access increased slightly above what I expected in all areas. As soon
as I installed Service Pack 1a, it dropped just a little. Then I added the
driver for my USB expansion card which supports USB2.0. That brought the
readings down a good 20% below par. Still not shabby until I actually turned
on one or more of the external drives or other equipment connected to the
USB ports. So, in my case, I was getting variable readings not knowing it
was due to the amount of additional hardware the system had to support.
While some may not use Spybot S&D anymore, I take back my accusation of that
being the problem.

Rgds,
Kevin


"General Mailbox" <nospampls(a)home.net> wrote in message
news:jYDun.200194$Dv7.117960(a)newsfe17.iad...
> Daave,
> I hope you enjoyed your weekend.
> Thank you again for the suggestions.
> It ended up being a long time software aquaintance of mine called Spybot
> Search & Destroy. I had version 1.6 installed and never thought it was a
> possible cause of memory slowing down. This is what has happened after
> uninstalling Spybot S&D;
>
> Memory Read
> My expectations: 840 MB/s
> Yesterday 281 MB/s
> Today 767 MB/s
>
> Memory Write
> My expectations 190 MB/s
> Yesterday 93 MB/s
> Today 158 MB/s
>
> Memory Latency
> My expectations 178.5 ns
> Yesterday 343.1 ns
> Today 124.5 ns
>
> I uninstalled it then ran the Everest report again. My system properties
> for
> physical memory vs. commit charges never got that close to 512MB that it
> needed to use page file, meaning excessive drive access. I am not clear
> on
> how a program can slow up memory, yet not use all of the available memory
> first before it slows down.
>
> Thank you!!
> B.rgds,
> Kevin
>
> P.S. You may see my name again as I usually share what I know a few times
> before I move on.
>
>
>


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: xvxcv
Next: windows\system32\util.exe