Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Slow right-click, copy, etc..

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
October 23, 2004 12:27:35 PM

For some reason, when I right-click on a file (not an exe, folder, or shortcut), the small menu takes about 10 seconds to open.
It also happens with copy/cut (about 10 seconds of the windows being stuck, then it does what I asked).

But the most annoying thing, is that it also get stuck for a couple of seconds when I'm opening a file.
I started thinking twice before opening a picture, or a text file..

This is the second time it happens to me. After I formatted when it last happened, the problem was solved. Now it happens again.

I got Windows Xp (obviously.. :)  ), pentium 4 2.6c, 512ddr. ..if that helps.

..Is there any solution other than format?

More about : slow click copy

October 23, 2004 10:15:09 PM

Update and run anti-virus. Then a spyware program from lets say spybot or adware. Then defrag. If that doesn't work. I personally think your screwed and you will need to re-install.

Since the problem keeps happening after you re-install everything. Quit surfing porn without anti-virus and spyware programs.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bjpatrick on 10/23/04 06:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 24, 2004 1:22:46 AM

You need no nothing, you need w2k, THAT will fix your probemas, that stupid "slow down after a while" is one of the reasons XP is out of my and everybody else's I build/fix PC for book.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
Related resources
October 24, 2004 6:10:21 AM

This is usually what I do to comps that are running slow and it seems to be spyware/virus related.
install spybot and adaware
download the updates for both
download updates for your virus software
reboot in safe mode (hit f8 before windows loads)
run a scan using each one (not all at once, one at a time)
do start>run>msconfig>startup
check for anything that looks like it would be spyware or virus related and uncheck it (if you are unsure about one post it here and we can probably tell u if it is spyware/virus or not)
reboot

if that doesn't fix it then ur goona need a reformat.

<A HREF="http://www.folken.net/myrig.htm" target="_new">My precious...</A>
October 24, 2004 10:41:28 AM

thats right... installing win2k will solve his problme, but most win users want to use thier computer for games as well which win2k does not allow u to do...
October 24, 2004 4:42:17 PM

Don't pay attention to those who try to counteract me (look at his nick;)
Usually they know nothing to begin with, so why bother to argue with useless elements and waste your precious brain power on such things.

PS: it is strange, but in this particular case fella admits (at least) that w2k "will solve his problme", and that is very promising ;0)


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
October 24, 2004 6:12:25 PM

once i installed fifa and soldier of fortune II on win 2000 and the game ran like [-peep-], then i asked several ppl and they said that win2k dosnt built for playing games. it doesnt have the full support that home versions are equipped with... isnt that right?????
emmmmmmmmmmmmmm
October 26, 2004 10:17:28 AM

Ok than, I'll give the scanning a try. Hope it works.

Now lets see..
October 26, 2004 12:40:36 PM

ok well.. I guess I need to format again.

..another thing i noticed- when i create new accounts for win xp, they have the same problem, but in safe-mode everything works fine.
October 26, 2004 3:19:43 PM

I don't know where you get the idea that XP is the ONLY Windows OS that 'slows down after a while'. They all do eventually... even Win 2K. I've noticed much less slowdown with 2K and XP, however... it was 95/98/ME that needed to be reloaded every 6 months... heh.

As long as you keep your computer spyware and virus free... and run a good defrag program... you'll be fine.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
October 27, 2004 5:49:42 AM

I don't know where you get the idea that w2k is included in "slowing down" systems, but in my case (PC case that is) w2k is 2 years old and there was no slow downs yet, XP on the other hand had to be reinstalled after 2-3 weeks of the same abuse w2k gets, and trust me, I've given it a good amount of "tries" before I ditched it for good, so you do the math.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
October 27, 2004 4:13:02 PM

If you want a more reliable OS get a linux distro :) 
The only reason my desktop machine has windows is to play games that dont have a linux port yet. I wouldn't put anything but linux on my servers unless the hardware wasn't compatable or something.

<A HREF="http://www.folken.net/myrig.htm" target="_new">My precious...</A>
October 27, 2004 5:06:44 PM

No such problems with XP here... must be the user. :wink:

In all seriousness... the only problems I've seen with XP becoming slow is all the crapware and viruses people seem to be picking up these days. Spyware has <b>REALLY</b> become a problem. It's gotten so bad that standard procedure for benching a customer's computer to run Spybot and Ad-Aware on the machine.

Now that's not to say that the other Windows OSes can't be affected by spyware... it just seems that there are a lot of newer computers out there these days running Win XP. I've seen 2K slow to a crawl a few times, though... so it's not immune. I have had a Win XP machine running for 2 years without the slowdowns you say you get after 2 weeks.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
October 28, 2004 12:35:53 AM

I am not talking about any ware inflicted system, I am talking general use (if you can call hundred times a day copy/paste/delete incomplete .avi files from drive to drive, etc.) XP does NOT like to work with big video files in my case (PC case that is;) and I don't care what anyone else says, it does not change anything what is happening it my case (PC case that is;)

You can blame any spy or bluh ware you want, it is not the case here (the subject matter that is;o)

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
October 28, 2004 12:38:07 AM

I wish I could use Linux, but at this point of time I need a good map and database software, which MS provides, so I'll have to stick with w2k for little longer.

PS: and if you wish, you can give me your box with XP that you are using for 2 years, I'll show you that where w2k lives and smiles it can "slowly" die in couple of days, not weex.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
October 28, 2004 3:38:37 PM

*Shrug*

I still prefer XP to 2K... but that's not to say I don't like 2K. In fact, I would love to see all those computers that are too slow to run XP run 2K. Since 2K, I have come to hate 95/98/ME (especially ME).

But to suggest that 2K is more 'bulletproof' than XP is a little misleading. You've had better luck with it, but I know people have had problems with it as well.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
October 28, 2004 4:21:07 PM

I don't know where you get your info, but you better check again. Windows 2000 have FULL game support, I know, I play all the latest, and insist on having Windows 2000 Pro installed.

Also, Windows 2000 has lots of features that XP Home DOESN'T have. Before you start spouting off about what OS has or offers what, maybe do a little research first.

:smile:

XP2800+, Abit NF7, 1GB Dual-Channel DDR333, ATI R9800PRO 128MB, TT PurePower 420W, LG DVD+-R/RW
:redface: <font color=red>My wife says I suffer from premature ejaculation...I don't remember suffering<font color=red> :wink:
October 29, 2004 7:18:55 AM

I don't beleive people are having problems with ME, me is dual booting ME and w2k for about 3 years now and prolly will for another 3;o)

I was testing XP for more than a year day in and day out, and trust me on this one, I know more about it than you do, so if I say w2k is better for me, I think I have a right to do so.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
November 4, 2004 2:08:43 PM

Quote:
I was testing XP for more than a year day in and day out, and trust me on this one, I know more about it than you do, so if I say w2k is better for me, I think I have a right to do so.


Nothing wrong with saying Win 2K is better for you... that's not where my issue lies. You're saying that your experience leads you to prefer 2K over XP... which is fine... but it's NOT everyone's experience. I've been using XP since Beta 2... and I haven't gone back once. It's stable, it does everything I want/need it to do, so I'll stick with it. I have absolutely nothing against 2K, I used it before XP was released and I loved it.

Quote:
I don't beleive people are having problems with ME, me is dual booting ME and w2k for about 3 years now and prolly will for another 3


I've talked to more than one tech about ME... and the consensus was always the same: Mistake Edition. It truly can be a pain in the ass OS. Now if 2K is as great as you say (and I believe it is) then why are you still using ME? Dump 9x for good... you'll be happier.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
November 7, 2004 8:03:25 PM

""then why are you still using ME?""

Because I can, and because my kid is using it to play his games.

PS: Mistake Edition? Hmm... I remember same was said about 98 when it came out, and for some reason it is still used in huge amount of PCs and is called "Gaming OS". I think your technicians need some education.


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
November 8, 2004 8:08:35 PM

I'd much rather have 98SE than ME... I hate supporting ME. It's a nightmare that I'd love to get people away from. Yes, it works great for you... but you're one of the rare exceptions and not the rule when it comes to ME. I just don't see the need to dual-boot when 2000 does it all.


<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
November 10, 2004 4:29:38 PM

Well... look at your own sig, it explains what I am hinting at.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
November 10, 2004 8:44:39 PM

LOL

Well, ya got me there... but even 2000 isn't foolproof.

:smile:

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
November 10, 2004 8:49:55 PM

No problemas, as long as we understand each other :wink:

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
December 9, 2004 2:54:24 PM

win 2k is great for office use but for a home user/gamer xp is so much better, has a lot more easy to use tools, better for multimedia, looks better, plays games better, the only thing which I wish that they would do is make xp less of a systems resource hog so that programs would run faster in xp as they do in 2k, but hey, im happy with xp pro w/sp2 my computer that I built in June has been running smooth as a whistle ever since, have had 0 errors/failures and I couldnt be happier
December 13, 2004 3:44:29 PM

""xp is so much better.. for multimedia, .., plays games better""

""I wish that programs... would run faster in xp as they do in 2k""

Is there a common sence in yer logic? Correct me if I am wrong, but how can it be "so much better" if, according to yer own wordz, it is SLOWER:?(

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
December 13, 2004 7:53:41 PM

I used Window 2k for a long time, and I had errors up the wah-zoo with it.. Not as to say I didnt deserve it :-P
And I wasnt exactly the only one usuing it..

But my main computer had 98 on it, and worked wonders! I loved it, and still do. The main reason I have XP Pro Corp. now is becuase its easier to network than 98 was.

Old System:p ackard Bell Legend 3550,200 mhz cpu,72mb ram,8mb video,2gb hdd.
NEW System:ECS N2U400-A,512 mb ram,AMD Athlon 2500+, 64 mb video, SOUND, on board lan, USB Ports, 120 Gb HDD
!