Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Super Slow XP... Tried Everything

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 3:39:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hi,
Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys broadband router) has been
mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We have SP2, updated virus
protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software, defrag, cleared old
programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has helped. Sometimes, a
simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait, startup takes over 5
minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between programs on this thing.
Is a clean install the only option left? Thanks.

More about : super slow

Anonymous
December 30, 2004 5:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Possibly.
What changed just before it started?

Have you done EVERYTHING on this link:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/slowcom.htm
Do not skip step 12

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"TM" <TM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F0CD3F1-5B66-4DE9-A403-9277F0A27DF9@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys broadband router) has
> been
> mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We have SP2, updated
> virus
> protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software, defrag, cleared
> old
> programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has helped. Sometimes, a
> simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait, startup takes over 5
> minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between programs on this
> thing.
> Is a clean install the only option left? Thanks.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 6:51:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Yes.
--
Ted Zieglar


"TM" <TM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F0CD3F1-5B66-4DE9-A403-9277F0A27DF9@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys broadband router) has
been
> mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We have SP2, updated
virus
> protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software, defrag, cleared
old
> programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has helped. Sometimes, a
> simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait, startup takes over 5
> minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between programs on this
thing.
> Is a clean install the only option left? Thanks.
Related resources
December 30, 2004 7:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I never had drastic reduction on speed but due to other
issues I decided to install a new Hard Drive and start
from scratch. For one thing you may have excessive amount
of open processes. Good luck on your clean install.
Carlos

>-----Original Message-----
>Hi,
>Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys
broadband router) has been
>mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We
have SP2, updated virus
>protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software,
defrag, cleared old
>programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has
helped. Sometimes, a
>simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait,
startup takes over 5
>minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between
programs on this thing.
>Is a clean install the only option left? Thanks.
>.
>
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:33:20 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"TM" <TM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys broadband router) has been
>mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We have SP2, updated virus
>protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software, defrag, cleared old
>programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has helped. Sometimes, a
>simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait, startup takes over 5
>minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between programs on this thing.
>Is a clean install the only option left? Thanks.

256 mb is a bit border-line for a 1 ghz machine, although it still
should perform acceptably.

Use Start - Run - MSCONFIG and check the contents of the Startup tab
against the checklist at
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php to see what can be
eliminated safely.

Also see http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm for
information about reconfiguring the Services that run at startup.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
December 31, 2004 5:56:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"TM" <TM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F0CD3F1-5B66-4DE9-A403-9277F0A27DF9@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys broadband router) has
> been
> mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We have SP2, updated
> virus
> protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software, defrag, cleared
> old
> programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has helped. Sometimes, a
> simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait, startup takes over 5
> minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between programs on this
> thing.
> Is a clean install the only option left? Thanks.

The hardware that you have is very minimal. If it is an integrated
mainboard you
are probably under the minimum. Right now the norm for a PC would be a
2500MHz processor and 512MB of RAM.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 4:21:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:39:09 -0800, "TM"

>Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys broadband router) has been
>mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We have SP2, updated virus
>protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software, defrag, cleared old
>programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has helped. Sometimes, a
>simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait, startup takes over 5
>minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between programs on this thing.

Does the mouse pointer "stick" during slow times? If so, is the HD
LED on during these times? If so, you may have a dying HD that is
bogging down in a low-level retry loop.

Did you disable L1/L2 cache in CMOS setup? If so, that will
profoundly slow the PC, all the time.

Does the PC slow dwn when it warms up? If so, an overheating CPU may
be retreating into thermal protection, thus slower speed or pauses.

Do you have "one big C:" with duhfault IE cache and SR size? If so,
expect performance degradation that defrag can't quite beat.

Did you formally exclude malware? If not, you may have active malware
that can slow the PC down.

Did you scan for commercial malware, e.g. using AdAware and Spybot?
This too will slow you down, and cause other issues.

Specifically, a slow rt-click suggests something has integrated itself
into the shell, most likely via CLSID or less likely as a BHO. The
free Shell Extension Viewer tool is best for manually managing shell
integrations, after you've done the formal virus scan, anti-cm scans,
and suppressed visible stuff via MSConfig.

>Is a clean install the only option left?

http://cquirke.mvps.org/reisnt.htm applies. "Just re-install Windows"
is not a substitute for troubleshooting, and can be a disaster.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
"He's such a character!"
' Yeah - CHAR(0) '
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 4:24:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:56:34 -0500, "Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote:

>The hardware that you have is very minimal. If it is an integrated
>mainboard you
>are probably under the minimum. Right now the norm for a PC would be a
>2500MHz processor and 512MB of RAM.

That's a new PC; XP is several years old now, and should be tolerable
on 128M once the stupid too-small pagefile size is pushed up (I use
512M pagefile) and OK in 256M (again, I'd use 512M pagefile).



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
"He's such a character!"
' Yeah - CHAR(0) '
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:41:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

The speed you're describing is way too slow for that hardware/OS combo.
Sounds like you just gradually lost performance as stuff was added over
time --- windoze is known for that, the more software you have the slower it
runs. A clean install would probably work wonders ASSUMING ware-bloat is
the problem. I had 190Mb/amd500MHz running XP just fine.
One critical factor is: was it superslow right from the start(not software
bloat --- more like hardware or bad config, might not be fixed by clean
install), or was it fast right after the OS was first installed but it
slowly lost speed over a long time as lots of software was
installed/uninstalled(simple case of software bloat, cured by clean
install).

"TM" <TM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F0CD3F1-5B66-4DE9-A403-9277F0A27DF9@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Our computer (Gateway XP, 256mb, 1GB P4, linksys broadband router) has
> been
> mega-slow as long as I can remember. New in 2001. We have SP2, updated
> virus
> protection, firewall, have run adware/spyware software, defrag, cleared
> old
> programs, even deleted 2 user accounts. Nothing has helped. Sometimes, a
> simple right-click on a file is a 30-45 second wait, startup takes over 5
> minutes and you may as well forget swtiching between programs on this
> thing.
> Is a clean install the only option left? Thanks.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:07:16 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:51 GMT, "Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com>

>The speed you're describing is way too slow for that hardware/OS combo.
>Sounds like you just gradually lost performance as stuff was added over
>time --- windoze is known for that,

To counter that:

1) Keep C: small and lean
2) Shrink SR and especially web cache allocations
3) Avoid multiple user accounts and fast account switching

>the more software you have the slower it runs.

See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/software.htm - I wrote it long ago, but
it still applies. If your software is not running, and is not on C:,
then there's no adverse impact at all. if you have "one big C:", then
yes; *everything* on the HD slows down the PC to some extent.

>A clean install would probably work wonders

A clean install is maintenance failure, not maintenance.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:07:17 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Isn't it time to make a web site for Windows XP? Especially if you want to
send posters from this newsgroup there?

Ted Zieglar

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:D bujt05u7th64btuh093icnal4k0pgjt9n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:51 GMT, "Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com>
>
>>The speed you're describing is way too slow for that hardware/OS combo.
>>Sounds like you just gradually lost performance as stuff was added over
>>time --- windoze is known for that,
>
> To counter that:
>
> 1) Keep C: small and lean
> 2) Shrink SR and especially web cache allocations
> 3) Avoid multiple user accounts and fast account switching
>
>>the more software you have the slower it runs.
>
> See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/software.htm - I wrote it long ago, but
> it still applies. If your software is not running, and is not on C:,
> then there's no adverse impact at all. if you have "one big C:", then
> yes; *everything* on the HD slows down the PC to some extent.
>
>>A clean install would probably work wonders
>
> A clean install is maintenance failure, not maintenance.
>
>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Never turn your back on an installer program
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:07:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

There already are several, one well-known one is by microstiff.

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:epwA3Hg8EHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Isn't it time to make a web site for Windows XP? Especially if you want to
> send posters from this newsgroup there?
>
> Ted Zieglar
>
> "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:D bujt05u7th64btuh093icnal4k0pgjt9n@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:51 GMT, "Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com>
>>
>>>The speed you're describing is way too slow for that hardware/OS combo.
>>>Sounds like you just gradually lost performance as stuff was added over
>>>time --- windoze is known for that,
>>
>> To counter that:
>>
>> 1) Keep C: small and lean
>> 2) Shrink SR and especially web cache allocations
>> 3) Avoid multiple user accounts and fast account switching
>>
>>>the more software you have the slower it runs.
>>
>> See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/software.htm - I wrote it long ago, but
>> it still applies. If your software is not running, and is not on C:,
>> then there's no adverse impact at all. if you have "one big C:", then
>> yes; *everything* on the HD slows down the PC to some extent.
>>
>>>A clean install would probably work wonders
>>
>> A clean install is maintenance failure, not maintenance.
>>
>>
>>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>> Never turn your back on an installer program
>>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:07:19 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

C-H: I was speaking directly to cquirke.

Ted Zieglar

"Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LPnCd.680841$Pl.204921@pd7tw1no...
> There already are several, one well-known one is by microstiff.
>
> "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:epwA3Hg8EHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Isn't it time to make a web site for Windows XP? Especially if you want
>> to send posters from this newsgroup there?
>>
>> Ted Zieglar
>>
>> "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:D bujt05u7th64btuh093icnal4k0pgjt9n@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:51 GMT, "Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>>>The speed you're describing is way too slow for that hardware/OS combo.
>>>>Sounds like you just gradually lost performance as stuff was added over
>>>>time --- windoze is known for that,
>>>
>>> To counter that:
>>>
>>> 1) Keep C: small and lean
>>> 2) Shrink SR and especially web cache allocations
>>> 3) Avoid multiple user accounts and fast account switching
>>>
>>>>the more software you have the slower it runs.
>>>
>>> See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/software.htm - I wrote it long ago, but
>>> it still applies. If your software is not running, and is not on C:,
>>> then there's no adverse impact at all. if you have "one big C:", then
>>> yes; *everything* on the HD slows down the PC to some extent.
>>>
>>>>A clean install would probably work wonders
>>>
>>> A clean install is maintenance failure, not maintenance.
>>>
>>>
>>>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>>> Never turn your back on an installer program
>>>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 1:38:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Ah, i c.

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23R0RlIh8EHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> C-H: I was speaking directly to cquirke.
>
> Ted Zieglar
>
> "Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LPnCd.680841$Pl.204921@pd7tw1no...
>> There already are several, one well-known one is by microstiff.
>>
>> "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:epwA3Hg8EHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Isn't it time to make a web site for Windows XP? Especially if you want
>>> to send posters from this newsgroup there?
>>>
>>> Ted Zieglar
>>>
>>> "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:D bujt05u7th64btuh093icnal4k0pgjt9n@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:51 GMT, "Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>>The speed you're describing is way too slow for that hardware/OS combo.
>>>>>Sounds like you just gradually lost performance as stuff was added over
>>>>>time --- windoze is known for that,
>>>>
>>>> To counter that:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Keep C: small and lean
>>>> 2) Shrink SR and especially web cache allocations
>>>> 3) Avoid multiple user accounts and fast account switching
>>>>
>>>>>the more software you have the slower it runs.
>>>>
>>>> See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/software.htm - I wrote it long ago, but
>>>> it still applies. If your software is not running, and is not on C:,
>>>> then there's no adverse impact at all. if you have "one big C:", then
>>>> yes; *everything* on the HD slows down the PC to some extent.
>>>>
>>>>>A clean install would probably work wonders
>>>>
>>>> A clean install is maintenance failure, not maintenance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>>>> Never turn your back on an installer program
>>>>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>>>
>>
>>
>
January 4, 2005 7:41:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

He is way behind the times anyway. Just read some of his
posts.

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:epwA3Hg8EHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Isn't it time to make a web site for Windows XP? Especially if you want to
> send posters from this newsgroup there?
>
> Ted Zieglar
>
> "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:D bujt05u7th64btuh093icnal4k0pgjt9n@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:41:51 GMT, "Cyber-Hun" <th54@hotmail.com>
>>
>>>The speed you're describing is way too slow for that hardware/OS combo.
>>>Sounds like you just gradually lost performance as stuff was added over
>>>time --- windoze is known for that,
>>
>> To counter that:
>>
>> 1) Keep C: small and lean
>> 2) Shrink SR and especially web cache allocations
>> 3) Avoid multiple user accounts and fast account switching
>>
>>>the more software you have the slower it runs.
>>
>> See http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/software.htm - I wrote it long ago, but
>> it still applies. If your software is not running, and is not on C:,
>> then there's no adverse impact at all. if you have "one big C:", then
>> yes; *everything* on the HD slows down the PC to some extent.
>>
>>>A clean install would probably work wonders
>>
>> A clean install is maintenance failure, not maintenance.

>> Never turn your back on an installer program
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:53:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:06:11 -0500, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com>

>Isn't it time to make a web site for Windows XP? Especially if you want to
>send posters from this newsgroup there?

Well, given time contraints, there are various things I could do.

I could re-write all existing material to either generalize it, or
dual it into Win9x and NT versions.

Or I could retain the existing Win9x site as-is, and create new
material that is related to XP.

I've chosen to do the latter, so...

http://cquirke.mvps.org

....is the new top-level that's either general or XP, while...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x

....is the original Win9x site.

These sites are not intended to be complete advice sites. To do an
nth complete advice site that is a worthwhile improvement on existing
sites (many of which are brilliant!) would take more time that I have,
and more knowledge and skill that I have even if I had the time.

So instead, what you find at the sites are specific topics that I've
covered because I haven't found them covered elsewhere, or I have my
own particular take on issues and present that in a page or few.

Many of the pages in the Win9x site are broadly applicable to any
Windows user, and often the topic is an old one that I really don't
feel like revisiting. So yes, you will still see links to pages on
"before you think", formal virus checking, or (in this case) the
impact of software on the PC, that are from the Win9x site <g>



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:53:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I can only imagine the time and effort it takes to maintain a web site like
that. But as long as you're going to be referring users who could be newbies
or not far removed, you really should spend the time, particularly since you
write well so people are likely to pay attention.

Just my 2 cents.
--
Ted Zieglar


"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:c8llt011g0n9se4d76ohdbmu3p4vkk1ls0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:06:11 -0500, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com>
>
> >Isn't it time to make a web site for Windows XP? Especially if you want
to
> >send posters from this newsgroup there?
>
> Well, given time contraints, there are various things I could do.
>
> I could re-write all existing material to either generalize it, or
> dual it into Win9x and NT versions.
>
> Or I could retain the existing Win9x site as-is, and create new
> material that is related to XP.
>
> I've chosen to do the latter, so...
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org
>
> ...is the new top-level that's either general or XP, while...
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x
>
> ...is the original Win9x site.
>
> These sites are not intended to be complete advice sites. To do an
> nth complete advice site that is a worthwhile improvement on existing
> sites (many of which are brilliant!) would take more time that I have,
> and more knowledge and skill that I have even if I had the time.
>
> So instead, what you find at the sites are specific topics that I've
> covered because I haven't found them covered elsewhere, or I have my
> own particular take on issues and present that in a page or few.
>
> Many of the pages in the Win9x site are broadly applicable to any
> Windows user, and often the topic is an old one that I really don't
> feel like revisiting. So yes, you will still see links to pages on
> "before you think", formal virus checking, or (in this case) the
> impact of software on the PC, that are from the Win9x site <g>
>
>
>
> >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> The most accurate diagnostic instrument
> in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
> >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
!