Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Another "slow computer" complain

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
January 13, 2005 9:11:33 PM

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

i recently bought a 256 RAM, 3.06 GHz Dell Inspiron
notebook for my studies...but it has been running very
slowly since the beginning. i've installed Service Pack 2
and already have antivirus and spyware removal
software...maybe it's because im a novice at this and
don't know what the heck is going on, but is it normal
for XP to take this long to load? it also takes quite
amount of time to start up any programs, such as MS
Office and Internet Explore...maybe it's because of the
limited 256 MB RAM?

any help (or explanation) would be greatly appreciated...
thank you!

More about : slow computer complain

January 14, 2005 6:49:36 PM

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

TK wrote:

> i recently bought a 256 RAM, 3.06 GHz Dell Inspiron
> notebook for my studies...but it has been running very
> slowly since the beginning. i've installed Service Pack 2
> and already have antivirus and spyware removal
> software...maybe it's because im a novice at this and
> don't know what the heck is going on, but is it normal
> for XP to take this long to load? it also takes quite
> amount of time to start up any programs, such as MS
> Office and Internet Explore...maybe it's because of the
> limited 256 MB RAM?
>
> any help (or explanation) would be greatly appreciated...
> thank you!
>
>

You don't say how long it takes to load. You can clean out the files in
c:\windows\prefetch to speed up the loading of Windows. Also, empty your
temporary internet cache files in IE or whatever browser you're using.

If your PC is connected to a network, that can take additional time to
boot up. Also check Device Manager to see if there are any problems
reported there.

Check msconfig to see what is loading on bootup - you may be able to
speed up the boot process by eliminating unnecessary programs from loading.

Also, right-click My Computer, select Properties, select the Advanced
tab, click the Settings button in the Startup and Recovery section and
decrease the time to display operating systems choices, etc.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 7:21:25 PM

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

Cleaning out the pre-fetch folder has no effect on the day to day
performance of a computer. Pre-fetching was designed to help Windows start
more quickly. In this regard, clearing out the pre-fetch folder will make
the computer start slower, not faster. Eventually (usually a matter of
days), Windows will re-build the pre-fetch folder and the performance
advantage offered by pre-fetching will return.

Someone might want to clear the pre-fetch folder is if it contains a
reference to a virus or spyware. In that case you'd be following the
instructions from an antivirus or antispyware web site for manually removing
an infection

There are good reasons for clearing Temporary Internet Files, but speeding
up the computer isn't one of them. Windows works just as well whether the
TIF folder is empty or filled with files. Of course, if you have so little
free space on your hard disk that the addition of Temporary Internet Files
interferes with Windows' ability to operate - for example, there's not
enough space for a sufficient paging file - then you either need to do
serious housekeeping or buy another hard disk.

As for reducing the length of time to select another operating system (the
default is 30 seconds): That only saves time if there is more than one
operating system on the computer.
--
Ted Zieglar


"null" <null@planetzero.com> wrote in message
news:o SroSqn%23EHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> TK wrote:
>
> > i recently bought a 256 RAM, 3.06 GHz Dell Inspiron
> > notebook for my studies...but it has been running very
> > slowly since the beginning. i've installed Service Pack 2
> > and already have antivirus and spyware removal
> > software...maybe it's because im a novice at this and
> > don't know what the heck is going on, but is it normal
> > for XP to take this long to load? it also takes quite
> > amount of time to start up any programs, such as MS
> > Office and Internet Explore...maybe it's because of the
> > limited 256 MB RAM?
> >
> > any help (or explanation) would be greatly appreciated...
> > thank you!
> >
> >
>
> You don't say how long it takes to load. You can clean out the files in
> c:\windows\prefetch to speed up the loading of Windows. Also, empty your
> temporary internet cache files in IE or whatever browser you're using.
>
> If your PC is connected to a network, that can take additional time to
> boot up. Also check Device Manager to see if there are any problems
> reported there.
>
> Check msconfig to see what is loading on bootup - you may be able to
> speed up the boot process by eliminating unnecessary programs from
loading.
>
> Also, right-click My Computer, select Properties, select the Advanced
> tab, click the Settings button in the Startup and Recovery section and
> decrease the time to display operating systems choices, etc.
>
> --
> The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
> data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
> PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
> liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
> posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
> of this message.
>
January 14, 2005 7:34:58 PM

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

Ted Zieglar wrote:

> Cleaning out the pre-fetch folder has no effect on the day to day
> performance of a computer. Pre-fetching was designed to help Windows start
> more quickly. In this regard, clearing out the pre-fetch folder will make
> the computer start slower, not faster. Eventually (usually a matter of
> days), Windows will re-build the pre-fetch folder and the performance
> advantage offered by pre-fetching will return.

Boy, are you on a tear. Prefetching was NOT designed to help Windows
start more quickly. It's designed to setup applications so THEY start
faster. Yes, it will rebuild itself, and if the PC slows down again,
clean it again.

>
> Someone might want to clear the pre-fetch folder is if it contains a
> reference to a virus or spyware. In that case you'd be following the
> instructions from an antivirus or antispyware web site for manually removing
> an infection
>
> There are good reasons for clearing Temporary Internet Files, but speeding
> up the computer isn't one of them. Windows works just as well whether the
> TIF folder is empty or filled with files. Of course, if you have so little
> free space on your hard disk that the addition of Temporary Internet Files
> interferes with Windows' ability to operate - for example, there's not
> enough space for a sufficient paging file - then you either need to do
> serious housekeeping or buy another hard disk.

I've also seen the need to empty the temporary internet cache files
because it slows down certain apps run through the browser. It doesn't
hurt to clean it out as a precaution.

>
> As for reducing the length of time to select another operating system (the
> default is 30 seconds): That only saves time if there is more than one
> operating system on the computer.

You will notice the 'etc.' at the end of that sentence. It refers to the
option to reduce the boot time for showing recovery options in that
window. This WILL save time.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.
January 14, 2005 9:45:10 PM

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

thanks to everyone who replied.im going to try all the
suggestions and check out the links.
thanks again!
January 18, 2005 12:56:41 PM

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

~ FreeSpirit ~ wrote:
> "null" <null@planetzero.com> wrote in message
> news:o SroSqn%23EHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>--
>>The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
>>data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
>>PC,
>
>
> $$ How can we do this when the tool to back them up is not installed on PCs
> from companies like Compaq, Dell or HP? We don't get the WXP disk either,
> just a disk to reinstall the OS if that becomes necessary.
>
> as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
>
>>liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
>>posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
>>of this message.
>
>
> FS~
>
>

There are free Registry utilities out there, and you can export the
entire Registry from Regedit, if so desired.

You can easily backup data files to CD-R or other media if you keep them
all in one location.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 6:04:37 PM

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

"TK" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>i recently bought a 256 RAM, 3.06 GHz Dell Inspiron
>notebook for my studies...but it has been running very
>slowly since the beginning. i've installed Service Pack 2
>and already have antivirus and spyware removal
>software...maybe it's because im a novice at this and
>don't know what the heck is going on, but is it normal
>for XP to take this long to load? it also takes quite
>amount of time to start up any programs, such as MS
>Office and Internet Explore...maybe it's because of the
>limited 256 MB RAM?

The RAM is certainly out of scale with the processor speed, but
shouldn't be so very bad. I wonder if there's a hardware issue. If
processor cache is switched off, it will perform like an old 486.
Worth asking Dell, I'd say.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:13:13 AM

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

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:21:25 -0500, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com>

>Someone might want to clear the pre-fetch folder is if it contains a
>reference to a virus or spyware. In that case you'd be following the
>instructions from an antivirus or antispyware web site for manually removing
>an infection

As at Jan 2005, I know of no relevance of .PF files to malware. If
the malware's there and integrated, it's going to run irrespective of
whether there is a .PF for it or not. If the malware's gone, then the
..PF points to nothing and can do nothing.

It's important to remember that .PF neither contain code, nor are they
shortcuts that launch code (unlike .PIF, which are supposed to be
shortcuts but will run as raw code too).

>There are good reasons for clearing Temporary Internet Files, but speeding
>up the computer isn't one of them. Windows works just as well whether the
>TIF folder is empty or filled with files.

I disagree entirely; duhfault huge TIF size allocations, repeated one
per user account, fragments the file system when ancient tiny files
are finally purged out on FIFO basis. Not only that, but even
multiple cache dir branches will be long, fragmented, and particularly
slow to traverse on FATxx (as that uses linear lookup).

I'd set cache size to 20M, to 40M tops. Your 'net access is either
too slow to fill that in a short enough time for the oldest cached
material to be relevant, or it's fast enough not to need caching.

>Of course, if you have so little free space on your hard disk that
>the addition of Temporary Internet Files interferes with Windows'
>ability to operate - for example, there's not enough space for a
>sufficient paging file - then you either need to do serious
>housekeeping or buy another hard disk.

Or shrink the cache, duh. Like that material is soooo crucial, one
just has to throw money at hardware to accomodate it?

>As for reducing the length of time to select another operating system (the
>default is 30 seconds): That only saves time if there is more than one
>operating system on the computer.

Or more than one mode of the same OS. Or if you aren't there to press
Enter, in which case you prolly won't care about the 30-second
delay... unless you're running unattended, and if you are, waiting for
AutoChk to wade through one huge C: will take so long that the extra
30 second delay won't seem so significant anymore :-)



>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
ideal for experimentation!
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:13:14 AM

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

While you may be technically correct about traversing fragmented cache, I
challenge anyone to measure the amount of time saved by clearing the cache.
As for using FAT32 with XP...well, it's a free country, but the consensus is
that most users would obtain greater benefit with NTFS.

--
Ted Zieglar


"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:7sptu0dsiojt732d4jnjhqvhm74q31esrg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:21:25 -0500, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com>
>
> >Someone might want to clear the pre-fetch folder is if it contains a
> >reference to a virus or spyware. In that case you'd be following the
> >instructions from an antivirus or antispyware web site for manually
removing
> >an infection
>
> As at Jan 2005, I know of no relevance of .PF files to malware. If
> the malware's there and integrated, it's going to run irrespective of
> whether there is a .PF for it or not. If the malware's gone, then the
> .PF points to nothing and can do nothing.
>
> It's important to remember that .PF neither contain code, nor are they
> shortcuts that launch code (unlike .PIF, which are supposed to be
> shortcuts but will run as raw code too).
>
> >There are good reasons for clearing Temporary Internet Files, but
speeding
> >up the computer isn't one of them. Windows works just as well whether the
> >TIF folder is empty or filled with files.
>
> I disagree entirely; duhfault huge TIF size allocations, repeated one
> per user account, fragments the file system when ancient tiny files
> are finally purged out on FIFO basis. Not only that, but even
> multiple cache dir branches will be long, fragmented, and particularly
> slow to traverse on FATxx (as that uses linear lookup).
>
> I'd set cache size to 20M, to 40M tops. Your 'net access is either
> too slow to fill that in a short enough time for the oldest cached
> material to be relevant, or it's fast enough not to need caching.
>
> >Of course, if you have so little free space on your hard disk that
> >the addition of Temporary Internet Files interferes with Windows'
> >ability to operate - for example, there's not enough space for a
> >sufficient paging file - then you either need to do serious
> >housekeeping or buy another hard disk.
>
> Or shrink the cache, duh. Like that material is soooo crucial, one
> just has to throw money at hardware to accomodate it?
>
> >As for reducing the length of time to select another operating system
(the
> >default is 30 seconds): That only saves time if there is more than one
> >operating system on the computer.
>
> Or more than one mode of the same OS. Or if you aren't there to press
> Enter, in which case you prolly won't care about the 30-second
> delay... unless you're running unattended, and if you are, waiting for
> AutoChk to wade through one huge C: will take so long that the extra
> 30 second delay won't seem so significant anymore :-)
>
>
>
> >---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
> ideal for experimentation!
> >---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
January 20, 2005 4:13:15 AM

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

Ted Zieglar wrote:
> I challenge anyone to measure the amount of time saved by clearing the cache.
>

As I said in a previous post, I know of at least one application that is
slowed down considerably if the temp internet cache files aren't cleared
out on a frequent basis.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 5:46:04 AM

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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:40 -0500, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com>

>While you may be technically correct about traversing fragmented cache, I
>challenge anyone to measure the amount of time saved by clearing the cache.

Inasmuch as any head travel or file fragmentation is relevant to
performance, so would be the impact of large wads of tiny late-purged
files. The fragmentation effect would become most pronounced when the
file system fills up, so that new files are created in gaps between
user clusters instead of at the end.

>As for using FAT32 with XP...well, it's a free country, but the consensus is
>that most users would obtain greater benefit with NTFS.

Well, we've had plenty of dubious consensuses in the past ;-)

IMO, it's up to the particular useage and situation, when it comes to
FAT32 vs. NTFS; what problems you want to manage, etc.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Error Messages Are Your Friends
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 5:46:05 AM

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

No need for us to rehash our respective well-made points. I'm just posting
to point out to anyone else who might be reading that your sig - Error
messages are your friend - is so true.

Ted Zieglar

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:D a83v0114pcj8qat65qrfmj3ndu7q0d8hs@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:40 -0500, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com>
>
>>While you may be technically correct about traversing fragmented cache, I
>>challenge anyone to measure the amount of time saved by clearing the
>>cache.
>
> Inasmuch as any head travel or file fragmentation is relevant to
> performance, so would be the impact of large wads of tiny late-purged
> files. The fragmentation effect would become most pronounced when the
> file system fills up, so that new files are created in gaps between
> user clusters instead of at the end.
>
>>As for using FAT32 with XP...well, it's a free country, but the consensus
>>is
>>that most users would obtain greater benefit with NTFS.
>
> Well, we've had plenty of dubious consensuses in the past ;-)
>
> IMO, it's up to the particular useage and situation, when it comes to
> FAT32 vs. NTFS; what problems you want to manage, etc.
>
>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Error Messages Are Your Friends
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:05:02 PM

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

Another thing to consider is that Dell, HP, etc. load a whole bunch of
utilities, trial software, etc. on the PC. I've seen quite a few new laptops
that are slow loaders (IMHO) mainly due to these "extras". I often wind up
disabling them in the interest of speed.

"Aandi Inston" wrote:

> "TK" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >i recently bought a 256 RAM, 3.06 GHz Dell Inspiron
> >notebook for my studies...but it has been running very
> >slowly since the beginning. i've installed Service Pack 2
> >and already have antivirus and spyware removal
> >software...maybe it's because im a novice at this and
> >don't know what the heck is going on, but is it normal
> >for XP to take this long to load? it also takes quite
> >amount of time to start up any programs, such as MS
> >Office and Internet Explore...maybe it's because of the
> >limited 256 MB RAM?
>
> The RAM is certainly out of scale with the processor speed, but
> shouldn't be so very bad. I wonder if there's a hardware issue. If
> processor cache is switched off, it will perform like an old 486.
> Worth asking Dell, I'd say.
> ----------------------------------------
> Aandi Inston quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
> Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
>
>
!