Slowness due to not enough RAM, or P2-350?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you have real-time scanning activated, check the file types that are being
scanned and make sure you are not scanning file types (such as databases)
that cannot be infected. If you are unecessarily scanning files that change
frequently then that will have a significant effect on performance.

"jfire7887" wrote:

> I added (Trend Micro) PC-cillin Internet Security 2005 to my Windows 98
> computer with P2-350 processor and 192 MB of RAM. It's slow to start and the
> slowness increases with other apps open. Previously, it could also
> experience slowness when it had McAfee Internet Security 6.0. (MIS 6.0's
> minimum requirement is 32 MB, while PIS 2005's is 64 MB.) I added a 128 MB
> memory card to the open slot 15 months ago when I added McAfee, but I can't
> say for certain how much of a difference it made. Does it pay to replace the
> original 64 MB card with another 128 MB card, to get the additional 64 MB
> that I'm able to get, or are there unavoidable limitations for these security
> suites due to the processor speed?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Have a look thru their support site. It may be that your machine can't run
properly with the Real Time Scanning that runs in the background or another
setting in the configuration that causes the slowdown.
http://kb.trendmicro.com/solutions/search/Main/Search/d...

Try disabling RTS and see if the computer performs more reasonably.

--

Brian A.

Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"jfire7887" <jfire7887@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9B322752-C944-426F-A1F6-893D4154FA7B@microsoft.com...
>I added (Trend Micro) PC-cillin Internet Security 2005 to my Windows 98
> computer with P2-350 processor and 192 MB of RAM. It's slow to start and
> the
> slowness increases with other apps open. Previously, it could also
> experience slowness when it had McAfee Internet Security 6.0. (MIS 6.0's
> minimum requirement is 32 MB, while PIS 2005's is 64 MB.) I added a 128
> MB
> memory card to the open slot 15 months ago when I added McAfee, but I
> can't
> say for certain how much of a difference it made. Does it pay to replace
> the
> original 64 MB card with another 128 MB card, to get the additional 64 MB
> that I'm able to get, or are there unavoidable limitations for these
> security
> suites due to the processor speed?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"anonymous" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:05A8109A-3D49-4403-8580-4BE2FA41E4C6@microsoft.com...
> If you have real-time scanning activated, check the file types that are
being
> scanned and make sure you are not scanning file types (such as databases)
> that cannot be infected.

Anyone reading the above should be aware
that the writer doesn't know what he is talking about.

Just one proof of this:

http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapte...

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

jfire7887 wrote:
> I added (Trend Micro) PC-cillin Internet Security 2005 to my Windows 98
> computer with P2-350 processor and 192 MB of RAM. It's slow to start and the
> slowness increases with other apps open. Previously, it could also
> experience slowness when it had McAfee Internet Security 6.0. (MIS 6.0's
> minimum requirement is 32 MB, while PIS 2005's is 64 MB.) I added a 128 MB
> memory card to the open slot 15 months ago when I added McAfee, but I can't
> say for certain how much of a difference it made. Does it pay to replace the
> original 64 MB card with another 128 MB card, to get the additional 64 MB
> that I'm able to get, or are there unavoidable limitations for these security
> suites due to the processor speed?

Hi!
Looks like it is the CPU limitation. What you did is, you installed a
guard in background which is checking every piece of info moving between
parts of your hardware against its database of "nasties". It takes time.
It is felt on any CPU and amount of memory. No free ride.

"Don't worry, be happy!"

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Brian A.,

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a try. Though I guess this means
the manual scans will have to suffice? If you are familiar with the
PC-cillin 2005, maybe you could also tell me if there's a feature that will
block pop-ups on this Windows 98? On our XP machine, SP2 covers that area
adequately.

"Brian A." wrote:

> Have a look thru their support site. It may be that your machine can't run
> properly with the Real Time Scanning that runs in the background or another
> setting in the configuration that causes the slowdown.
> http://kb.trendmicro.com/solutions/search/Main/Search/d...
>
> Try disabling RTS and see if the computer performs more reasonably.
>
> --
>
> Brian A.
>
> Conflicts start where information lacks.
> http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "jfire7887" <jfire7887@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9B322752-C944-426F-A1F6-893D4154FA7B@microsoft.com...
> >I added (Trend Micro) PC-cillin Internet Security 2005 to my Windows 98
> > computer with P2-350 processor and 192 MB of RAM. It's slow to start and
> > the
> > slowness increases with other apps open. Previously, it could also
> > experience slowness when it had McAfee Internet Security 6.0. (MIS 6.0's
> > minimum requirement is 32 MB, while PIS 2005's is 64 MB.) I added a 128
> > MB
> > memory card to the open slot 15 months ago when I added McAfee, but I
> > can't
> > say for certain how much of a difference it made. Does it pay to replace
> > the
> > original 64 MB card with another 128 MB card, to get the additional 64 MB
> > that I'm able to get, or are there unavoidable limitations for these
> > security
> > suites due to the processor speed?
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

anonymous,

Thanks for the input. I'll try shutting RTS off completely, per Brian A.,
and if that's a noticeable success, maybe I can see if I can narrow it down
to just excluding certain file types (whatever they may be).

"anonymous" wrote:

> If you have real-time scanning activated, check the file types that are being
> scanned and make sure you are not scanning file types (such as databases)
> that cannot be infected. If you are unecessarily scanning files that change
> frequently then that will have a significant effect on performance.
>
> "jfire7887" wrote:
>
> > I added (Trend Micro) PC-cillin Internet Security 2005 to my Windows 98
> > computer with P2-350 processor and 192 MB of RAM. It's slow to start and the
> > slowness increases with other apps open. Previously, it could also
> > experience slowness when it had McAfee Internet Security 6.0. (MIS 6.0's
> > minimum requirement is 32 MB, while PIS 2005's is 64 MB.) I added a 128 MB
> > memory card to the open slot 15 months ago when I added McAfee, but I can't
> > say for certain how much of a difference it made. Does it pay to replace the
> > original 64 MB card with another 128 MB card, to get the additional 64 MB
> > that I'm able to get, or are there unavoidable limitations for these security
> > suites due to the processor speed?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hugh,

Thanks for the input. I see from your link that databases can indeed be
infected, but anonymous' general point may be useful, and as I indicated, if
shutting off RTS completely makes a difference, I'll see if I can narrow it
down to certain file types (whatever they may be) so that maybe I won't have
to go without RTS completely.

"Hugh Candlin" wrote:

>
> "anonymous" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:05A8109A-3D49-4403-8580-4BE2FA41E4C6@microsoft.com...
> > If you have real-time scanning activated, check the file types that are
> being
> > scanned and make sure you are not scanning file types (such as databases)
> > that cannot be infected.
>
> Anyone reading the above should be aware
> that the writer doesn't know what he is talking about.
>
> Just one proof of this:
>
> http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapte...
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Stanislaw,

Thanks for the input. Brian A. suggested that Real Time Scan may be causing
the interference you described, so I'm going to give that a try.

"Stanislaw Flatto" wrote:

>
>
> jfire7887 wrote:
> > I added (Trend Micro) PC-cillin Internet Security 2005 to my Windows 98
> > computer with P2-350 processor and 192 MB of RAM. It's slow to start and the
> > slowness increases with other apps open. Previously, it could also
> > experience slowness when it had McAfee Internet Security 6.0. (MIS 6.0's
> > minimum requirement is 32 MB, while PIS 2005's is 64 MB.) I added a 128 MB
> > memory card to the open slot 15 months ago when I added McAfee, but I can't
> > say for certain how much of a difference it made. Does it pay to replace the
> > original 64 MB card with another 128 MB card, to get the additional 64 MB
> > that I'm able to get, or are there unavoidable limitations for these security
> > suites due to the processor speed?
>
> Hi!
> Looks like it is the CPU limitation. What you did is, you installed a
> guard in background which is checking every piece of info moving between
> parts of your hardware against its database of "nasties". It takes time.
> It is felt on any CPU and amount of memory. No free ride.
>
> "Don't worry, be happy!"
>
> Stanislaw
> Slack user from Ulladulla.
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you can find a better means through Hugh's suggestions, go for it. It
sounds as if he has a good handle on it, which I believe even includes not
running the real time scan.

I use a different app, but as far as I find it does not have any pop-up
blocking. There have been a few pu blockers mention in this ng and I would
strongly suggest researching any you plan to use.

I don't know what you use in the lines of adware/spyware blocking so I
highly recommend getting SpywareBlaster. It stops the ones in it's dataset
from ever getting a chance to load on your machine. The app does not run as
another process, you run it for updates, you enable protection, it sets
killbits in the registry, you close the app and the killbits do the rest.
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

--

Brian A.

Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"jfire7887" <jfire7887@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A59B45BD-2AED-4174-A64F-CE90EE233DC3@microsoft.com...
> Brian A.,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a try. Though I guess this means
> the manual scans will have to suffice? If you are familiar with the
> PC-cillin 2005, maybe you could also tell me if there's a feature that
> will
> block pop-ups on this Windows 98? On our XP machine, SP2 covers that area
> adequately.
>
> "Brian A." wrote:
>
>> Have a look thru their support site. It may be that your machine can't
>> run
>> properly with the Real Time Scanning that runs in the background or
>> another
>> setting in the configuration that causes the slowdown.
>> http://kb.trendmicro.com/solutions/search/Main/Search/d...
>>
>> Try disabling RTS and see if the computer performs more reasonably.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Brian A.
>>
>> Conflicts start where information lacks.
>> http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "jfire7887" <jfire7887@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:9B322752-C944-426F-A1F6-893D4154FA7B@microsoft.com...
>> >I added (Trend Micro) PC-cillin Internet Security 2005 to my Windows 98
>> > computer with P2-350 processor and 192 MB of RAM. It's slow to start
>> > and
>> > the
>> > slowness increases with other apps open. Previously, it could also
>> > experience slowness when it had McAfee Internet Security 6.0. (MIS
>> > 6.0's
>> > minimum requirement is 32 MB, while PIS 2005's is 64 MB.) I added a
>> > 128
>> > MB
>> > memory card to the open slot 15 months ago when I added McAfee, but I
>> > can't
>> > say for certain how much of a difference it made. Does it pay to
>> > replace
>> > the
>> > original 64 MB card with another 128 MB card, to get the additional 64
>> > MB
>> > that I'm able to get, or are there unavoidable limitations for these
>> > security
>> > suites due to the processor speed?
>>
>>