Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Computer Running Slow

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
October 7, 2004 5:26:45 PM

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

I have a Windows XP Home, with Service Pack 2.

When I log on to the computer it is very slow at
loading. the computer has got 256MB of RAM and a 40GB
hard drive and a 2GHz processor.

More about : computer running slow

Anonymous
October 7, 2004 5:34:06 PM

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

In news:23ef01c4acab$f6fce350$a601280a@phx.gbl,
ross <ross.milne@sdytnews.info> typed:

>I have a Windows XP Home, with Service Pack 2.
>
> When I log on to the computer it is very slow at
> loading. the computer has got 256MB of RAM and a 40GB
> hard drive and a 2GHz processor.


What does "very slow" mean? How long does it take?

Assuming that the speed is otherwise satisfactory, it may not be
worth worrying about it. Most people start their computers once a
day or even less frequently. In the overall scheme of things,
even a few minutes to start up isn't very important. Personally I
power on my computer when I get up in the morning, then go get my
coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I don't know how
long it took to boot, and I don't care.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 6:01:05 PM

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

RAM is a little small but everything else looks ok. I recommend at least
512MB of RAM for XP to run at it's best. Other than that regular maintenance.
Defrag, Run chkdsk, Cleanmgr and check for spyware\adware and viruses. SpeeXP
is free and will set your system for optimal performance without you having
to go into the registry. I don't recommend the "clear pagefile on shutdown"
option.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 7:09:33 PM

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

In news:3351F9D7-E4A4-47E3-AAC1-1003F6123CE4@microsoft.com,
The Unknown P <( mikisiw@msn.com )> typed:

> RAM is a little small but everything else looks ok. I recommend
> at
> least 512MB of RAM for XP to run at it's best.


This is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get good
performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using
the page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people
running a typical range of business applications find that
somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others need 512MB. Some
people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images can see a performance boost by adding even
more--sometimes much more.



Recommending "at least 512MB" without knowing what apps are being
run is poor advice. I know many people running XP with 256MB who
use the page file very little, and get very good performance.


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 7:52:03 PM

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

You didn't mention how long the computer has seemed to slow down on startup.
If you have added quite a bit of software then startup will take longer.
With 256MB of memory your system has to use the Swap file a lot. That means
that things set up in memory are constantly being written to and retrieved
from the swap file on your hard disk. Hard disk access is many times slower
than memory access, so adding more memory can relieve a lot of that.

"ross" <ross.milne@sdytnews.info> wrote in message
news:23ef01c4acab$f6fce350$a601280a@phx.gbl...
>I have a Windows XP Home, with Service Pack 2.
>
> When I log on to the computer it is very slow at
> loading. the computer has got 256MB of RAM and a 40GB
> hard drive and a 2GHz processor.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:05:21 PM

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

> > RAM is a little small but everything else looks ok. I
> > recommend at least 512MB for XP to run at it's best.

> This is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get good
> performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you
> from using the page file, and that depends on what apps
> you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB
> works well, others need 512MB.

My complaints are mainly with only the File Explorer running
-- plus all the other CIDAEMON, cisvc, svchost, background
processes. Even with all of the MSCONFIG Startup tab
and File Indexing stuff unchecked it is still slow with 256 MB.

My own computationally intensive optimization and modeling
programs, run fast regardless of what else is running.

One of the problems with adding memory is that it is not
only expensive but sometimes it cannot be added in
arbitrary increments. A laptop may have only two memory
slots and adding memory requires deciding the most
economical way to add it without running the danger of
having to replace what you just bought when the next SP
of the OS is released.

> Recommending "at least 512MB" without knowing what
> apps are being run is poor advice.

So is suggesting 10 things for the individual user to try,
that do not result in a faster system.

> I know many people running XP with 256MB who use the
> page file very little, and get very good performance.

Can't all these suggestions be canned into a program that
can analyze and examine the analysis and model the
performance improvements doing the various suggested
changes and then put forth some reliable suggestions.
I don't like this try this that and the other thing approach.

There I have said it and feel better already. <g>

Rgds, JohnH
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:16:33 PM

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

Go www.pcpitstop.com and run their on-line tests. You will
get a report that may help you configure your system. Also
see www.blackviper.com for info on services that are not
needed.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"John Herbster" <no-swen@no-swen.com> wrote in message
news:u3GLFIMrEHA.192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
|
| > > RAM is a little small but everything else looks ok. I
| > > recommend at least 512MB for XP to run at it's best.
|
| > This is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get
good
| > performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you
| > from using the page file, and that depends on what apps
| > you run. Most people running a typical range of business
| > applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB
| > works well, others need 512MB.
|
| My complaints are mainly with only the File Explorer
running
| -- plus all the other CIDAEMON, cisvc, svchost, background
| processes. Even with all of the MSCONFIG Startup tab
| and File Indexing stuff unchecked it is still slow with
256 MB.
|
| My own computationally intensive optimization and modeling
| programs, run fast regardless of what else is running.
|
| One of the problems with adding memory is that it is not
| only expensive but sometimes it cannot be added in
| arbitrary increments. A laptop may have only two memory
| slots and adding memory requires deciding the most
| economical way to add it without running the danger of
| having to replace what you just bought when the next SP
| of the OS is released.
|
| > Recommending "at least 512MB" without knowing what
| > apps are being run is poor advice.
|
| So is suggesting 10 things for the individual user to try,
| that do not result in a faster system.
|
| > I know many people running XP with 256MB who use the
| > page file very little, and get very good performance.
|
| Can't all these suggestions be canned into a program that
| can analyze and examine the analysis and model the
| performance improvements doing the various suggested
| changes and then put forth some reliable suggestions.
| I don't like this try this that and the other thing
approach.
|
| There I have said it and feel better already. <g>
|
| Rgds, JohnH
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 12:13:15 AM

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

How expensive memory is these days is relative. I follow Mark Minasi's
rule: If you power on and the lights don't dim, add more memory.

"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:uGQr3PMrEHA.1988@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Go www.pcpitstop.com and run their on-line tests. You will
> get a report that may help you configure your system. Also
> see www.blackviper.com for info on services that are not
> needed.
>
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
>
>
> "John Herbster" <no-swen@no-swen.com> wrote in message
> news:u3GLFIMrEHA.192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> |
> | > > RAM is a little small but everything else looks ok. I
> | > > recommend at least 512MB for XP to run at it's best.
> |
> | > This is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get
> good
> | > performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you
> | > from using the page file, and that depends on what apps
> | > you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> | > applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB
> | > works well, others need 512MB.
> |
> | My complaints are mainly with only the File Explorer
> running
> | -- plus all the other CIDAEMON, cisvc, svchost, background
> | processes. Even with all of the MSCONFIG Startup tab
> | and File Indexing stuff unchecked it is still slow with
> 256 MB.
> |
> | My own computationally intensive optimization and modeling
> | programs, run fast regardless of what else is running.
> |
> | One of the problems with adding memory is that it is not
> | only expensive but sometimes it cannot be added in
> | arbitrary increments. A laptop may have only two memory
> | slots and adding memory requires deciding the most
> | economical way to add it without running the danger of
> | having to replace what you just bought when the next SP
> | of the OS is released.
> |
> | > Recommending "at least 512MB" without knowing what
> | > apps are being run is poor advice.
> |
> | So is suggesting 10 things for the individual user to try,
> | that do not result in a faster system.
> |
> | > I know many people running XP with 256MB who use the
> | > page file very little, and get very good performance.
> |
> | Can't all these suggestions be canned into a program that
> | can analyze and examine the analysis and model the
> | performance improvements doing the various suggested
> | changes and then put forth some reliable suggestions.
> | I don't like this try this that and the other thing
> approach.
> |
> | There I have said it and feel better already. <g>
> |
> | Rgds, JohnH
>
>
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 10:52:07 AM

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

> How expensive memory is these days is relative.
> I follow Mark Minasi's rule: If you power on and
> the lights don't dim, add more memory.

When I was a kid, the lights would indeed dim when
the power switch on the Binac computer was thrown.
Memory then cost about $10 per bit and programmers
used it very carefully. Today, it is about 40 million
bits per dollar and programmers waste it. However,
today's memory won't dim the lights, unless spending
another $100 on it means that you cannot pay your
light bill. <g>
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 4:07:11 PM

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

128 MB or more than a billion bits is $20 (PC 2100)


"John Herbster" <no-swen@no-swen.com> wrote in message
news:o ynkl0SrEHA.2696@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
|
| > How expensive memory is these days is relative.
| > I follow Mark Minasi's rule: If you power on and
| > the lights don't dim, add more memory.
|
| When I was a kid, the lights would indeed dim when
| the power switch on the Binac computer was thrown.
| Memory then cost about $10 per bit and programmers
| used it very carefully. Today, it is about 40 million
| bits per dollar and programmers waste it. However,
| today's memory won't dim the lights, unless spending
| another $100 on it means that you cannot pay your
| light bill. <g>
!