Is Windows XP becoming sluggish natural?

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

I've had Windows XP running smoothly and fast without any problems
for about a year and a half now, but it has become sluggish now and I
have tried everything to get it running faster again like before
without any success.
Now I remember Windows 98 becoming sluggish was natural and
having to do a fresh install was something you had to do every 6-12
months if you wanted a smooth system. I am someone who's system gets
heavy use. What I want to know is this the same with WinXP?
I've used Kaspersky's Anti-Virus, Ad-Aware, Spybot, Registry
Mechanic, Reg Cleaner and who knows what else to get the kinks out, it
just ain't happening. I was thinking maybe it's the hard drive slowing
down because of a lot of use (who knows maybe dying soon). What do you
think? Is it Windows XP needing a fresh install or is it a hard drive
wearing down? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
11 answers Last reply
More about windows sluggish natural
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Likely disk fragmentation is the cause of the performance loss.
    As the fragmentation level increases, it causes XP to write data
    further into the partition, which increases head travel time. Once
    fragmentation affects performance it will continue to degrade as
    more operations (Delete, Create) are done to the disk.
    Fragmentation is going to occur, regardless of format type, size
    of disk or any other parameter.
    Properly maintained, A fresh install is not required.

    "Nero" <ne@ro.net> wrote in message
    news:38i1e1p2ht43n2guthi5ld596k1r7bg33p@4ax.com...
    > I've had Windows XP running smoothly and fast without any problems
    > for about a year and a half now, but it has become sluggish now and I
    > have tried everything to get it running faster again like before
    > without any success.
    > Now I remember Windows 98 becoming sluggish was natural and
    > having to do a fresh install was something you had to do every 6-12
    > months if you wanted a smooth system. I am someone who's system gets
    > heavy use. What I want to know is this the same with WinXP?
    > I've used Kaspersky's Anti-Virus, Ad-Aware, Spybot, Registry
    > Mechanic, Reg Cleaner and who knows what else to get the kinks out, it
    > just ain't happening. I was thinking maybe it's the hard drive slowing
    > down because of a lot of use (who knows maybe dying soon). What do you
    > think? Is it Windows XP needing a fresh install or is it a hard drive
    > wearing down? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Try this article from PC Magazine. By the way it is an excellent magazine!
    Not only for computer nerds or novices.
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1819090,00.asp
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Unfortunately, yes it is, unless you don't install any programs - That
    pretty much defeats the purpose of the OS doesn't it?
    As the registry bloats up, performance decreases.

    "Nero" <ne@ro.net> wrote in message
    news:38i1e1p2ht43n2guthi5ld596k1r7bg33p@4ax.com...
    > I've had Windows XP running smoothly and fast without any problems
    > for about a year and a half now, but it has become sluggish now and I
    > have tried everything to get it running faster again like before
    > without any success.
    > Now I remember Windows 98 becoming sluggish was natural and
    > having to do a fresh install was something you had to do every 6-12
    > months if you wanted a smooth system. I am someone who's system gets
    > heavy use. What I want to know is this the same with WinXP?
    > I've used Kaspersky's Anti-Virus, Ad-Aware, Spybot, Registry
    > Mechanic, Reg Cleaner and who knows what else to get the kinks out, it
    > just ain't happening. I was thinking maybe it's the hard drive slowing
    > down because of a lot of use (who knows maybe dying soon). What do you
    > think? Is it Windows XP needing a fresh install or is it a hard drive
    > wearing down? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    SC wrote:

    > Unfortunately, yes it is, unless you don't install any programs - That
    > pretty much defeats the purpose of the OS doesn't it?
    > As the registry bloats up, performance decreases.
    >
    Maybe an issue in Win9x. Not an issue in WinNT.
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Nobody seems to really know for sure why
    XP slows down so much with time, even if
    you rarely add new programs or even just
    update your old ones. The slowest PC's I've
    seen recently have been 1st and 2nd
    generation XP PC's with 1.5-2.0 Ghz
    Celeron and P4 precessors, and they are
    much slower than even older PC's running
    Win98 and 2K.

    The old tricks for speeding up Win98, like
    defragging, don't seem to have that much
    of an effect. The only sure way to get the
    speed back is to back up all your data and
    then wipe out and reinstall Windows and all
    your apps. I've tried purging all the temp
    files, shrinking down the IE cache size,
    cleaning up the registry, defragging,
    shutting off unnecessary processes....

    While this gets some speed back, it's
    usually still nowhere near what it use to
    be when it was new.

    In your case, while it could be hardware,
    it's very likely not. One test would be to
    restart in Safe Mode (tap, tap, tap...the
    F8 key just prior to Windows starting) and
    then see how responsive your PC is. If it
    seems faster then, it's very likely a
    Windows issue. You might think that all you
    need to do is remove enough processes, but
    it's not so simple as that....

    There are many articles on the Internet
    about how to speed up XP like that PC Mag
    one -- PC gaming-oriented sites are have
    many such articles in particular, but....
    reformatting is really the only sure way.
    Reformatting and installing Win2K instead
    will get you even more speed.

    -BC
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "=?Utf-8?B?UHV0aW4=?=" <Putin@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    news:1C105A47-43DF-43A8-888C-2AC59CA1889F@microsoft.com:

    > Try this article from PC Magazine. By the way it is an excellent
    > magazine! Not only for computer nerds or novices.
    > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1819090,00.asp
    >
    >

    Uh ?......a quote from the article

    'The problem is that automatic IP addressing can be slow. When your
    computer boots, it has to query the network to see what IP addresses are
    already in use and then assign itself one.'
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "My wonderful W2K"?!!?

    So you had some odd problems with faxing and
    blame Win2K for this. Hoe-kay....

    -BC
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1122093617.310006.222890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Nobody seems to really know for sure why
    > XP slows down so much with time, even if
    > you rarely add new programs or even just
    > update your old ones. The slowest PC's I've
    > seen recently have been 1st and 2nd
    > generation XP PC's with 1.5-2.0 Ghz
    > Celeron and P4 precessors, and they are
    > much slower than even older PC's running
    > Win98 and 2K.
    >
    > The old tricks for speeding up Win98, like
    > defragging, don't seem to have that much
    > of an effect. The only sure way to get the
    > speed back is to back up all your data and
    > then wipe out and reinstall Windows and all
    > your apps. I've tried purging all the temp
    > files, shrinking down the IE cache size,
    > cleaning up the registry, defragging,
    > shutting off unnecessary processes....
    >
    > While this gets some speed back, it's
    > usually still nowhere near what it use to
    > be when it was new.
    >
    > In your case, while it could be hardware,
    > it's very likely not. One test would be to
    > restart in Safe Mode (tap, tap, tap...the
    > F8 key just prior to Windows starting) and
    > then see how responsive your PC is. If it
    > seems faster then, it's very likely a
    > Windows issue. You might think that all you
    > need to do is remove enough processes, but
    > it's not so simple as that....
    >
    > There are many articles on the Internet
    > about how to speed up XP like that PC Mag
    > one -- PC gaming-oriented sites are have
    > many such articles in particular, but....
    > reformatting is really the only sure way.
    > Reformatting and installing Win2K instead
    > will get you even more speed.
    >
    > -BC

    Horsepucky. My XP Pro is just as fast as it was when I installed it a year
    ago. W2K is an inferior product. Just to give you one example, I had one
    computer with Win 98 and anothr with W2K, both connecting to the Net via a
    router. W2K kept having problems logging on and I couldn't figure out why. I
    took W2K off and installed XP Pro and come to find out that I had named both
    the Win98 machine and the other with the same name. XP, upon the first boot
    knew that, gave me a message to that effect and, upon changing the name on
    the other computer, booted up like silk. Why didn't your wonderful W2K pick
    that up? Another difference is the Fax. If you have twenty pages coming and
    their is a transmission error on page 19, W2K dumps the entire fax and you
    see nothing. XP keeps the 19 pages you've received so you can see them, know
    who sent the fax, and call them about the missing page.

    --
    Alias

    Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
    Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <Xns969BF07FAB129idispcom@216.196.97.142>,
    t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a..n.e.t says...
    > "=?Utf-8?B?UHV0aW4=?=" <Putin@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    > news:1C105A47-43DF-43A8-888C-2AC59CA1889F@microsoft.com:
    >
    > > Try this article from PC Magazine. By the way it is an excellent
    > > magazine! Not only for computer nerds or novices.
    > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1819090,00.asp
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Uh ?......a quote from the article
    >
    > 'The problem is that automatic IP addressing can be slow. When your
    > computer boots, it has to query the network to see what IP addresses are
    > already in use and then assign itself one.'

    That's funny, it's already known that DHCP requires a fetching of an
    address on startup, but once it has the IP it's no different than having
    a fixed IP and it should not take more than 10 seconds to get an IP.


    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In article <#NSSY92jFHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
    maskedandanonymous.org says...
    > Horsepucky. My XP Pro is just as fast as it was when I installed it a year
    > ago. W2K is an inferior product.

    Now that's funny - Windows 2000 Prof was and still is a very stable
    product. XP Prof is also a very stable product and I like it better than
    2000, but 2000 was never an Inferior product and still isn't.

    > Just to give you one example, I had one
    > computer with Win 98 and anothr with W2K, both connecting to the Net via a
    > router. W2K kept having problems logging on and I couldn't figure out why. I
    > took W2K off and installed XP Pro and come to find out that I had named both
    > the Win98 machine and the other with the same name. XP, upon the first boot
    > knew that, gave me a message to that effect and, upon changing the name on
    > the other computer, booted up like silk. Why didn't your wonderful W2K pick
    > that up?

    I suspect that it did, as it has every time we've run into this same
    situation, but I suspect that you must have ignored it and it let you.

    > Another difference is the Fax. If you have twenty pages coming and
    > their is a transmission error on page 19, W2K dumps the entire fax and you
    > see nothing. XP keeps the 19 pages you've received so you can see them, know
    > who sent the fax, and call them about the missing page.

    Faxing has nothing to do with 2000, faxing is an application that is
    provided with the OS and is not part of the OS. Anyone using the basic
    2000 or XP fax service just don't really care enough about their faxes
    to buy quality fax software.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Yes it is. I speak empirically, not theoretically like thou.


    "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:OXMgbGsjFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >
    >
    > SC wrote:
    >
    >> Unfortunately, yes it is, unless you don't install any programs - That
    >> pretty much defeats the purpose of the OS doesn't it?
    >> As the registry bloats up, performance decreases.
    >>
    > Maybe an issue in Win9x. Not an issue in WinNT.
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Windows XP