In message , ultred ragnusen
writes:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 03:09:44 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Check RAM usage first.

I should have mentioned that I checked three things first, all of which
were consistent:
1. The CPU was at 100% whenever I browsed (more on that later)
2. The RAM is pretty much at 90% almost all the time (give or take)
3. The NETWORK isn't doing anything (but Windows update on the side)

My summary on the RAM is that it's certainly maxed out, but, it was maxed
out when the computer was born, and the browser couldn't have been
unusable.

I doubt that. It would have been pretty sluggish when new, if that was
the case, which seems unlikely.

The browser would just have been slow (but more on that below).

They have a bit perhaps, but the main thing that _has_ changed is the
average size of webpages - not so much images or text, but _vast_
amounts of code. IMO, anyway.

I agree and have more details, after looking at this for hours.

A. The worst browsers are the Chromium based browsers (by far!)
B. The number of tabs makes a huge difference (especially in Chrome!)

Well, I mostly use Firefox, and find the number of tabs there makes
quite a difference.

C. Yes. Some web pages, especially web forums, are CPU killers!

Turning off and/or blocking a lot of things helps there - certainly ad.s
(ABP or the other one), and probably a good hosts file.

To the extent that 1G of RAM isn't really
enough these days - even for XP, let alone 7. Do do the Task Manager
check.

The RAM is, as expected, "maxed out" at around 80% to 90% most of the time,
but my point is that all I want is to get the computer to browse like it
did when it was born - which is to say - to browse slowly - but not
impossibly.

(Is the HD light - assuming there is one - on a lot?) Remember it was
born as an XP machine, _and_ when web pages had far less script running.

FWIW, I run XP here, on a single core 1.3 GHz machine. It originally had
1G; I'd bought 2G (the most it can take), but didn't get round to
fitting it for some time, and noticed little difference when I did - but
in those days, was only using 7xx M according to task manager, so that's
not surprising. Now, with just Firefox 26 (granted, with about 30 tabs)
running, I'm usually around 1.4G used.

I think I made HUGE inroads to solving the problem by deleting all
Chromium-based browsers. Some opened nine (9) - yes - NINE processes, just
to open the "settings" page (Epic did that). But *all* the Chromium-based
browsers were memory hogs because they opened up separate processes.

(That's not necessarily the reason. A single process can use a lot of
CPU.)

So my conclusion is that, on an old no-name cheap WinXP-Win7 laptop with
little RAM, Chrome-baesed browsers are just out of the question.

I do run Chrome (the last one that will run on XP); I think it uses
about the same amount of RAM as Firefox does. (I haven't tweaked Chrome
as much as I have Firefox.)
[]
With Java & Avast & anything Google (e.g., Google Drive) removed, I can now
browse with Pale Moon in a way that does not redline the CPU all the time
such that any page doesn't take a minute or more to load.

Good. But I'd still get more RAM if you can - it'll cheer up the machine
no end. (Some years ago my brother had an XP laptop with 256M of RAM -
upping that made it like a new machine!)

At this point, it's barely usable - especially with only one tab open -
which I guess is how we did it in the olden days of WinXP.

Though as another has said, the possibility of blocked vents (or
in extremis a failed fan) _will_ slow down a CPU if it gets too hot; you
can easily check that by running something that monitors the assorted
built-in sensors. (I use SpeedFan - not using any of its fan-control
ability, just to monitor the sensors, but there are plenty of others.)

I saw Paul's suggestion where I didn't look at the fan speed but the fan is
definitely working as it's as loud as a freight train most of the time.

If it's noisy, that might well mean it's working hard to blow air
through narrowed channels somewhere.

I'll do something to clean vents (although they don't look blocked) and
I'll elevate the bottom so the ports are clear - and I'll load that
SpeedFan utility to check the fan speed and the CPU temperature.

Depending on what has been built into the mobo and whether SpeedFan has
drivers for the chips involved, it may find several temperatures it can
monitor: on this machine it finds "Core 0", which I presume is the
processor, "HD0", and two others, which I assume are other points on the
board. (Paul will probably suggest, especially if you tell us which
machine/board it is - Belarc Advisor is a good utility for finding out
that sort of thing.)

I guess if the CPU is throttled to half, then it would max out sooner at
that throttle point - is that what you're suggesting might be happening?

I think it would, though if it's getting close to the temperatures at
which it might throttle back, it's in danger of shutting down completely
to protect itself, which Windows tends not to like - and such
temperatures shorten the lives of other parts (I had a HD that stopped
suddenly). But this may not be happening - SpeedFan or similar should
tell you.

So I'd

o check the temperatures
o add more RAM

You might also consider going back to XP, though I did hear when 7 first
appeared that it _can_ be configured to be less demanding/more efficient
than XP. I don't know though. I have a 7 machine that is single core,
and has 3G RAM - seems to work OK, though not lightning fast (the
stickers imply it was originally Vista).

[I still have a W98 machine with 128M, which runs fine with Firefox 2,
but I only access one site with it, with up to about four tabs.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The fifth bestselling detail of all time: the Ford Transit. (RT/C4 2015-5-24.)