O.T. Computer Cleaning Maintenance:

If there's something running on the 8200
I'm not doing it.

I deleted Seagate Dashboard on the 8200.
Should I also delete Sea Tools for Windows
on both computers?

Robert

Mark Twain wrote:
If there's something running on the 8200
I'm not doing it.

I deleted Seagate Dashboard on the 8200.
Should I also delete Sea Tools for Windows
on both computers?

Robert


I identified Dashboard, because it was consuming
resources all the time in Task Manager.

Seatools, on the other hand, is demand start only.
You have to use it, for it to use memory or CPU.
So you can leave that one. I have a Seatools here,
that's still installed.

I can't tell from here, whether the "feel" of the 8200
is just the nature of the processor, or it's something
which is amiss on the machine. Modern web browsers
are pretty big, and maybe there's no avoiding their
CPU-heavy behavior.

*******

For example, with my old P4 CPU, it used a lot of
the CPU to play back a movie. And if I switched video
cards, to a video card with a hardware scaler, that
sometimes made a difference to the amount of CPU used.
(If you tried to play a movie in full-screen mode,
without the hardware scaler, the CPU had to do the job
of scaling the image, and that would make the movie stutter.)

For the 8200, the options might be:

850 chipset, FSB400 only, use P4 2.8GHz @ FSB400
850e chipset, FSB533, use P4 3.06GHZ, A09 BIOS, enable HyperThreading

And after you've done all that, it's still going
to feel like a P4 based machine. Modern software
"laughs" at improvements like this, and eats them
for lunch. That's why you have an 8500. It's miles
ahead of the 8200.

Paul

Agreed, but I can only give you my 'impressions'
from previous use and present use. Using an analogy
the speed of the 8200 at present is akin to the speed
when using Tinypic.

Now, I have to wait 'forever' for most things to process
and is achingly slow. It never did this before and it
shouldn't be slower than before should it?

There is a serious lag and I'm getting pop-up script
messages allot now whereas before I had none.

I don't expect it to be in the same league as the 8500
but I also didn't have these issues.


Robert

Mark Twain wrote:
Agreed, but I can only give you my 'impressions'
from previous use and present use. Using an analogy
the speed of the 8200 at present is akin to the speed
when using Tinypic.

Now, I have to wait 'forever' for most things to process
and is achingly slow. It never did this before and it
shouldn't be slower than before should it?

There is a serious lag and I'm getting pop-up script
messages allot now whereas before I had none.

I don't expect it to be in the same league as the 8500
but I also didn't have these issues.


Robert

And the Task Manager doesn't show what is
slowing it down ?

*******

Do you have a copy of CPUZ ?

http://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z..._1.72.1-en.zip

http://download.cpuid.com/cpu-z/cpu-z_1.72.1-en.zip

Unzip the file and extract the four files inside.
You want at least

cpu_x32.exe
cpuz.ini

Double-click the cpu_x32.exe program. On the main tab
under "Clocks" it has

Core Speed 2000 MHz --- my core speed at idle
Multiplier x 6.0 (6 - 9) --- allowed range, current value
Bus Speed 333 MHz --- 1/4 of FSB
Rated FSB 1333 MHz

When the CPU is busy, the multiplier is set at x9.
When the CPU is idle, it drops to x6

The reason for doing such a check as CPUZ, is to
see if the normal Intel SpeedStep (EIST) range
is being used.

The other thing that can happen, is if the CPU gets
hot, the CPU can "throttle", which means it tries
to do less work to keep cool. This can happen if the
heatsink were to come loose from the CPU. If the CPU
gets hot enough, then THERMTRIP turns off the computer.

*******

You could plug the 160GB drive back in and
see if the slow response continues.

And after that, the inevitable AV scans could
be done. With a rootkit present, it could
aways steal cycles, and modify the Task Manager
display so you cannot see anything. But if you
had a rootkit, it's just as likely that Task Manager
would not run when you pressed control-alt-delete.

*******

There really should be some visual evidence in
the Task Manager. Something is stealing the cycles.

You could also check with Process Explorer and see
if there is a high rate of Interrupt listed in the
main display.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...rnals/bb896653

Paul

Here's the script pop-up CPUZ and Task Mmanger:

http://i59.tinypic.com/14cy1si.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/28indc2.jpg

http://i57.tinypic.com/2nk3vyo.jpg

This took nearly 10 minutes to post and Tiny Pic
locked up on me so I had to close it and open
it again. I had numereous script pop-ups on the
Google page.

Robert

Here's Process Explorer

http://i60.tinypic.com/2rxitm1.jpg

Robert

I saw that their was a FF update 39-0-03 I believe
for the 8200 which I did thinking it may be the
problem but it still did the same thing.


Robert

Mark Twain wrote:
Here's Process Explorer

http://i60.tinypic.com/2rxitm1.jpg

Robert

In the previous set of pictures, Explorer was using
2% CPU. But in this one, it's quiet. And you have
no Interrupt percentage at all. So it's not an
interrupt storm caused by defective hardware.

And CPUZ said you're running at 100*18 = 1.8GHz, which
looks normal.

Now, the puzzle is how Firefox says a script is
not responding, yet Firefox is using 0% CPU. I've had
scripts not respond, and one core of the CPU is railed.

*******

This page from Mozilla, discusses some of the root causes.
If it was the Ask Toolbar, you could probably detect
that with an Adwcleaner scan. Check your software list,
to see if there is anything that is on that page.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Unresponsive_Script_Warning

Paul

Yes, but the fact remains that it didn't do
this before.

The only difference now than before is the
video card, the PCI card with (4) 2.0 USB
ports and of course the 320GB HD. Other than
that I haven't done a thing to cause this
and I have followed all your instructions.

Robert

Next time it happens should I try this:

Click the Stop Script button on the warning dialog, then depending on your version, go to Tools (Web Development) Error Console. The most recent errors in the Error Console will identify the script that was running. But note, in some cases the add-on/extension causing the problem is not the one identified in the messages.

Robert

I tried the procedure but it doesn't have
web development or error console.

[IMG]http://i5

Robert8.tinypic.com/fkutrb.jpg[/IMG]

I tried the procedure but it doesn't have
web development or error console.

http://i58.tinypic.com/fkutrb.jpg


Robert

Mark Twain wrote:
I tried the procedure but it doesn't have
web development or error console.

[IMG]http://i5

Robert8.tinypic.com/fkutrb.jpg[/IMG]

I wish I had a Google Groups account to test with.

I suspect if I went to the site myself, I wouldn't
get the same files you are getting.

*******

There is a new toy in Firefox. See

Tools : Web Developer : Performance

Click the Start Trace button, load your web page
again, click Stop Trace button in the performance
interface. There are output tabs to select the
format of the output.

Basically, Firefox has a profiler built in,
and a profiler measures where time is spent.

Selecting the same item

Tools : Web Developer : Performance

a second time, toggles it off.

While I feel this is highly unlikely to shed any
light on the problem, you won't find out until
you try it. Firefox went to a lot of trouble
to add profiling hooks (every routine needs to
record the fact that it's been called or has
run), and it would be fun to see if there is
any clue in there about the non-responsive script.

I didn't see a strong javascript component to the
trace collected.

*******

In the address bar, you can type "about:config"
and use the Configuration editor.

dom.max_script_run_time

That one, if you type it into the filter bar,
probably currently shows "10 seconds" as the
timeout period for a script. Now, I don't see
a point in extending that. If a script cannot
respond in ten seconds, would it respond in
twenty seconds ? I could understand if the
timeout was set very low, there would be a lot
of bogus warnings issued. So I would hold off
on changing that for now. You can certainly have
a look though.

Paul

Mark Twain wrote:
I tried the procedure but it doesn't have
web development or error console.

http://i58.tinypic.com/fkutrb.jpg


Robert


But it has a performance tab.

You click the button in the performance pane
at the bottom of the web browser window, to collect
execution information. Click it again to stop
collecting information. The idea is to see
what is taking time within the web page.

It's not much, but it's all I've got at the moment.

I tried loading Firebug add-on, into my Firefox
browser, but that didn't give me any information
I could use.

Paul

I followed your instructions:

http://i57.tinypic.com/23lfsw6.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/2hd65g2.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/13z69up.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/qwzzaf.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/i6l0e0.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/jslr45.jpg


I've been getting so many script pop-ups that
this time I decided to debug it:

http://i61.tinypic.com/210dco3.jpg

This took me 30 minutes to post this.

Robert