OT maybe - Kaspersky slows system

I've set Kaspersky's scans and updates to manual control, but it still does
them when it pleases - in an earlier version this worked. It is especially
annoying when I start the system and it does an update while I'm trying to
get my software started and check email. Then later more updates when I'm
trying to do something else.

I only have 512MB RAM - more might help? - (afraid to plug in new RAM
modules) - maybe make either scans or updates run faster? I switched from
dial-up to DSL but it didn't help this situation.

Maybe replace Kaspersky when it runs out? But I hate Norton stuff and have
not heard good things about McAfee. I suspect they're all system hogs.

TIA

--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.

| Maybe replace Kaspersky when it runs out? But I hate Norton stuff and have
| not heard good things about McAfee. I suspect they're all system hogs.
|

Indeed they are. And not of much value. I install
Avast for friends. But if they're going to scan and
they're going to update regularly then they're going
to drag on the system. One thing you might do is
to adjust the settings so that only new files are
scanned and not every file you touch.

On 28 Feb 2015 18:10:31 GMT, KenK wrote:

I've set Kaspersky's scans and updates to manual control, but it still does
them when it pleases - in an earlier version this worked. It is especially
annoying when I start the system and it does an update while I'm trying to
get my software started and check email. Then later more updates when I'm
trying to do something else.

I only have 512MB RAM - more might help?


Maybe, maybe not. What version of Windows? And what applications do
you run.


- (afraid to plug in new RAM modules)


Why?


- maybe make either scans or updates run faster?


Maybe, maybe not. Again, it depends on the version of Windows and what
application you run.



I switched from dial-up to DSL but it didn't help this situation.


That has to do with the speed of things you do on the internet, not
with the speed of Kaspersky.



Maybe replace Kaspersky when it runs out?


You'll get different opinions from different people, but no, I don't
recommend that.


But I hate Norton stuff


Me too.


and have
not heard good things about McAfee.


Right, another bad choice.


I suspect they're all system hogs.



McAfee and Norton, yes. Kaspersky, no.

In message , KenK
writes:
[]
I only have 512MB RAM - more might help? - (afraid to plug in new RAM

Since you posted this in the XP newsgroup, I assume you're using XP. IMO
1G is more than enough RAM most of the time to run XP (though some
things - such as Firefox if left running with lots of tabs for several
hours - can eat up a lot of that). In theory, it will run in 256M, but
IMO hardly at all; 512M is I'd say marginal (especially if SP3, I
think).

In task manager's performance tab, is the graph exceeding 512M (or even
getting close to it)?

modules) - maybe make either scans or updates run faster? I switched from

Why are you afraid?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everything will be all right in the end. And if everything isn't all right,
then it isn't the end. - The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

KenK wrote:
I've set Kaspersky's scans and updates to manual control, but it still does
them when it pleases - in an earlier version this worked. It is especially
annoying when I start the system and it does an update while I'm trying to
get my software started and check email. Then later more updates when I'm
trying to do something else.

I only have 512MB RAM - more might help? - (afraid to plug in new RAM
modules) - maybe make either scans or updates run faster? I switched from
dial-up to DSL but it didn't help this situation.

Maybe replace Kaspersky when it runs out? But I hate Norton stuff and have
not heard good things about McAfee. I suspect they're all system hogs.

TIA


Running with no AV installed, will save on resources.

On some older computers, that's about the most positive
advice we can offer. Blame it on software bloat, and
not the poor machine.

*******

For advice on upgrading, if you give an overview of your
hardware (CPU model, RAM installed, video card,
motherboard model or Dell computer model etc),
I can give you a rundown on what helps.

RAM generally isn't all that wonderful, unless you're short
of the stuff. Using Task Manager (control-alt-delete),
look at Commit Charge Peak.

For example, I have

8GB installed (used when dual booting, for 64 bit OS)

WinXP x32 "recognizes" no more than 4GB

With address space for system busses accounted for,
the Task Manager reports Physical Memory Total
at 3144748K or 3071MB or 2.999GB. So I lost a gig
right there, due to address space for Nvidia 512MB
video card plus some more address space for PCI bus.

My Commit Charge Peak is 2225432K (i.e. 3144748)
That means my computer didn't need to use the pagefile
all that much. My Commit Charge Total is 672968K and
that's because I've closed my more wasteful applications.
Commit Charge Total is the current amount being used,
while the Peak detector keeps track of your "most
wasteful moment". Comparing the Peak to the Total,
tells you whether you need to buy more.

So in that analysis, since booting the machine it has
never needed more than 2225432K out of 3144748K, and
so I don't need to buy any extra RAM :-) You need to
run the machine for several days without rebooting,
to get a good idea of the Peak.

Some older machines, just aren't worth upgrading,
because of various architectural limitations. Like
the pitiful designs that connected the Northbridge
to the Southbridge, using the same PCI bus used
for all your add-in cards. Now those suck. It required
careful adjustment (PCI burst size), to avoid stuttering
audio. I had a machine here, there was precisely one
setting that worked, and adjusting to either side
made the machine more miserable. So that hardware
was barely adequate even in the Win98 days.

That's the nice thing about Win8 - it's so picky
about the hardware it runs on, you can hardly
run it on a "bad" machine :-) Whereas the older
OSes are very forgiving, and allow the usage of
the old architectural mistakes. Machines you
couldn't speed up, even if you set fire to them :-)

Paul

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
:

On 28 Feb 2015 18:10:31 GMT, KenK wrote:

I've set Kaspersky's scans and updates to manual control, but it
still does them when it pleases - in an earlier version this worked.
It is especially annoying when I start the system and it does an
update while I'm trying to get my software started and check email.
Then later more updates when I'm trying to do something else.

I only have 512MB RAM - more might help?


Maybe, maybe not. What version of Windows?

XP Home

And what applications do
you run.

Firefox, Xnews, Eudora mostly. No video, social stuff, etc.



- (afraid to plug in new RAM modules)


Why?

Coward. Goof up a reliable running system.



- maybe make either scans or updates run faster?


Maybe, maybe not. Again, it depends on the version of Windows and what
application you run.



I switched from dial-up to DSL but it didn't help this situation.


That has to do with the speed of things you do on the internet, not
with the speed of Kaspersky.



Maybe replace Kaspersky when it runs out?


You'll get different opinions from different people, but no, I don't
recommend that.


But I hate Norton stuff


Me too.


and have
not heard good things about McAfee.


Right, another bad choice.


I suspect they're all system hogs.



McAfee and Norton, yes. Kaspersky, no.




--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

In message , KenK
writes:
[]
I only have 512MB RAM - more might help? - (afraid to plug in new RAM

Since you posted this in the XP newsgroup, I assume you're using XP.
IMO
1G is more than enough RAM most of the time to run XP (though some
things - such as Firefox if left running with lots of tabs for several
hours - can eat up a lot of that). In theory, it will run in 256M, but
IMO hardly at all; 512M is I'd say marginal (especially if SP3, I
think).

In task manager's performance tab, is the graph exceeding 512M (or even
getting close to it)?

modules) - maybe make either scans or updates run faster? I switched
from

Why are you afraid?
[]

I'm clumsy. Could goof up a working system.


--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.

On 2 Mar 2015 16:55:26 GMT, KenK wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
:


Please be careful with your attributions. I didn't write the message
you're replying to. I wrote the message the person you replied to
replied to.



On 28 Feb 2015 18:10:31 GMT, KenK wrote:

I've set Kaspersky's scans and updates to manual control, but it
still does them when it pleases - in an earlier version this worked.
It is especially annoying when I start the system and it does an
update while I'm trying to get my software started and check email.
Then later more updates when I'm trying to do something else.

I only have 512MB RAM - more might help?


Maybe, maybe not. What version of Windows?

XP Home

And what applications do
you run.

Firefox, Xnews, Eudora mostly. No video, social stuff, etc.



- (afraid to plug in new RAM modules)


Why?

Coward. Goof up a reliable running system.



- maybe make either scans or updates run faster?


Maybe, maybe not. Again, it depends on the version of Windows and what
application you run.



I switched from dial-up to DSL but it didn't help this situation.


That has to do with the speed of things you do on the internet, not
with the speed of Kaspersky.



Maybe replace Kaspersky when it runs out?


You'll get different opinions from different people, but no, I don't
recommend that.


But I hate Norton stuff


Me too.


and have
not heard good things about McAfee.


Right, another bad choice.


I suspect they're all system hogs.



McAfee and Norton, yes. Kaspersky, no.




--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.

On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:25:10 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On 2 Mar 2015 16:55:26 GMT, KenK wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
:


Please be careful with your attributions. I didn't write the message
you're replying to. I wrote the message the person you replied to
replied to.


%$^$%^^&!! Ignore that entirely. I read the message wrong and I
screwed up. I did write the message you replied to. Replies below.



On 28 Feb 2015 18:10:31 GMT, KenK wrote:

I've set Kaspersky's scans and updates to manual control, but it
still does them when it pleases - in an earlier version this worked.
It is especially annoying when I start the system and it does an
update while I'm trying to get my software started and check email.
Then later more updates when I'm trying to do something else.

I only have 512MB RAM - more might help?


Maybe, maybe not. What version of Windows?

XP Home

And what applications do
you run.

Firefox, Xnews, Eudora mostly. No video, social stuff, etc.


In that case, with XP and those applications, 512MB is probably
sufficient, and adding more will do little if anything for you.

You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from
using the page file significantly, and that depends on what apps you
run. Most people running a typical range of business applications
under XP find that somewhere around 512MB works well, others need
more.

Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than 256MB. Some
people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
than 512MB--sometimes much more.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
nothing for you. Go to
http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should
give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
much more.