A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hardware Requirements for Internet PC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 1st 12, 11:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

In message , Yes
writes:
[]
Perhaps test out how it feels if FF blocks automatic image downloads.
AFAIK, you have to have IE 8 installed for SP3, but you don't have to


Nope - this came with SP3 as new, and has IE 6 (hardly ever used, not
because it's full of security holes - which I know it is - but because I
just prefer to have a browser that's more independent of the OS).

[FWIW, FF - 12.0 - runs fine on here (1.3 GHz single core, 2G) without
images turned off; it still eats more memory than I think it should
(currently 154K), but other than that, it's OK.]
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All's well that ends.
Ads
  #62  
Old May 2nd 12, 02:47 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

BillW50 wrote:
In ,
glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
snip
You know I have over a dozen XP machines here with almost all of them
have been updated to SP3 years ago. But if I had to do it all over
again, I don't think I would.

As most already know, making any changes to an OS carries a risk of
causing stability problems. And since the day Vista was released,
Microsoft has not shown any evidence that they care about any
stability problems that any security patch causes with XP. As when
SP3 broke compacting with OE6, Microsoft just didn't care and never
bothered to fix it. That is only one example, but you get the idea.


SP3 didn't break compacting in OE. There is a Registry counter that
gives you a prompt to compact after 100 closings of OE. There were a
few programs that interacted with the counter after SP3 was installed,
causing the counter to increase more quickly than just with OE
closings. I've not seen the issue on any systems I have worked on
since SP3 was released, others have. Apparently some Nero plug-ins
could increase the count but I never saw it and I have been using
Nero for years, the Mailwasher program interfered, and supposedly
installing Windows Live Mail also affected the counter. The counter
can be manually reset through a registry edit, and Tom Koch made a
tool that manually compacted on demand and also reset the counter at
the same time. None of these are necessary, if you don't use
Mailwasher or install WLM.


Oh boy! Yes SP3 did break compacting with OE6. As the newsgroups lit up
about this problem when SP3 was first released. And Bruce Hagen often
talked about it. I didn't see it at first, but I did finally run into it
(actually years after having SP3 installed). What I had seen happen is
it actually compacts just fine at first and the very last thing it tries
to update is folders.dbx. But it can't and an error message states it is
in use by another application. Here read this:

http://www.outlookforums.com/threads...compact-files/

I don't actually follow Bruce's advice though. As all of the years I've
used OE, I almost never compact and I personally haven't ran into a
single problem not doing so. But I don't doubt for a second that others
can and do have problems. Oh yeah, my fix is to tell OE to go offline
and close OE down. Then reopen it and OE won't be doing anything but
just sit there. Now compact and don't do anything else with OE until it
is done. And that always worked for me so far.

And yes I know all about the counter and how it works and all. And I
might be wrong here, but I thought the counter thing was put in there by
SP2 and not SP3.


I think it was SP3, too - not SP2. As I recall, up until SP3, OE would run
compaction in the background, (which was problematic for some people). I
personally liked it, however (for doing that), as I'd never do anything else
when I heard it running the compaction (about 15 seconds after opening OE
each time), so I never lost anything.

As for the OE bug, I've noticed it, too - what happens is after that counter
reaches 100, OE prompts you to compact, and if I do so right then and there,
I have issues like that error message you mentioned.

IF, however, instead I close OE, and then run the compaction, no problems,
and it compacts just fine. So what I do to avoid the problem is either
compact manually on occasion as I see fit, or wait until OE flags it as
being time, and then simply close OE and *then* run the compaction, which
always works fine.

As far as security updates protecting you from infections, I too
believed this was true too. But over the years I started to have
doubts about this since I wasn't seeing any real evidence. I've been
running Windows since '93 and I never had an infection on any of my
computers yet. And on some of my computers I have stopped security
updates for years now and still I never had an infection. There must
be a reason for this?


Famous last words: I don't install security updates and I never had an
infection. But others have, even with updates installed, because so
many infections are due to social engineering. If you are smarter
than the average bear and practice Safe Hex, you are unlikely to get
an infection. Most users need the security updates. By not
installing them, you leave yourself open to getting pwned due to a
security hole, and you and your AV will never know.


I understand all of this. And I base my opinion on testing on about 6
computers for over 5 years. And if not updating someday becomes fool
hardy, no problem. I have tons of backups to fix that problem really
quickly. But others should be doing this too if they want to stop
updating anyway.

And my beef about updates is that I am not troubled by malware, but
updates breaking something I am constantly fighting over. I have over 20
computers here and it doesn't take long before an update to screw up at
least one of them. So maybe you now know where I am coming from.


My beef about updates is similar to yours: I don't want to have to deal
with the fallout which occasionally occurs with these (or any, for that
matter) "updates".

But I'm also very attentive and watchful about this computer and its
environment, and I'm the only user.

That said, I sometimes find it advantageous to occasionally update a select
few programs, from time to time. But I've learned to keep the older
editions just in case, and there have been several such cases. :-)


  #63  
Old May 2nd 12, 04:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
snip
You know I have over a dozen XP machines here with almost all of
them
have been updated to SP3 years ago. But if I had to do it all over
again, I don't think I would.

As most already know, making any changes to an OS carries a risk of
causing stability problems. And since the day Vista was released,
Microsoft has not shown any evidence that they care about any
stability problems that any security patch causes with XP. As when
SP3 broke compacting with OE6, Microsoft just didn't care and never
bothered to fix it. That is only one example, but you get the idea.


SP3 didn't break compacting in OE. There is a Registry counter that
gives you a prompt to compact after 100 closings of OE. There were a
few programs that interacted with the counter after SP3 was
installed,
causing the counter to increase more quickly than just with OE
closings. I've not seen the issue on any systems I have worked on
since SP3 was released, others have. Apparently some Nero plug-ins
could increase the count but I never saw it and I have been using
Nero for years, the Mailwasher program interfered, and supposedly
installing Windows Live Mail also affected the counter. The counter
can be manually reset through a registry edit, and Tom Koch made a
tool that manually compacted on demand and also reset the counter at
the same time. None of these are necessary, if you don't use
Mailwasher or install WLM.


Oh boy! Yes SP3 did break compacting with OE6. As the newsgroups lit
up about this problem when SP3 was first released. And Bruce Hagen
often talked about it. I didn't see it at first, but I did finally run
into it (actually years after having SP3 installed). What I had seen
happen is it actually compacts just fine at first and the very last
thing it tries to update is folders.dbx. But it can't and an error
message states it is in use by another application. Here read this:

http://www.outlookforums.com/threads...compact-files/

I don't actually follow Bruce's advice though. As all of the years
I've used OE, I almost never compact and I personally haven't ran into
a single problem not doing so. But I don't doubt for a second that
others can and do have problems. Oh yeah, my fix is to tell OE to go
offline and close OE down. Then reopen it and OE won't be doing
anything but just sit there. Now compact and don't do anything else
with OE until it is done. And that always worked for me so far.

And yes I know all about the counter and how it works and all. And I
might be wrong here, but I thought the counter thing was put in there
by SP2 and not SP3.

As far as security updates protecting you from infections, I too
believed this was true too. But over the years I started to have
doubts about this since I wasn't seeing any real evidence. I've been
running Windows since '93 and I never had an infection on any of my
computers yet. And on some of my computers I have stopped security
updates for years now and still I never had an infection. There must
be a reason for this?


Famous last words: I don't install security updates and I never had
an
infection. But others have, even with updates installed, because so
many infections are due to social engineering. If you are smarter
than the average bear and practice Safe Hex, you are unlikely to get
an infection. Most users need the security updates. By not
installing them, you leave yourself open to getting pwned due to a
security hole, and you and your AV will never know.


I understand all of this. And I base my opinion on testing on about 6
computers for over 5 years. And if not updating someday becomes fool
hardy, no problem. I have tons of backups to fix that problem really
quickly. But others should be doing this too if they want to stop
updating anyway.

And my beef about updates is that I am not troubled by malware, but
updates breaking something I am constantly fighting over. I have over
20 computers here and it doesn't take long before an update to screw
up at least one of them. So maybe you now know where I am coming from.



Regarding OE compacting, we are talking about the same "issue"...
compacting was not "broken" however. Background compacting was the
problem, but compacting when closing OE or manually compacting while
offline worked fine.

I've never had a critical security update mess up a computer, unless the
computer was infected with a root kit or trojan. I'm not talking about
half a dozen computers, I'm talking about the neighborhood of 50 to 75.
I never updated while running other programs, and always disable the AV
during update installation. Most of my clients did not follow that
procedure though, and they still never had update problems. When people
tell these tales of critical updates killing their system, it has always
been due to other issues in every case I have seen. I'm curious....
when was the last time you checked you system for root kits and trojans
with Windows NOT loaded.... booting from a Linux-based AV rescue CD?
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #64  
Old May 4th 12, 11:02 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
snip
You know I have over a dozen XP machines here with almost all of
them
have been updated to SP3 years ago. But if I had to do it all over
again, I don't think I would.

As most already know, making any changes to an OS carries a risk of
causing stability problems. And since the day Vista was released,
Microsoft has not shown any evidence that they care about any
stability problems that any security patch causes with XP. As when
SP3 broke compacting with OE6, Microsoft just didn't care and never
bothered to fix it. That is only one example, but you get the idea.

SP3 didn't break compacting in OE. There is a Registry counter
that gives you a prompt to compact after 100 closings of OE. There
were a few programs that interacted with the counter after SP3 was
installed,
causing the counter to increase more quickly than just with OE
closings. I've not seen the issue on any systems I have worked on
since SP3 was released, others have. Apparently some Nero plug-ins
could increase the count but I never saw it and I have been using
Nero for years, the Mailwasher program interfered, and supposedly
installing Windows Live Mail also affected the counter. The counter
can be manually reset through a registry edit, and Tom Koch made a
tool that manually compacted on demand and also reset the counter at
the same time. None of these are necessary, if you don't use
Mailwasher or install WLM.


Oh boy! Yes SP3 did break compacting with OE6. As the newsgroups lit
up about this problem when SP3 was first released. And Bruce Hagen
often talked about it. I didn't see it at first, but I did finally
run into it (actually years after having SP3 installed). What I had
seen happen is it actually compacts just fine at first and the very
last thing it tries to update is folders.dbx. But it can't and an
error message states it is in use by another application. Here read
this:
http://www.outlookforums.com/threads...compact-files/

I don't actually follow Bruce's advice though. As all of the years
I've used OE, I almost never compact and I personally haven't ran
into a single problem not doing so. But I don't doubt for a second
that others can and do have problems. Oh yeah, my fix is to tell OE
to go offline and close OE down. Then reopen it and OE won't be doing
anything but just sit there. Now compact and don't do anything else
with OE until it is done. And that always worked for me so far.

And yes I know all about the counter and how it works and all. And I
might be wrong here, but I thought the counter thing was put in there
by SP2 and not SP3.

As far as security updates protecting you from infections, I too
believed this was true too. But over the years I started to have
doubts about this since I wasn't seeing any real evidence. I've
been running Windows since '93 and I never had an infection on any
of my computers yet. And on some of my computers I have stopped
security updates for years now and still I never had an infection.
There must be a reason for this?

Famous last words: I don't install security updates and I never had
an
infection. But others have, even with updates installed, because so
many infections are due to social engineering. If you are smarter
than the average bear and practice Safe Hex, you are unlikely to get
an infection. Most users need the security updates. By not
installing them, you leave yourself open to getting pwned due to a
security hole, and you and your AV will never know.


I understand all of this. And I base my opinion on testing on about 6
computers for over 5 years. And if not updating someday becomes fool
hardy, no problem. I have tons of backups to fix that problem really
quickly. But others should be doing this too if they want to stop
updating anyway.

And my beef about updates is that I am not troubled by malware, but
updates breaking something I am constantly fighting over. I have over
20 computers here and it doesn't take long before an update to screw
up at least one of them. So maybe you now know where I am coming
from.


Regarding OE compacting, we are talking about the same "issue"...
compacting was not "broken" however. Background compacting was the
problem, but compacting when closing OE or manually compacting while
offline worked fine.

I've never had a critical security update mess up a computer, unless
the computer was infected with a root kit or trojan. I'm not talking
about half a dozen computers, I'm talking about the neighborhood of
50 to 75. I never updated while running other programs, and always
disable the AV during update installation. Most of my clients did
not follow that procedure though, and they still never had update
problems. When people tell these tales of critical updates killing
their system, it has always been due to other issues in every case I
have seen. I'm curious.... when was the last time you checked you
system for root kits and trojans with Windows NOT loaded.... booting
from a Linux-based AV rescue CD?


I routinely repair other people infected systems all of the time, Glen.
I pull the drives out and scan them with a known clean system. And it
doesn't matter if you believe me or not. As all you have to do is to
scan Microsoft's KB list to know that updates can and does mess up an
OS.

List of fixes that are included in Windows XP Service Pack 3
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480

Just look how many of these from the SP2 update had screwed up many
systems. There are dozens of new problems that were caused by SP2
directly. Sure SP3 fixed some of them, but SP3 also caused some of their
own new problems. Although there is not going to be a SP4 to fix all of
the new problems from SP3, now is there?

Don't let XP Service Pack 3 hose your system
http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/...e-your-system/

Windows XP SP3 Issues and Fixes Continued
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/0...o-not-install/

Doing updates for decades, this is a very common theme. Even if you
change one line of code to a flawless system, the odds start dropping
that it will remain that way the more lines of code you change. That is
why more people have trouble with a SP than with a single small update.
It is just the law of averages. Although anybody who has lots of
experience knows all of this stuff anyway.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2


  #65  
Old May 4th 12, 11:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

In ,
Bill in Co typed:
BillW50 wrote:
In ,
glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
snip
You know I have over a dozen XP machines here with almost all of
them have been updated to SP3 years ago. But if I had to do it all
over again, I don't think I would.

As most already know, making any changes to an OS carries a risk of
causing stability problems. And since the day Vista was released,
Microsoft has not shown any evidence that they care about any
stability problems that any security patch causes with XP. As when
SP3 broke compacting with OE6, Microsoft just didn't care and never
bothered to fix it. That is only one example, but you get the idea.

SP3 didn't break compacting in OE. There is a Registry counter
that gives you a prompt to compact after 100 closings of OE. There
were a few programs that interacted with the counter after SP3 was
installed, causing the counter to increase more quickly than just
with OE closings. I've not seen the issue on any systems I have
worked on since SP3 was released, others have. Apparently some
Nero plug-ins could increase the count but I never saw it and I
have been using Nero for years, the Mailwasher program interfered,
and supposedly installing Windows Live Mail also affected the
counter. The counter can be manually reset through a registry
edit, and Tom Koch made a tool that manually compacted on demand
and also reset the counter at the same time. None of these are
necessary, if you don't use Mailwasher or install WLM.


Oh boy! Yes SP3 did break compacting with OE6. As the newsgroups lit
up about this problem when SP3 was first released. And Bruce Hagen
often talked about it. I didn't see it at first, but I did finally
run into it (actually years after having SP3 installed). What I had
seen happen is it actually compacts just fine at first and the very
last thing it tries to update is folders.dbx. But it can't and an
error message states it is in use by another application. Here read
this:
http://www.outlookforums.com/threads...compact-files/

I don't actually follow Bruce's advice though. As all of the years
I've used OE, I almost never compact and I personally haven't ran
into a single problem not doing so. But I don't doubt for a second
that others can and do have problems. Oh yeah, my fix is to tell OE
to go offline and close OE down. Then reopen it and OE won't be
doing anything but just sit there. Now compact and don't do anything
else with OE until it is done. And that always worked for me so far.

And yes I know all about the counter and how it works and all. And I
might be wrong here, but I thought the counter thing was put in
there by SP2 and not SP3.


I think it was SP3, too - not SP2. As I recall, up until SP3, OE
would run compaction in the background, (which was problematic for
some people). I personally liked it, however (for doing that), as
I'd never do anything else when I heard it running the compaction
(about 15 seconds after opening OE each time), so I never lost
anything.
As for the OE bug, I've noticed it, too - what happens is after that
counter reaches 100, OE prompts you to compact, and if I do so right
then and there, I have issues like that error message you mentioned.

IF, however, instead I close OE, and then run the compaction, no
problems, and it compacts just fine. So what I do to avoid the
problem is either compact manually on occasion as I see fit, or wait
until OE flags it as being time, and then simply close OE and *then*
run the compaction, which always works fine.


I have dozens of unformatted spare drives here and I used one to restore
from the factory recovery disc. So with this drive anyway, I can play
around for a while to see how it behaves with SP2 without any later
updates. Too soon to tell you anything as of yet.

As far as security updates protecting you from infections, I too
believed this was true too. But over the years I started to have
doubts about this since I wasn't seeing any real evidence. I've
been running Windows since '93 and I never had an infection on any
of my computers yet. And on some of my computers I have stopped
security updates for years now and still I never had an infection.
There must be a reason for this?

Famous last words: I don't install security updates and I never had
an infection. But others have, even with updates installed,
because so many infections are due to social engineering. If you
are smarter than the average bear and practice Safe Hex, you are
unlikely to get an infection. Most users need the security
updates. By not installing them, you leave yourself open to
getting pwned due to a security hole, and you and your AV will
never know.


I understand all of this. And I base my opinion on testing on about 6
computers for over 5 years. And if not updating someday becomes fool
hardy, no problem. I have tons of backups to fix that problem really
quickly. But others should be doing this too if they want to stop
updating anyway.

And my beef about updates is that I am not troubled by malware, but
updates breaking something I am constantly fighting over. I have
over 20 computers here and it doesn't take long before an update to
screw up at least one of them. So maybe you now know where I am
coming from.


My beef about updates is similar to yours: I don't want to have to
deal with the fallout which occasionally occurs with these (or any,
for that matter) "updates".

But I'm also very attentive and watchful about this computer and its
environment, and I'm the only user.

That said, I sometimes find it advantageous to occasionally update a
select few programs, from time to time. But I've learned to keep the
older editions just in case, and there have been several such cases.
:-)


Newer versions generally get more and bloated which can be a source of
problems itself. Although sometimes newer versions take away some
features that used to be there in older versions. Lots of examples, but
the one about Windows Live Mail 2011 not having the ability of quoting
is probably one of the most recent one that is the current talk.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2


  #66  
Old May 4th 12, 11:24 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC


In ,
Stefan Patric typed:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:50:45 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In , Stefan Patric typed:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:12:41 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

[Big snip]

I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video
playback. As

[snip]

My Asus EeePC 701/2 netbooks are underclocked to 633MHz. And they
too can keep up with arbitrary video playback without missing a
beat under Windows XP, even on an external monitor running
1440x900. Oddly enough, Linux on the same machine can't even come
close.

Which Linux distro? The one originally installed? Xandros, I
think it was. Awful.

I've got a EeePC 900 (900mHz Celeron, 1GB RAM, 4GB+16GB SSDs) on
which I installed Eeebuntu 3.x (an optimize version of Ubuntu for
the EeePC) wiping out the original Xandros, and it now plays any
video, etc. without problems. What a difference overall compared
to Xandros.

Stef


Xandros, Ubuntu 8.10 netbook edition, Ubuntu 9.10 netbook edition,
and Puppy Linux. And I really liked Xandros, especially in easy mode
which boots in 20 seconds. Although the wireless to connect had
taken an extra minute. You could only use Firefox 2.0 tops with
Xandros without updating the kernel, and that makes Xandros unusable
to me as is. As Firefox 2.0 displays webpages worse than IE6 does.


Xandros was just too old, too, on my 900. And there were no newer
versions. That's one of the reasons why I replaced it with Eeebuntu
3.0. Unfortunately, Eeebuntu was based on Ubuntu 9.04, which went
End of Life last year, and along with that the repositories were
removed. And as Eeebuntu used them, not having its own . . . Well,
that makes it all the harder to keep it usable. (If only for
security reasons, I should upgrade Chrome and Firefox and Flash as
they are all at least two years old.)

I suppose in the future I'll be forced to install another OS on the
old EeePC. (Or retire it to my junk closet.) Don't know what it will
be. Eeebuntu was the only version of Linux I found--at the time--that
was specifically configured from the ground up for the EeePC, so
everything worked out-of-the-box. And it did. No glitches at all.
No fixes required. No tweaks needed. I was delightfully surprised.

Stef


I got three EeePCs right in the drawer right next to me. Currently one
has Windows 2000, another XP SP2, and the Other Ubuntu 9.1. Although I
did have XP SP3, Xandros, Puppy Linux, and Windows 7 at one time too.
Don't attempt Windows 7, as that was so painfully slow.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2


  #67  
Old May 5th 12, 07:31 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Searcher7
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

I posted a couple of days ago, but for some reason Google Groups
deleted it.


In Task Manager, while on the Processes tab, click the View menu Select
Columns, put a check in the boxes for Virtual Memory Size and GDI
Objects, and click OK. You may find rather high Virtual Memory usage
for some apps (like Firefox) as well as for GDI Objects.... this will
tell you more about what is slowing it down that just looking at Mem
Usage.


But I wouldn't know what I'm looking at anyway.


...and what were the results of the Hitachi Drive Fitness Test (DFT) on
both internal drives, that I mentioned earlier?http://www.hitachigst.com/support/downloads/#DFT


I have a lot of drives and change whenever I re-install, but the lags
persists so I doubt it's a hard drive problem. Besides, I don't have a
set-up that allows me to create "self-booting media". (I disconnected
my "A" drive which was giving me problems).


Which version of FF? Keep in mind FF has always been a memory glutton
and in old versions people kept referring to an unidentified memory
leak that the user would have to shut down FF to reset memory, IIRC.


At the moment Firefox version 12. (BTW. I just swapped in a different
DVD drive and that corrected a lot of jerky playback issues I had with
some disks).


There are several options, the simplest using task manager. Under the
processes tab, task manager allows you to view a number of variables.
At the bottom is a clickbox that allows you to terminate a process -
Not really a good idea unless you know what the process does. You can
use the process name in google to discover more about what the process
does. I've found it useful to also pay attention to how many
processes are running - task manager tells you. Over time, you'll get
a feel for that. On my pc, it's usually around 32 whereas on my laptop
it's around 40. Those number are specific to my eqpt and will probably
differ from yours.

Alternatively, take a look at Microsoft's Sysinternals page. It has a
number of very good programs to help analyze and manage your O/S. I
don't have the URL handy.


I've learned that after an OS install staying as far away from
Microsoft and anything it wants to add has not just cause me less
problems, but has allowed me to avoid all searching, downloads and
learning curves. It's a lot easier to track down and correct problems
with your car than a Microsoft OS. That's why I reinstall regularly.
It's a lot faster and easier.

Maintenance and security related "fixes" are a pain. (But it's big
business).


Your choice, but from the info you've given, it seems like upping your
memory to 1Gb might give it new legs. You'd have to balance that
against the cost of the replacement and upgrade of your eqpt. It is
always nice to have newer eqpt, but I'm still not sure the case has
been made that your computer cannot handle the net anymore.

I'd start with some basic things. One, upgrade to SP3. Two, check
your pagefile size settings. Three, doublecheck your FF settings
(because your post suggests that that is your default browser).
Perhaps test out how it feels if FF blocks automatic image downloads.
AFAIK, you have to have IE 8 installed for SP3, but you don't have to
use it. Use something such as Microsoft Sysinternals to look at what
starts up when you boot up your pc. Note that Sysinternals may require
a bit of learning curve; the various programs give a lot of info. I'm
by no means knowledgeable about everything it does, so I just focus on
the start up section. Four, use something like CCleaner to delete
trash off your hard drives and to scan for registry issues. Five,
doublecheck that your trash bin is empty. I for one keep forgetting
that moving something to trash bin does not delete the file; that has
to be done separately.

Those are free things that require spending time, not money. If you're
still not satisfied, then choose if you want to spend your money either
to buy more ram as a last ditch effort or to buy eqpt to replace/update
your pc.


I've learned that there are rarely step-by-step instructions toward
resolving these problems that work anyway, because everyone doesn't
have the same system. My next step is a different system with a lot
more ram.(Something I didn't need a decade ago). I really can't go
through the hassle of searching for and installing and figuring out
maintenance related apps that I shouldn't need anyway. If this is what
you do or is your business that's one thing, but I just want to be
able to turn on and use my pc without all the crap.(To whatever extent
that is possible).

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
  #68  
Old May 5th 12, 08:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

"Searcher7" wrote in message
...

I posted a couple of days ago, but for some reason Google Groups
deleted it.


You appear to be replying to comments I made and also someone else's
comments from the thread, so I'll concentrate on replying to your
responses to my comments.


In Task Manager, while on the Processes tab, click the View menu
Select
Columns, put a check in the boxes for Virtual Memory Size and GDI
Objects, and click OK. You may find rather high Virtual Memory usage
for some apps (like Firefox) as well as for GDI Objects.... this will
tell you more about what is slowing it down that just looking at Mem
Usage.


But I wouldn't know what I'm looking at anyway.


That's why you are asking questions in the newsgroup, no? Enable those
columns, and when you have issues, post back with what processes show
highest usage in those columns, as well as CPU and Memory, and what the
numbers are, and someone here who *does* know what you are looking at
can help you.


...and what were the results of the Hitachi Drive Fitness Test (DFT)
on
both internal drives, that I mentioned
earlier?http://www.hitachigst.com/support/downloads/#DFT


I have a lot of drives and change whenever I re-install, but the lags
persists so I doubt it's a hard drive problem. Besides, I don't have a
set-up that allows me to create "self-booting media". (I disconnected
my "A" drive which was giving me problems).


You don't have an optical drive (CD, DVD)? Bootable media doesn't have
to be a floppy, most common now is bootable CD. The DFT page I linked
gives links to an ISO file to make a bootable CD, and links to
instructions.
You change hard drives whenever you reinstall, and from you comments
below, you reinstall regularly? Are you aware that both PATA and SATA
connectors on the drives and motherboard have a limit on how many times
they can be connected and disconnected without degrading?



I've learned that after an OS install staying as far away from
Microsoft and anything it wants to add has not just cause me less
problems, but has allowed me to avoid all searching, downloads and
learning curves. It's a lot easier to track down and correct problems
with your car than a Microsoft OS. That's why I reinstall regularly.
It's a lot faster and easier.

Maintenance and security related "fixes" are a pain. (But it's big
business).


No offense because I don't mean it that way, but that's all a good sign
of a user who doesn't really know what he's doing.... but if you are
trying to avoid all those "learning curves", you're not going to learn a
lot! ;-) Also, there's a difference between critical security
updates, and Microsoft's other "recommended" updates.... which I would
NOT recommend on any of the MS operating systems. In addition, on XP
and earlier, MS updates to device drivers should be avoided like a
plague.


I've learned that there are rarely step-by-step instructions toward
resolving these problems that work anyway, because everyone doesn't
have the same system. My next step is a different system with a lot
more ram.(Something I didn't need a decade ago). I really can't go
through the hassle of searching for and installing and figuring out
maintenance related apps that I shouldn't need anyway. If this is what
you do or is your business that's one thing, but I just want to be
able to turn on and use my pc without all the crap.(To whatever extent
that is possible).


Actually, step-by-step instructions work for many issues on most
systems, if they are complete and followed exactly. It really depends
on the issues involved though. I hear you about having to use
maintenance apps and learning about them, instead of just using your
machine to do what you want. In part, that's why MS has dumbed down the
system so much in Vista and Seven... so users can concentrate on doing
their work (and play) on their computer, rather than have to spend time
on maintenance and repair. The down side of the dumbing down is that
'power users" and tweakers, and more advanced users who want more
control have to jump through more hoops instead, to do what used to be
much easier in XP or 98.

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #69  
Old May 5th 12, 09:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

In ,
glee typed:
"Searcher7" wrote in message
...

I've learned that after an OS install staying as far away from
Microsoft and anything it wants to add has not just cause me less
problems, but has allowed me to avoid all searching, downloads and
learning curves. It's a lot easier to track down and correct problems
with your car than a Microsoft OS. That's why I reinstall regularly.
It's a lot faster and easier.

Maintenance and security related "fixes" are a pain. (But it's big
business).


No offense because I don't mean it that way, but that's all a good
sign of a user who doesn't really know what he's doing.... but if you
are trying to avoid all those "learning curves", you're not going to
learn a lot! ;-) Also, there's a difference between critical
security updates, and Microsoft's other "recommended" updates....
which I would NOT recommend on any of the MS operating systems. In
addition, on XP and earlier, MS updates to device drivers should be
avoided like a plague.


No offense Glen, but take it up a notch. If you know what you are doing,
security updates are obsolete. First I haven't found anything that can
make it through a security hole in the OS to make it past a real time AV
scanner yet. As real time scanners have two layers. One it monitors
everything coming in any port. Although I don't think this one layer is
perfect, as I somehow still believe one could get through this layer
anyway.

But the other layer of real time scanner is that first anything that
wants to execute, must also pass through this extra layer. Now nothing
has a chance. As if it can't pass this test, it can't install, run, or
anything else. It is good as dead.

One might argue what about zero day malware? Yup, that is the hole in
real time scanners. I think I saw one of them once in 30 years here. It
came as an email attachment and it passed the scan. And I thought sure,
I'll wait a day and during the next AV update we will see what happens.
Sure the next update it too was flagged.

I suppose some really need zero day protection. I never saw I needed it
except that once in my life and I was smart enough to not execute it
anyway. But there is protection here too. It is called sandboxing. Now
you can infect a system as many ways as you possibly can and nothing can
happen. As all malware is safely stuck in a tiny box and can't do
anything outside of that box, including your system.

There is one way for malware to foil a sandbox. And the only way for it
to do so is to find a security hole through the sandbox itself. Although
this has nothing to do with Windows security updates, but the sandbox
security updates instead.

So there are far better ways to protect yourself against malware than
relying on security patches. And I believe Microsoft also knows that
security patches are a joke for protection too. As why would they wait
up to 7 years to patch a security hole for? It doesn't make any sense if
they too thought they were important. As they surely don't act like they
are at all.

I believe they keep this charade up because they know if they didn't
pretend to care, people like you would never let it down. So they keep
it up and as long as they throw a few bones your way, thus people like
you stay happy.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2


  #70  
Old May 13th 12, 06:36 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Searcher7
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

On May 5, 3:03*pm, "glee" wrote:
"Searcher7" wrote in message

...

I posted a couple of days ago, but for some reason Google Groups
deleted it.


You appear to be replying to comments I made and also someone else's
comments from the thread, so I'll concentrate on replying to your
responses to my comments.

In Task Manager, while on the Processes tab, click the View menu
Select
Columns, put a check in the boxes for Virtual Memory Size and GDI
Objects, and click OK. *You may find rather high Virtual Memory usage
for some apps (like Firefox) as well as for GDI Objects.... this will
tell you more about what is slowing it down that just looking at Mem
Usage.


But I wouldn't know what I'm looking at anyway.


That's why you are asking questions in the newsgroup, no? *Enable those
columns, and when you have issues, post back with what processes show
highest usage in those columns, as well as CPU and Memory, and what the
numbers are, and someone here who *does* know what you are looking at
can help you.


Ok, you didn't say that before. So basically, I have to wait until I
have "issues" and then do the above. You still haven't mentioned what
specific issues I should wait for. Should I do this when everything
except my cursor freezes? Or when things become slower than usual?

...and what were the results of the Hitachi Drive Fitness Test (DFT)
on
both internal drives, that I mentioned
earlier?http://www.hitachigst.com/support/downloads/#DFT


I have a lot of drives and change whenever I re-install, but the lags
persists so I doubt it's a hard drive problem. Besides, I don't have a
set-up that allows me to create "self-booting media". (I disconnected
my "A" drive which was giving me problems).


You don't have an optical drive (CD, DVD)? *Bootable media doesn't have
to be a floppy, most common now is bootable CD. *The DFT page I linked
gives links to an ISO file to make a bootable CD, and links to
instructions.


I have an optical drive. But I would need one that writes. (But again,
I seriously doubt that *all* my drives are bad the same way).

You change hard drives whenever you reinstall, and from you comments
below, you reinstall regularly? *Are you aware that both PATA and SATA
connectors on the drives and motherboard have a limit on how many times
they can be connected and disconnected without degrading?


I don't know if the pins are plated or not, but are you saying that
degraded pins on *all* my drives are a possible cause of the exact
same symptoms? I really don't see a problem, even it I swap a single
drive 20 times, which I've not yet done.


I've learned that after an OS install staying as far away from
Microsoft and anything it wants to add has not just cause me less
problems, but has allowed me to avoid all searching, downloads and
learning curves. It's a lot easier to track down and correct problems
with your car than a Microsoft OS. That's why I reinstall regularly.
It's a lot faster and easier.


Maintenance and security related "fixes" are a pain. (But it's big
business).


No offense because I don't mean it that way, but that's all a good sign
of a user who doesn't really know what he's doing.... but if you are
trying to avoid all those "learning curves", you're not going to learn a
lot! *;-)


The point is that I shouldn't have to. ;-)

I know more than most about PCs and I'm regularly putting something
together, but when there is so much research and forum posts involved
when something isn't working the way it is *supposed* to (thanks to
software issues) it really kills the experience. (I rarely have
*hardware* problems).

Also, there's a difference between critical security
updates, and Microsoft's other "recommended" updates.... which I would
NOT recommend on any of the MS operating systems. *In addition, on XP
and earlier, MS updates to device drivers should be avoided like a
plague.

I've learned that there are rarely step-by-step instructions toward
resolving these problems that work anyway, because everyone doesn't
have the same system. My next step is a different system with a lot
more ram.(Something I didn't need a decade ago). I really can't go
through the hassle of searching for and installing and figuring out
maintenance related apps that I shouldn't need anyway. If this is what
you do or is your business that's one thing, but I just want to be
able to turn on and use my pc without all the crap.(To whatever extent
that is possible).


Actually, step-by-step instructions work for many issues on most
systems, if they are complete and followed exactly. *It really depends
on the issues involved though. *I hear you about having to use
maintenance apps and learning about them, instead of just using your
machine to do what you want. *In part, that's why MS has dumbed down the
system so much in Vista and Seven... so users can concentrate on doing
their work (and play) on their computer, rather than have to spend time
on maintenance and repair. *The down side of the dumbing down is that
'power users" and tweakers, and more advanced users who want more
control have to jump through more hoops instead, to do what used to be
much easier in XP or 98.


Majority rules. ;-)

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
  #71  
Old May 15th 12, 01:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

Searcher7 wrote:


I don't know if the pins are plated or not, but are you saying that
degraded pins on *all* my drives are a possible cause of the exact
same symptoms? I really don't see a problem, even it I swap a single
drive 20 times, which I've not yet done.


SATA connectors (internal to PC) are rated for 50 insertions.

ESATA connectors (external to PC) are rated for 5000 insertions.

The ESATA connector uses metal for the framework of the connector,
which I presume is helping things. It might not be just the surfaces
which have an issue, but wear of the plastic portion which is a friction
fit.

Paul
  #72  
Old May 15th 12, 09:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

In message
,
Searcher7 writes:
On May 5, 3:03*pm, "glee" wrote:

[]
That's why you are asking questions in the newsgroup, no? *Enable those
columns, and when you have issues, post back with what processes show
highest usage in those columns, as well as CPU and Memory, and what the
numbers are, and someone here who *does* know what you are looking at
can help you.


Ok, you didn't say that before. So basically, I have to wait until I
have "issues" and then do the above. You still haven't mentioned what
specific issues I should wait for. Should I do this when everything
except my cursor freezes? Or when things become slower than usual?


Well, if everything has frozen, then you probably won't be able to open
Task Manager anyway, so when-things-are-slow is your best chance.
_Whenever_ things are slower than usual, look at what processes are
using more than, say, 20% CPU or, say, more RAM than, say, 50% of your
real RAM (others might have different views on this figure), and if you
don't know what they are, tell us here and we'll have a go (-:.
[]
You don't have an optical drive (CD, DVD)? *Bootable media doesn't have
to be a floppy, most common now is bootable CD. *The DFT page I linked
gives links to an ISO file to make a bootable CD, and links to
instructions.


I have an optical drive. But I would need one that writes. (But again,
I seriously doubt that *all* my drives are bad the same way).


You would to _make_ a bootable disc, though you could _use_ one made
elsewhere in a read-only drive - I think most BIOSes will boot from one
regardless.

You change hard drives whenever you reinstall, and from you comments
below, you reinstall regularly? *Are you aware that both PATA and SATA
connectors on the drives and motherboard have a limit on how many times
they can be connected and disconnected without degrading?


I don't know if the pins are plated or not, but are you saying that
degraded pins on *all* my drives are a possible cause of the exact


(Seems unlikely.)
[]
Maintenance and security related "fixes" are a pain. (But it's big
business).


No offense because I don't mean it that way, but that's all a good sign
of a user who doesn't really know what he's doing.... but if you are
trying to avoid all those "learning curves", you're not going to learn a
lot! *;-)


The point is that I shouldn't have to. ;-)


I agree (-:!
[]
and earlier, MS updates to device drivers should be avoided like a
plague.


Not just MS ones; if I let Samsung install the driver they want to to
the graphics circuitry on this netbook (NC20), I know it would lead to
freezes. (I got this information from the sammynetbook website, where
enough other users had the same problem - and cured it by going back to
an earlier driver - that it wasn't just a rumour; when I did the same,
my freezes stopped, and I more or less haven't had any for a couple of
years.)
[]
on the issues involved though. *I hear you about having to use
maintenance apps and learning about them, instead of just using your
machine to do what you want. *In part, that's why MS has dumbed down the
system so much in Vista and Seven... so users can concentrate on doing
their work (and play) on their computer, rather than have to spend time
on maintenance and repair. *The down side of the dumbing down is that
'power users" and tweakers, and more advanced users who want more
control have to jump through more hoops instead, to do what used to be
much easier in XP or 98.


Majority rules. ;-)

[]
Indeed )-:.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Quantity is no substitute for quality, but it's the only one we've got.
  #73  
Old May 17th 12, 12:03 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

In ,
Paul typed:
SATA connectors (internal to PC) are rated for 50 insertions.


Oh boy... I passed 50 many years ago with mine. I swap hard drives on my
laptops all of the time. I just cloned this laptop drive today and I am
running off of the clone to make sure everything works ok. The original
is in the drawer and now is saved as a backup copy.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2


  #74  
Old May 17th 12, 01:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default Hardware Requirements for Internet PC

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
Paul typed:
SATA connectors (internal to PC) are rated for 50 insertions.


Oh boy... I passed 50 many years ago with mine. I swap hard drives on
my laptops all of the time. I just cloned this laptop drive today and
I am running off of the clone to make sure everything works ok. The
original is in the drawer and now is saved as a backup copy.


It's an estimate and doesn't mean it will necessarily fail.... but it's
kind of living on borrowed time (aren't we all, anyway?) USB ports have
an insertion rating too, IIRC.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.