Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?

Hi,
I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a DELL
desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80 GB hard drive.

Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing really
bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive and installed
it in and took the old one out. I found that this replacement of the new hard
drive really bumped up the speed. Firefox, for instance came up with a much
shorter delay. An interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive,
Firefox wasnt visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space.
Now with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15 MB.

However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard
drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I now see is
that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just as long to start
up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does not show until it gets
about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as slow as it used to be.

Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation between the
numebr of applications installed on a computer and the amout of RAM a process
needs to properly start up ?

Please note that switching from a 40GB hard drive to an 80GB hard drive
does not affect the performance of a computer in any way that you can
measure. If you noticed increased performance after adding the new hard
drive, it was caused by something else.

The speed of a computer depends on many things, including hardware and
software. Given your description, it appears that you have an older
computer. It is normal and expected for an older computer to run slower
as you add newer, more resource-intensive software.

To keep your computer running as fast as it can, here are some general tips:

1- Keep your computer free of malware.
2- Try to reduce the number of resource-intensive applictions running in
the background.
3- 512MB is a relatively small amount to have for today's software. You
will realize improved performance by increasing your installed RAM to
1MB or more.
4- Operate your computer only in ways that are supported. For example:
don't tinker with virtual memory or run registry cleaners.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Craze04 wrote:
Hi,
I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a DELL
desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80 GB hard drive.

Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing really
bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive and installed
it in and took the old one out. I found that this replacement of the new hard
drive really bumped up the speed. Firefox, for instance came up with a much
shorter delay. An interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive,
Firefox wasnt visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space.
Now with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15 MB.

However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard
drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I now see is
that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just as long to start
up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does not show until it gets
about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as slow as it used to be.

Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation between the
numebr of applications installed on a computer and the amout of RAM a process
needs to properly start up ?

Craze04 wrote:
Hi,
I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a
DELL desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80
GB hard drive.

Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing
really bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive
and installed it in and took the old one out. I found that this
replacement of the new hard drive really bumped up the speed.
Firefox, for instance came up with a much shorter delay. An
interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive, Firefox wasnt
visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space. Now
with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15
MB.

However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard
drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I
now see is that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just
as long to start up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does
not show until it gets about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as
slow as it used to be.

Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation
between the numebr of applications installed on a computer and the
amout of RAM a process needs to properly start up ?

It's not so much as the number of programs installed as it is the type of
program installed (unless you've loaded so much that you're running out of
disk space). All of the Norton/Symantec programs seem to be big resource
hogs. One of the reasons that Firefox is taking so long to come up now could
be its interaction with Norton. You might try installing another virus
program and disabling/uninstalling Norton and see if that makes any
difference.
Leonard has some good suggestions in his reply, too.
--
SC Tom

Craze04 wrote:
Hi,
I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a
DELL desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80
GB hard drive.

Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing
really bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive
and installed it in and took the old one out. I found that this
replacement of the new hard drive really bumped up the speed.
Firefox, for instance came up with a much shorter delay. An
interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive, Firefox wasnt
visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space. Now
with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15
MB.

However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard
drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I
now see is that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just
as long to start up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does
not show until it gets about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as
slow as it used to be.

Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation
between the numebr of applications installed on a computer and the
amout of RAM a process needs to properly start up ?

You answered your own question. :-)

Everything was fine until you installed Norton, which is well-known as a
serious resource hog. Furthermore, there must be some Norton setting
interacting with Firefox in a negative way.

Uninstall Norton, being sure to use their special removal utility:

http://service1.symantec.com/Support...05033108162039

Replace with Avira AntiVir, which is free. Also, it is light on
resources. For good measure, also use MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware (free
version). And the built-in Windows firewall is more than adequate.

Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It
may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive
is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write
speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were
less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery.
More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Craze04 wrote:
Hi,
I was having a lot of performance problems on my computer. I have a
DELL desktop with a 2GHz Intel Pentium, with 512MB of RAM and an 80
GB hard drive.

Previously I had a 40GB hard drive on which my computer was showing
really bad performance. When it went bust, I bought a new hard drive
and installed it in and took the old one out. I found that this
replacement of the new hard drive really bumped up the speed.
Firefox, for instance came up with a much shorter delay. An
interesting thing I noticed is with the old hard drive, Firefox wasnt
visible on the screen until it had got about 38MB of RAM space. Now
with the new hard drive I was seeing it come up with as little as 15
MB.

However from then on I installed several other programs on my new hard
drive. The Norton Antivirus, s/w from the web etc. etc. And what I
now see is that firefox is back to its old ways in that it takes just
as long to start up. Looking at the task manager I see it again does
not show until it gets about 38MB of RAM. The computer too is now as
slow as it used to be.

Is there anything that can be done here ? Is there a correlation
between the numebr of applications installed on a computer and the
amout of RAM a process needs to properly start up ?

I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton Haters
Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem.
Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy
footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer
problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any.

And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced 7-year
old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those rotton
vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can take it.

PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I made
with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend any
software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own decision, is
my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It
may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive
is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write
speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were
less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery.
More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem.
Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy
footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer
problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't
find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend
any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own
decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives
are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard drives are
commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling
- were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS
2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend
any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own
decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives
are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard drives are
commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

Daave

I may be a cynic but is that really free?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Daave wrote:
Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security
2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling
- were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS
2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend
any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own
decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard
drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard
drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in
this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

Daave

I may be a cynic but is that really free?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Daave wrote:
Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security
2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling
- were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS
2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend
any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own
decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard
drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard
drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in
this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.

The thought Leonard did not cross my mind.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Leonard Grey wrote:
Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.

The thought Leonard did not cross my mind.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Leonard Grey wrote:
Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.

Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling
- were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS
2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend
any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own
decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives
are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard drives are
commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.