Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion

Did browsers alwasys run so slowly in the past, and if not, then what did
they do to make browsers so slow - but more useful - what browser will run
on this machine which I was given as a freebie as a spare laptop.

Originally WindowsXP according to the sticker on the faceplate.
Currently Windows7 Ultimate SP1 (I updated it a few days ago to current)
AMD Turion 64, 1.61GHZ
1GB RAM, paging is automatic (currently at 1601MB)
37.1GB HDD (6.46GB free)

I first noticed Chrome was hogging 100$ of the CPU with multiple processes,
as was Internet Explorer. I googled for the best browsers for older
machines, and will try Epic, Firefox, Midori, Palemoon, and Iron.

The question is only one of how did we put up with such horrid speeds (60
seconds per page or worse) in the past?

Probably we didn't - it's probably that browsers got fat - but that leaves
the question then of an un-fat browser that works on an older Win7 machine
with only 1GB of RAM.

Any suggestions on browsers (other than buy a new machine)?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:40:29 -0800, ultred ragnusen wrote:

Did browsers alwasys run so slowly in the past, and if not, then what did
they do to make browsers so slow - but more useful - what browser will run
on this machine which I was given as a freebie as a spare laptop.

Originally WindowsXP according to the sticker on the faceplate.
Currently Windows7 Ultimate SP1 (I updated it a few days ago to current)
AMD Turion 64, 1.61GHZ
1GB RAM, paging is automatic (currently at 1601MB)
37.1GB HDD (6.46GB free)

I first noticed Chrome was hogging 100$ of the CPU with multiple processes,
as was Internet Explorer. I googled for the best browsers for older
machines, and will try Epic, Firefox, Midori, Palemoon, and Iron.

The question is only one of how did we put up with such horrid speeds (60
seconds per page or worse) in the past?

Probably we didn't - it's probably that browsers got fat - but that leaves
the question then of an un-fat browser that works on an older Win7 machine
with only 1GB of RAM.

Any suggestions on browsers (other than buy a new machine)?

Pale Moon isn't bad - far less RAM than FF 60
http://www.palemoon.org/
https://forum.palemoon.org/
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

ultred ragnusen wrote:
Did browsers alwasys run so slowly in the past, and if not, then what did
they do to make browsers so slow - but more useful - what browser will run
on this machine which I was given as a freebie as a spare laptop.

Originally WindowsXP according to the sticker on the faceplate.
Currently Windows7 Ultimate SP1 (I updated it a few days ago to current)
AMD Turion 64, 1.61GHZ
1GB RAM, paging is automatic (currently at 1601MB)
37.1GB HDD (6.46GB free)

I first noticed Chrome was hogging 100$ of the CPU with multiple processes,
as was Internet Explorer. I googled for the best browsers for older
machines, and will try Epic, Firefox, Midori, Palemoon, and Iron.

The question is only one of how did we put up with such horrid speeds (60
seconds per page or worse) in the past?

Probably we didn't - it's probably that browsers got fat - but that leaves
the question then of an un-fat browser that works on an older Win7 machine
with only 1GB of RAM.

Any suggestions on browsers (other than buy a new machine)?

OK, you're on Windows 7, so you want:

1) Proper driver for video card
2) Disable Aero and compositing.
3) Have a look at chrome://flags

https://superuser.com/questions/6975...omes-cpu-usage

Experiment with the flags, and see if any of them help.

If the CPU only has one core, you cannot expect miracles.
The video card would need to be a "really good one".

The browsers didn't exactly get fat. The developers got stupid.
They expect real-time compositing (60Hz) to be done in hardware.
This simply isn't going to happen on anything except "brand new" gear.
SmartPhones are actually better outfitted for this idea, than
the average desktop.

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
ultred ragnusen wrote:
Did browsers alwasys run so slowly in the past, and if not, then what did
they do to make browsers so slow - but more useful - what browser will run
on this machine which I was given as a freebie as a spare laptop.
Originally WindowsXP according to the sticker on the faceplate.
Currently Windows7 Ultimate SP1 (I updated it a few days ago to current)
AMD Turion 64, 1.61GHZ
1GB RAM, paging is automatic (currently at 1601MB)
37.1GB HDD (6.46GB free)

Probably single core - and 1G RAM is pushing it, if you want to use a
browser, even for XP these days.
[]
The question is only one of how did we put up with such horrid
speeds (60
seconds per page or worse) in the past? Probably we didn't - it's
probably that browsers got fat - but that leaves

And the web pages. On the average web page these days, the text you see
is only a tiny proportion of the code downloaded.

the question then of an un-fat browser that works on an older Win7 machine
with only 1GB of RAM.
Any suggestions on browsers (other than buy a new machine)?
[]
The browsers didn't exactly get fat. The developers got stupid.

Though they _have_ grown rather, too.
[]
I use an old Firefox (26) myself, but that won't run a lot of pages; I
use the last version of Chrome that works with XP for those. Pale Moon
that someone suggested is a fork of Firefox, and I believe has remained
a bit slimmer, so might be worth your while. But I suspect your 1G of
RAM is certainly not helping, and upping to 2 shouldn't be that
expensive, unless you end up paying a rarity premium (if the machine can
take it, I'd go for 4). The usual check with Task Manager to see if
you're using more RAM than is physically there is probably worth doing
first (On XP, right-click on empty part of Task Bar, select Task
Manager, select Performance tab, compare PF Usage bar with the figure
for Physical Memory; I think it's similar on 7). Best started _before_
you get to the point where you're waiting 60 seconds for a page.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Just as many people feel Christmas hasn't begun until they've heard the carols
at King's, or that the election campaign hasn't begun until some politician
lambasts the BBC ... - Eddie Mair, Radio Times 2013/11/16-22

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:54:10 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

Older software won't make much difference on that machine.

That doesn't seem to make sense.
Did the machines ALWAYS run that slow?

It's unusable.
Are you saying all machine of that era were unusable?

That can't be.
Something must have changed.

What changed?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:34:17 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Probably single core - and 1G RAM is pushing it, if you want to use a
browser, even for XP these days.

I don't remember all machines being that slow in the past.
This isn't usable with any browser tested yet.
It MUST be the browser as what else could it be.

RAM doesn't get old.
The hard drive doesn't get slower.
The CPU doesn't slow down (unless it's Apple).

There's nothing that should have changed.
The speed today should be the same as when the computer was born.

Since it's not usable. SOMETHING must be different today than before.
The only thing different is that this used to be an XP (from the sticker).
Or, browsers MUST have gotten inefficient.

If it's the browser - all I need is a browsser that is efficient.
I will try pale moon when I get home.

Thanks!

ultred ragnusen wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:34:17 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Probably single core - and 1G RAM is pushing it, if you want to use a
browser, even for XP these days.

I don't remember all machines being that slow in the past.
This isn't usable with any browser tested yet.
It MUST be the browser as what else could it be.

RAM doesn't get old.
The hard drive doesn't get slower.
The CPU doesn't slow down (unless it's Apple).

There's nothing that should have changed.
The speed today should be the same as when the computer was born.

Since it's not usable. SOMETHING must be different today than before.
The only thing different is that this used to be an XP (from the sticker).
Or, browsers MUST have gotten inefficient.

If it's the browser - all I need is a browsser that is efficient.
I will try pale moon when I get home.

Thanks!

You should look at Task Manager when you get home.

And see what is hogging the CPU.

If you don't know any other way, control-alt-delete will
put up a menu for you. And Task Manager should be an option.
I usually just right-click the task bar and get my
Task Manager from there.

A CPU will throttle if it gets hot enough, and this
will reduce the effectiveness of the CPU. On laptops,
all it takes is a blockage in the vent to do it. The loud
fan noise should be a dead giveaway. However, a dead fan
would also cause throttling, and it would be "super-quiet".

*******

In Windows 7, the WinSAT subsystem can benchmark your system
and identify the slow bits. Now, you already know what those
are, and if you use that subsystem, you're looking for "surprise"
announcements. Of things that just aren't right.

https://www.itworld.com/article/2716...arks-tool.html

"Run WinSat without the GUI"

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/...thout-the-gui/

Paul

In message , ultred ragnusen
writes:
[]
It MUST be the browser as what else could it be.

RAM doesn't get old.
The hard drive doesn't get slower.
The CPU doesn't slow down (unless it's Apple).

There's nothing that should have changed.
The speed today should be the same as when the computer was born.

Since it's not usable. SOMETHING must be different today than before.
The only thing different is that this used to be an XP (from the sticker).
Or, browsers MUST have gotten inefficient.

They have a bit perhaps, but the main thing that _has_ changed is the
average size of webpages - not so much images or text, but _vast_
amounts of code. IMO, anyway. To the extent that 1G of RAM isn't really
enough these days - even for XP, let alone 7. Do do the Task Manager
check. Though as another has said, the possibility of blocked vents (or
in extremis a failed fan) _will_ slow down a CPU if it gets too hot; you
can easily check that by running something that monitors the assorted
built-in sensors. (I use SpeedFan - not using any of its fan-control
ability, just to monitor the sensors, but there are plenty of others.)

If it's the browser - all I need is a browsser that is efficient.
I will try pale moon when I get home.

Thanks!

Check RAM usage first.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call
it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:29:01 -0500, Paul wrote:

You should look at Task Manager when you get home.
And see what is hogging the CPU.

Thanks for that advice, where I've been watching the task manager intently,
putting it on pause to count the proceses and killing all that can be
killed.

I removed a LOT of things that were running (e.g., Google Update, Java
updates, Opera updates, etc.) by removing the parent programs (Chrome,
Java, Opera, etc.).

If you don't know any other way, control-alt-delete will
put up a menu for you. And Task Manager should be an option.
I usually just right-click the task bar and get my
Task Manager from there.

I have no problem with the task manager, except that I put things on "low"
priority, but they seem to come back as high upon a reboot - which makes no
sense to me (isn't a low priority on a process name permanent)?

Plus, as you are better aware than I, there are so many svchost processes
that just are a cave opening, where you can't see inside the cave except
with a tiny flashlight with even the more detailed task managers from PC
Magazine.

A CPU will throttle if it gets hot enough, and this
will reduce the effectiveness of the CPU. On laptops,
all it takes is a blockage in the vent to do it. The loud
fan noise should be a dead giveaway. However, a dead fan
would also cause throttling, and it would be "super-quiet".

I have to admit I had not thought about heat being the issue, so I will try
to elevate the laptop as the fan sounds like a freight train almost all the
time. The fan does that when the CPU goes to 100%, so I will google to see
if there is a heat problem and I will clean out any dust with those white
air spray cans). I don't "see" a lot of dust clogging anything - but it
never hurts - so thanks for that idea.

Although ... would the CPU going to 100% be the same as "throttling" from
heat? I guess what you're saying is the CPU is throtted to, say, 500MHz,
and then when it gets to that 500mHz, it's at 100% even though 1.6MHz is
the claimed CPU speed?

"Run WinSat without the GUI"

Thanks for that hint. I will try that and tell you how it works.

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

Check RAM usage first.

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

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

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

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

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

A. The worst browsers are the Chromium based browsers (by far!)
B. The number of tabs makes a huge difference (especially in Chrome!)
C. Yes. Some web pages, especially web forums, are CPU killers!

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

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

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

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

Yet, even IE and Firefox brought the CPU to 100% before I cleaned up by
removing all "auto update" processes (by removing the parent software). I
even removed Avast as, for now, debugging requires removal of all
non-essential processes.

With Java & Avast & anything Google (e.g., Google Drive) removed, I can now
browse with Pale Moon in a way that does not redline the CPU all the time
such that any page doesn't take a minute or more to load.

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

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

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

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

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

On 31/01/2018 16:40, ultred ragnusen wrote:

Originally WindowsXP according to the sticker on the faceplate.
Currently Windows7 Ultimate SP1 (I updated it a few days ago to current)
AMD Turion 64, 1.61GHZ
1GB RAM, paging is automatic (currently at 1601MB)
37.1GB HDD (6.46GB free)


Don't waste your time 1GB RAM is not enough to run a Windows 7 machine.
In fact even 4GB won't be enough. You need at least 8GB ram to run a
modern operating system i.e. any OS above Windows 7.



Any suggestions on browsers (other than buy a new machine)?

If your machine can take more RAM then increase it to at least 4GB to
start with or even to 8GB. If this is not possible then I am afraid
you'll need to buy a new machine or load a Linux OS if it can run on 1GB
of RAM.




--
With over 600 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:17:42 -0800, ultred ragnusen
wrote:

[snip]

I have no problem with the task manager, except that I put things on "low"
priority, but they seem to come back as high upon a reboot - which makes no
sense to me (isn't a low priority on a process name permanent)?

No. You do not set priority on a process name; you set priority
on a process. New boot; new processes.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:35:44 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

You haven't mentioned the laptop make and model,

It's a no-name so I didn't know, but the sticker on the bottom says it's a
"Great Quality ZX3310" GQ model number 331.

Googling, I find a description of it here
https://www.recycledgoods.com/great-...top-331-as-is/

I think GQ is "Fryes" brand of around the 2005 time frame.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/f....390415/page-9

ultred ragnusen wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:35:44 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

You haven't mentioned the laptop make and model,

It's a no-name so I didn't know, but the sticker on the bottom says it's a
"Great Quality ZX3310" GQ model number 331.

Googling, I find a description of it here
https://www.recycledgoods.com/great-...top-331-as-is/

I think GQ is "Fryes" brand of around the 2005 time frame.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/f....390415/page-9

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...pping.1907442/

ultred ragnusen wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:35:44 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

You haven't mentioned the laptop make and model,

It's a no-name so I didn't know, but the sticker on the bottom says it's a
"Great Quality ZX3310" GQ model number 331.

Googling, I find a description of it here
https://www.recycledgoods.com/great-...top-331-as-is/

I think GQ is "Fryes" brand of around the 2005 time frame.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/f....390415/page-9

Sorry about the post there. Tbird threw up a dialog
while I was typing and it posted...

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...pping.1907442/

AMD Turion 64 Technology MT-30

256MB Memory

40GB Hard Drive

The people in that thread, suggest it's this thing. Made by ECS.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060426...uID=55&LanID=9

It really depends on how many memory sockets it has,
as to the max memory. The "Specifications" page is missing
from the one capture in archive.org of that ECS info,
so we can't get the information from there.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD...T30BQX5LD.html

Memory channels: 1
Supported memory: ... DDR-400

It doesn't say how many sockets.

OK, I can get the info from Crucial.com

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compat...p%28ECS%29/331

Maximum Memory:2GB

Probably as 2x1GB SODIMM.

Paul