Windows XP starts slow.

[Joseph]

When I first got this computer Windows started alot
faster than it does now. This just started happening in
the last couple months. When I start windows I open the
Windows Task Manager and look at the CPU Usage and after
maybe 15 seconds it is at 0-1%. It takes about 3 more
minutes after that to be able to open most things. If it
was loading anything for those 3 minutes wouldn't the CPU
Usage be at a higher percent? Can anyone help me to fix
this slow loading problem? Thanks.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

I would look in Event Viewer for clues.

Make an exact note of the precise text of any error message. Minor
discrepancies can
make it harder to search for information about the error message.

You can access Event Viewer by selecting Start, Administrative Tools, Event
Viewer.
When researching the meaning of the error, information regarding Event ID,
Source
and Description are important.

HOW TO: View and Manage Event Logs in Event Viewer in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308427&Product=winxp

Part of the Description of the error will include a link, which you should
double click
for further information and you can copy using copy and paste.
http://go.microsoft.com/fw.link/events.asp
(Please note the hyperlink above is for illustration purposes only)

A tip for posting copies of Error Reports! Run Event Viewer and double click
on the
error you want to copy. In the window, which appears is a button resembling
two
pages. Double click the button and close Event Viewer. Now start your
message
(email) and do a paste into the body of the message. This will paste the
info from the
Event Viewer Error Report complete with links into the message. Make sure
this is
the first paste after exiting from Event Viewer.

Links giving some information about specific Error Reports are:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/support/ee.asp

http://www.eventid.net/search.asp

These links, however, do not contain information about each and every Error
Report.

In Event Viewer there is no facility to print Error Reports. A workaround is
copy and
paste the Error Report into an email, send it to yourself and print off the
copy in your
Inbox or your Sent Items folder.

--

~~~~~~


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Chuck]

When I first got this computer Windows started alot
faster than it does now. This just started happening in
the last couple months. When I start windows I open the
Windows Task Manager and look at the CPU Usage and after
maybe 15 seconds it is at 0-1%. It takes about 3 more
minutes after that to be able to open most things. If it
was loading anything for those 3 minutes wouldn't the CPU
Usage be at a higher percent? Can anyone help me to fix
this slow loading problem? Thanks.

Joseph,

When the system starts up, some apps that it starts first may access the
internet when starting up. While they wait for response from the home server,
cpu activity will be very low.

If the app in question is one that you intentionally installed, then it's
probably legitimately accessing the internet. If it's not one that you
intentionally installed, read further.

To find out more about what's running on the computer at any time, get Process
Explorer (free) from <http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml>.
Provides way more information than Task Manager, and it's more configurable.

You also might benefit from a virus and spyware check. Both HijackThis and
Spybot S&D analyse your startup apps lists (and more).

How current is your virus protection? Try one or more of these free online
virus scans, which should complement your current protection:
<http://www.bitdefender.com/scan/license.php>
<http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan>
<http://www.ravantivirus.com/scan/>
<http://security.symantec.com/ssc/home.asp>
<http://housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp>

Now check for, and learn to defend against, additional problems.

Start by downloading each of the following free tools:
CWShredder <http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4086.html>
CoolWWWSearch.SmartSearch (v1/v2) MiniRemoval
<http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4113.html>
HijackThis <http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=3155>
LSP-Fix and WinsockLSPFix <http://www.cexx.org/lspfix.htm>
Spybot S&D <http://www.safer-networking.org/index.php?page=download>
Stinger <http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=stinger>

Install and run Stinger.
<http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=stinger>

Create a separate folder for HijackThis, such as C:\HijackThis - copy the
downloaded file there. Spybot S&D has an install routine - run it. The other
downloaded programs can be copied into, and run from, any convenient folder.

Start by closing all Internet Explorer and Outlook windows, and running
CoolWebSearchSmartKillerMiniRemoval, then CWShredder. Have the latter fix all.

Next, run Spybot S&D. First update it ("Search for updates"), then run a scan
("Check for problems"). Trust Spybot, and delete everything ("Fix Problems")
that is displayed in Red.

Then, run HijackThis ("Scan"). Do NOT make any changes immediately. Save the
HJT Log.
<http://forums.spywareinfo.com/index.php?showtopic=227>

Finally, have your HJT log interpreted by experts at one or more of the
following security forums (and post it, or a link to your forum posts, here):
Aumha: <http://forum.aumha.org/index.php>
Net-Integration: <http://forums.net-integration.net/>
Spyware Info: <http://forums.spywareinfo.com/>
Spyware Warrior: <http://spywarewarrior.com/index.php>
Tom Coyote: <http://forums.tomcoyote.org/>
Wilders Security<http://www.wilderssecurity.com/>

If removal of any spyware affects your ability to access the internet (some
spyware builds itself into the network software, and its removal may damage your
network), run LSP-Fix and / or WinsockXPFIx.

And Joseph, please don't contribute to the spread and success of email address
mining viruses. Learn to munge your email address properly, to keep yourself a
bit safer when posting to open forums. Protect yourself and the rest of the
internet - read this article.
http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_munging.htm

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Chuck

Can you run Process Explorer before the boot process is complete? You may be
able to in the latter stages whilst some of the checks are carried out by
the anti-virus and firewall but I think you need to have control of the Desk
Top. Can you schedule Process Explorer to start when you boot? If yes, at
what point would it kick in?

This message is being posted without having researched the various points
made as I need to be doing something else right now. However, your post
prompted some questions where I should know the answers!


~~~~~~

Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Chuck]

Chuck

Can you run Process Explorer before the boot process is complete? You may be
able to in the latter stages whilst some of the checks are carried out by
the anti-virus and firewall but I think you need to have control of the Desk
Top. Can you schedule Process Explorer to start when you boot? If yes, at
what point would it kick in?

This message is being posted without having researched the various points
made as I need to be doing something else right now. However, your post
prompted some questions where I should know the answers!


~~~~~~

Regards.

Gerry

Gerry,

Process Explorer won't start with the services. :-(

But, if you create a shortcut named to something like "AA Process Explorer", and
add it to HKLM\...\Run, it will start first in the user start lists. Make sure
Run (window size) is set to "Normal".

If the problem is starting earlier than that, please use HijackThis and expert
advice. If it's spyware hurting you, you're not alone. There are a lot of very
pissed off computer owners out there. :-(

And Gerry, please don't contribute to the spread and success of email address
mining viruses. Learn to munge your email address properly, to keep yourself a
bit safer when posting to open forums. Protect yourself and the rest of the
internet - read this article.
http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_munging.htm

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Chuck

Who said I had a problem with spyware. I made the post because your reply
made me curious. Thank you for the details you have given.

If I had wanted to munge my email address I would have done so long ago. Not
doing so may increase my quota of unwanted garbage but it equally improves
my line of communication. In any event munging your email address may not be
as effective as you might choose to believe. The kids and others who
generate the filth are capable of generating multiple messages and use
sophisticated techniques including a scatter gun approach to get a hit.
However, well you camouflage yourself you will still receive spam. You may
have read a report about an AOL employee earlier this week. Do you not think
he ( the employee ) is only the tip of the iceberg.

With so many adopting anonymity the landscape is becoming distinctly dull. I
like some local colour. Posting so often to this and other newsgroups I want
feedback so that I get told what works and what does not. It seems logical
to me that other users are more likely to provide me with the results of my
suggestions than they would to someone choosing to remain anonymous. I may
be wrong but that is the way I see things.


~~~~~~

Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Chuck]

Chuck

Who said I had a problem with spyware. I made the post because your reply
made me curious. Thank you for the details you have given.

If I had wanted to munge my email address I would have done so long ago. Not
doing so may increase my quota of unwanted garbage but it equally improves
my line of communication. In any event munging your email address may not be
as effective as you might choose to believe. The kids and others who
generate the filth are capable of generating multiple messages and use
sophisticated techniques including a scatter gun approach to get a hit.
However, well you camouflage yourself you will still receive spam. You may
have read a report about an AOL employee earlier this week. Do you not think
he ( the employee ) is only the tip of the iceberg.

With so many adopting anonymity the landscape is becoming distinctly dull. I
like some local colour. Posting so often to this and other newsgroups I want
feedback so that I get told what works and what does not. It seems logical
to me that other users are more likely to provide me with the results of my
suggestions than they would to someone choosing to remain anonymous. I may
be wrong but that is the way I see things.

Gerry,

A long time ago, when the internet was new and everybody was idealistic,
including your email address in your Usenet posts was the thing to do. Like
having your computer respond to Ping (so everybody could tell when you're
online), respond to Finger (so everybody could tell who you are), or, if you ran
an email server, you'd routinely relay email for anybody sending to somebody
else. All simply because it was expected of you, as an internet citizen.

Those days, of local colour, are long gone.

Now, anybody foolish enough to post their email address on Usenet will soon get
email they don't want. And not related to the nature of the Usenet group that
they post into either.

But, it gets worse.

Those who make their email address available on Usenet to the address scraping,
mass mailing worms, will get email with the next worm attached. Those foolish
enough to open one of the worm infested attachments will provide yet another
infected host, sending the worm onward.

And worse yet, some infected hosts become another spam relay. So the rest of
us, who can prevent our own systems from becoming infected thru use of Defense
In Depth, will still have to wade thru another increase of spam in our Inboxes.
Or in our Bulk folders, while we ensure that no wanted email wrongly ended up in
Bulk.

And those of us who can protect ourselves, but encourage the clueless to expose
themselves to the email worms, are part of the problem. And we all suffer for
it.

You can munge, so that humans can understand your address, yet bots can't. And
that in itself provides some colour. Look at the munges many others use.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Chuck

I may agree with some of the underlying points you make but the way you put
your message across in your latest post is not persuasive. You prefer to be
a participant in newsgroups who adopts anonymity and makes it difficult for
others to contact them. You think others should follow your example. On the
other hand, because my priorities and values are different to yours, I have
taken a decision that I should do the opposite by letting people know who I
am and how they may contact me. I am not advocating that others should do
as I do. They need to decide which approach suits their situation. Henry
Ford decided many years ago that all his customers should have a black car.
That type of thinking went out of fashion in the 1950s.

I thought I had explained my position in my previous post. However, your
further message indicates that clarification is needed. I do not think I am
foolish. I am not sure that you are wise to call someone foolish who you
wish to persuade to your point of view.

For someone new to computers and the internet what you suggest may help at
this precise moment in time. However, what makes sense now may not do so in
3 / 6 months. Many ISPs have introduced spam barriers. After the initial
settling down period, I assess mine to be something like 95% effective. The
only problem, if you are getting a lot of incoming spam, is that it takes a
little longer to scan the content of a wanted folder and trash bin to check
that each message is in the correct folder. Of course there are many ISPs
not providing this service. Many more are likely to either change or go out
of business within 6 months ( a guess on my part ).

I share your concern about the ease with which viruses are spread. However,
spam is a distraction and a nuisance and not a priority in any campaign to
control and eliminate the damage viruses cause. The message, which needs to
be put across to new and less experienced users, is the importance of making
their system secure, how this can be best achieved and the risks they run if
they fail to do so.

If you wish to help users to avoid virus infection do so so. If you wish to
help less experienced users cope with spam do so. If you wish to help users
avoid / reduce infestation by spyware do so. Each of these causes is worth
promoting. However, all are complicated, difficult to explain in clear and
concise terms and difficult for many users to absorb and apply. I think your
efforts may be more effective if you do not promote more than one cause in
the same message. You might also give thought about who it is you wish to
influence. Only once in 6 years has my system been compromised. Give people
choices. Promoting munging to the exclusion of other solutions may not get
the best results

A final thought on spam. I am not sure persuading any user to take measures
to deal with spam is necessary. The need to do so has been well publicised
and the results of not doing so are so obvious that, if any user has a
problem, then they are only interested in the most effective of dealing with
it. The why is not a consideration! In other words deal with the problem
when the other person is most receptive. The last point would be
inappropriate with regard to virus protection.


~~~~~~


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Chuck]

Chuck

I may agree with some of the underlying points you make but the way you put
your message across in your latest post is not persuasive. You prefer to be
a participant in newsgroups who adopts anonymity and makes it difficult for
others to contact them. You think others should follow your example. On the
other hand, because my priorities and values are different to yours, I have
taken a decision that I should do the opposite by letting people know who I
am and how they may contact me. I am not advocating that others should do
as I do. They need to decide which approach suits their situation. Henry
Ford decided many years ago that all his customers should have a black car.
That type of thinking went out of fashion in the 1950s.

I thought I had explained my position in my previous post. However, your
further message indicates that clarification is needed. I do not think I am
foolish. I am not sure that you are wise to call someone foolish who you
wish to persuade to your point of view.

For someone new to computers and the internet what you suggest may help at
this precise moment in time. However, what makes sense now may not do so in
3 / 6 months. Many ISPs have introduced spam barriers. After the initial
settling down period, I assess mine to be something like 95% effective. The
only problem, if you are getting a lot of incoming spam, is that it takes a
little longer to scan the content of a wanted folder and trash bin to check
that each message is in the correct folder. Of course there are many ISPs
not providing this service. Many more are likely to either change or go out
of business within 6 months ( a guess on my part ).

I share your concern about the ease with which viruses are spread. However,
spam is a distraction and a nuisance and not a priority in any campaign to
control and eliminate the damage viruses cause. The message, which needs to
be put across to new and less experienced users, is the importance of making
their system secure, how this can be best achieved and the risks they run if
they fail to do so.

If you wish to help users to avoid virus infection do so so. If you wish to
help less experienced users cope with spam do so. If you wish to help users
avoid / reduce infestation by spyware do so. Each of these causes is worth
promoting. However, all are complicated, difficult to explain in clear and
concise terms and difficult for many users to absorb and apply. I think your
efforts may be more effective if you do not promote more than one cause in
the same message. You might also give thought about who it is you wish to
influence. Only once in 6 years has my system been compromised. Give people
choices. Promoting munging to the exclusion of other solutions may not get
the best results

A final thought on spam. I am not sure persuading any user to take measures
to deal with spam is necessary. The need to do so has been well publicised
and the results of not doing so are so obvious that, if any user has a
problem, then they are only interested in the most effective of dealing with
it. The why is not a consideration! In other words deal with the problem
when the other person is most receptive. The last point would be
inappropriate with regard to virus protection.

Gerry,

Your points are well made.

As soon as munging becomes no longer necessary (Dear God, may that day come
while I live) I will immediately change that advice. I suspect there are many
others who will do likewise.

Until that time, I will include information about munging, as part of any
technical advice which I may be able to provide, whenever appropriate. Some may
understand, agree with me, and start munging. Others may not.

If you are offended by this strategy, so be it. Some who agree with me may use
more offensive advice still.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.