Performance Problem with XP SP2

[Guest]

I have recently upgraded my system to SP2 of Windows XP Pro, and I'm having a
very strange performance problem. I searched through the newsgroups, but
didn't see anything like this one. The symptoms are that the system is
sluggish, but anything that fiddles with the user interface is extremely
slow. For example, in Windows Explorer, if I click on a menu item, it takes
5 seconds to poplulate and display the menu. If I try to save a web page
from IE, it takes about 6 seconds to bring up the save-as dialog. Dragging a
window is extremely slow, and the window outline takes several seconds to
catch up to the cursor position. Scrolling is similarly slooow.

But a straight compile in Visual Studio seems to proceed just slightly
slower than before. If I bring up the task manager on an idle system, the
process consumes 16 percent of the CPU. I tried a diagnostic boot. The
system is slightly faster but not a lot. The task manager on an idle system
still uses about 13 percent of the CPU. CPU is a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. I also
tried uninstalling SP2, but the performance problem didn't go away. I'm
stumped as to how to further narrow down what's wrong.

 

[Guest]

Try going to run,type:cmd In cmd type:CHKDSK C: /F Agree to restart,then
type:EXIT Restart computer.You should also run disk clean-up,then defrag,do
this before cmd.You can/could also after the restart,go to run,type:Msconfig
Services,hide all microsoft services,then disable all,restart computer.Back
on
desktop,if it runs smoother,then its a 3rd party application problem,note the
changes,then reenable all in Msconfig.

 

[Guest]

Also do the same things that are advised in 4 posts above this post.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Also do the same things that are advised in 4 posts above this
post.

Please note that the phrase "4 posts above this post" is
generally meaningless. First, most people here read this
newsgroup with a newsreader, not with the web interface that you
are using (and which is much inferior, in my view).

Second, different people choose to sort the posts they view in
different ways, so th epost you're referring to may even be
*below* this one to some of us.

Third, many people (me, for example) choose not to show
already-read posts, so the post you're referring to may not be
visible to them at all, let alone four posts above.

And finally, depending on what news server you're using and with
what frequency you synchronize posts, posts appear at different
participants' computers at different times. You may see the post
you're referring to now, but someone else may not get it until
some time in the future.