Daave said:
As a learning exercise, it's not a bad thing to do if you have the
time. That being said, since you obtained this PC second-hand, the
wise thing to do is to perform a clean install. But if you want to
narrow down problems beforehand as a learning exercise, go for it.
....
It's unfortunate you used a registry cleaner because many times their
use actually *decreases* performance. And sometimes they might even
cause a situation where your PC won't even boot! For more info:
LOL, that's being innovative! First time I've heard of registry
cleaners supposedly DECREASING performance! You've posted a lot of
nonsense, but that's the best one yet!
Actually, this one doesn't sound much like it's related to the
registry anyway, but if the OP used one, as long as it was from a
reliable source, it was perfectly fine to do. Worst case it'd make no
discernible difference and best case it could eliminate one or more 20
Second delays in the registry. But you're aware of that.
And that link's useless as tits on a boar hog, long and tedious, OLD,
and useless w/r to anything beneficial to the OPs situation. UmHuh just
isn't that useful in this case as happens in several other cases too,
although there are some excellent papers written by some excellent
people. I particularly enjoy Russ's articles and a few others.
Don't install any registry cleaners!
Correction: Install only reputable, reliable known registry cleaners,
as with any other software one might download and use. Same rules
apply.
Instead of installing the entire Control Center, you may want to
consider installing the standalone graphics driver.
Windows Search has been known to bring PCs to a crawl. I wouldn't use
it. If you want that functionality, Agent Ransack is much better:
Actually, IF a person takes a few minutes to RTFM and learn about
windows search, it can be used to quite an advantage. But I suppose
you're one of those who figure a computer program should never have to
"learn" anything, right?
Rather than a dismissive attitude you're so good at, it would have
been a lot better to discuss WHY windows search seems slow at first, and
how to decide whether to allow the continuation or temporarily pause the
indexing, etc. etc. etc. of windows search. Like anything else you
don't understand, you simply choose to ignore it.
Yes, it can slow a machine down. At first. And then it will speed
it up. Checki tout.
Again, it's a mmv situation and what YOU would do is irrelevant as the
price of tea in China. I doubt many care what YOU would do.
When performing your clean install, make sure there are no peripherals
connected at the time. Just your mouse, keyboard, and moitor.
Regarding sluggishness in general, here are its usual causes:
1. Malicious software (malware)
2. Certain programs that are designed to combat malware (e.g., Norton
and McAfee). Ironically, they can slow things down because they simply
use way too many resources.
That used to be possible: if the machine is not using a faster cpu and
doesn't have the right amount of RAM and the user doesn't know how to or
doesn't bother to, set it up for his own methods of usage of his
machine. Except for GoBack, which I once used temporarily for a few
months, there is no need for Norton (and likely McAfee too) to slow down
a machine other than user inability to get their head around it or, as
in some cases, intentional ignorance. And you've never looked at their
most recent Symantec/Norton offering have you? YOu're so behind the
times it's pathetic.
Sometime they cause conflicts with other
No, sometimes there ARE conflicts with other programs. The ONLY one I
am aware of at the moment is a conflict between ZoneAlarm and Norton's
firewall. I think there are one or two other such issues too but I
can't recall them right now. But if you've installed, say, the latest
NIS, there is no need for ZoneAlarm. You should never run two firewalls
reliably anyway.
And their default mode is to scan your entire hard drive
That is blatantly and completely WRONG. If it was EVER true, it had to
be in the pre-win95 days because it hasn't been defaulted to do that
EVER AFAIK. And I've used nearly every revision they ever published.
3. Too many of *certain types* of programs always running in the
background -- with or without your knowledge.
Wrong again. Whether they run or not is completely programmable. If
you're referring to abstract thigns like support programs and services,
you must really hate Windows. Either way though, each and every such
program/service is completely visible and unlike windows, Norton has
controls to determine whether those things happen or not.
If you spent half the time figureing out what you're talking about as
you do collecting mostly useless links you'd be a lot more intelliegent
person.
Sometimes it is recommended to use msconfig to configure the programs
to not run at startup. A better, more thorough program is Autoruns:
It is NEVER advisable to use msconfig to "configure" programs to not run
at startup. Msconfig is a TOOL and nothing more, for troubleshooting
purposes. For one thing, there are a lot of programs you can tell
msconfig not to start which will start anyway and replace the entry in
msconfig with another, duplicate working entry.
The right way to use msconfig is as a troubleshooting tool and once
such programs are identified, then go to the services or programs
themselves and make the changes there.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx
4. Not enough RAM, which causes the PC to overly rely on the
pagefile. A quick way to determine if this is happening is to open
Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del) and click the Performance tab. Then note
the three values under Commit Charge (K): in the lower left-hand
corner: Total, Limit, and Peak.
The Total figure represents the amount of memory you are using at that
very moment. The Peak figure represents the highest amount of memory
you used since last bootup. If both these figures are below the value
of Physical Memory (K) Total, then you probably have plenty of RAM.
Otherwise, you may want to explore this further by running Page File
Monitor for Windows XP:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
Actually, since the pagefile size is dynamic, the TaskManager figures
are often useless. It's always best to use something like Doug's or one
of the many other pagefile monitors on the 'net. IMO Systinternals, now
owned by Microsoft, has the best one.
At least you did and often do provide lots of links; that's always a
good idea as long as they're relevent and have the necessary clarity
required.
Cheers,
Twayne
