Slow Performance - Maintainence

[theNugget2009]

Hi All

We have a mixture of Windows 200 SP4 and Windows XP SP3 Domain Workstations
on our network.

Currently a lot of them are experiencing slow performance because they have
been around for a number of years.

What i would like to be able to do is to schedule tasks that can run
automatically, say every month.

For example tasks such as:
* Disk Defragmentation
* Disk Cleanup

How can I automate these tasks, we do not have the money to pay for
additional tools, but ideally script via VBScript.

Does anybody have thoughts or ideas about this.

Regards

D

 

[mayayana]

I'm not sure about automating defrag, but
that's unlikely to have an effect, anyway.
XP, especially, is prone to sluggishness. But
it doesn't have to be if you clean up the
unnecessary services, limit IE's cache, etc.
This might be one thing that could be helful
(it's free, VBScript-based):

www.jsware.net/jsware/xpfix.php5

I find that once XP is cleaned up it runs better
than Win9x on the same hardware. But a default
install runs worse, even when provided with extra
RAM.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi All

We have a mixture of Windows 200 SP4 and Windows XP SP3 Domain Workstations
on our network.

Currently a lot of them are experiencing slow performance because they have
been around for a number of years.

What i would like to be able to do is to schedule tasks that can run
automatically, say every month.

For example tasks such as:
* Disk Defragmentation
* Disk Cleanup

How can I automate these tasks, we do not have the money to pay for
additional tools, but ideally script via VBScript.

Does anybody have thoughts or ideas about this.

Read here: "How To Schedule Tasks in Windows XP" at
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308569

However I doubt very much that running Disk Defragmentation and Disk
Cleanup will improve the performance of these computers.

I can't be sure, based on the small amount of info you've provided,
but these days the most likely cause of performance problems is that
these computers are infected with malware. What anti-virus and
anti-spyware programs do they are run? Are they kept up-to-date?

If the problem isn't malware, then the next most likely cause is what
programs start automatically and run in the background. Here's my
standard reply on that subject:

First, note that you should be concerned with *all* programs that
start automatically, not just with those that go into the system tray.
Not all autostarting programs manifest themselves by an icon in the
tray.

On each program you don't want to start automatically, check its
Options to see if it has the choice not to start (make sure you
actually choose the option not to run it, not just a "don't show icon"
option). Many can easily and best be stopped that way. If that doesn't
work, run MSCONFIG from the Start | Run line, and on the Startup tab,
uncheck the programs you don't want to start automatically.

However, if I were you, I wouldn't do this just for the purpose of
running the minimum number of programs. Despite what many people tell
you, you should be concerned, not with how *many* of these programs
you run, but *which*. Some of them can hurt performance severely, but
others have no effect on performance.

Don't just stop programs from running willy-nilly. What you should do
is determine what each program is, what its value is to you, and what
the cost in performance is of its running all the time. You can try
google searches and ask about specifics here.

Once you have that information, you can make an intelligent informed
decision about what you want to keep and what you want to get rid of.

 

[mayayana]

If the problem isn't malware, then the next most likely cause is what
programs start automatically and run in the background. Here's my
standard reply on that subject:

First, note that you should be concerned with *all* programs that
start automatically, not just with those that go into the system tray.
Not all autostarting programs manifest themselves by an icon in the
tray.

On each program you don't want to start automatically, check its
Options to see if it has the choice not to start (make sure you
actually choose the option not to run it, not just a "don't show icon"
option). Many can easily and best be stopped that way. If that doesn't
work, run MSCONFIG from the Start | Run line, and on the Startup tab,
uncheck the programs you don't want to start automatically.

Anyone dealing with this should also know about
autoruns:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx

Written by an MS programmer, it's a clear, simple,
thorough listing of what's running at startup (other
than services), with options to toggle the setting.

The link above is for an XP+ version, but I would
guess there are still copies of a 2000-compatible
version around. (I'm using it right now on Win98.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Anyone dealing with this should also know about
autoruns:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx

Written by an MS programmer, it's a clear, simple,
thorough listing of what's running at startup (other
than services), with options to toggle the setting.

The link above is for an XP+ version, but I would
guess there are still copies of a 2000-compatible
version around. (I'm using it right now on Win98.

Yes, I'm aware of Autoruns, and I don't object to its being used.
However the reason I instead recommend MSCONFIG, is that it comes with
Windows, so everyone already has it, and it works just fine for the
purose the vast majority of time.

 

[Leonard Grey]

"...XP, especially, is prone to sluggishness."

Interesting...My copy of Windows XP is more than seven years old, and
it's fast and reliable.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

"...XP, especially, is prone to sluggishness."

Interesting...My copy of Windows XP is more than seven years old, and
it's fast and reliable.

Same here. Software doesn't get slower as it gets older. But what can
happen is that it gets infected with malware, and/or mistreated by its
user (for example, with a lot of low-performance background software
installed), and either of those things can slow it down substantially.

Although both of those problems are common, Windows XP shouldn't be
blamed for the sluggishness that results from them.

 

[mayayana]

Same here. Software doesn't get slower as it gets older. But what can
happen is that it gets infected with malware, and/or mistreated by its
user (for example, with a lot of low-performance background software
installed), and either of those things can slow it down substantially.

Although both of those problems are common, Windows XP shouldn't be
blamed for the sluggishness that results from them.

I wasn't thinking about "malware". (What is
"malware", anyway? Is it malware when an HP
printer driver installs 3 startup utilities plus
spyware? Or is it only malware when a Chinese
driveby download starts sending email from
your PC?)

XP starts
out bloated and that can be a challenge on
older hardware. Then people install various
things like software, printers, etc. These days
most of those add frivolous startup processes.
Another common cause of slowness seems to
be a large IE cache, which by default has no limit,
last time I checked. (With a high-speed connection
and people who like to watch youtube videos that
can easily result in a cache into the 100s or 1000s
of MB.)
An overly large TEMP folder seems to also
have an effect. (And on XP there can be a half
dozen TEMP folders.)

I find it's very common for friends to ask me
for help with an XP PC and it's pretty much
always slowness that they're complaining about.
A couple of weeks ago it was someone whose
PC was running in slow motion. Very slow. Slow
like taking up to a minute for a folder to open
when double-clicked. It finally turned out the
culprit was Norton AV. (Then again, I'd classify
Norton as malware, so maybe you're right.

If you run a tight ship and you're familiar
with services, as well as startup programs,
then there's no reason XP can't stay zippy.
But most people are not familiar with either of
those things. Most people have a long line of
icons in the system tray; and toolbars on their
browser; and junkware calling home for updates;
and dozens of useless services running; and
people usually have no idea those things
are there, much less how they got there.

 

[Leonard Grey]

"Another common cause of slowness seems to be a large IE cache, which by
default has no limit, last time I checked."

Is the size of that cache adjustable, as far as you know?

 

[mayayana]

"Another common cause of slowness seems to be

a large IE cache, which by
default has no limit, last time I checked."

Is the size of that cache adjustable, as far as you know?

Tools -> Internet options -> Temp. Internet Files -> Settings button ->
"Amount of disk space to use" slider.

I set it to 5 MB. I've never confirmed for
sure that the limit works, but I assume it
does. The setting came to my attention
several years ago when someone using
Win98 with high-speed had a very sluggish
machine and had taken it to a tech. service
for cleaning, with no improvement. In the
course of looking around I found the IE cache
was 800MB! After cleaning that out the machine
was back to normal speed.

I don't know for sure whether the same trouble
can happen on XP. XP doesn't have folder "webview",
so Explorer isn't so closely tied to IE. On Active
Desktop systems (pre-XP) there's an actual IE
browser window in each folder window hierarchy.
It's not hard to see how keeping track of a giant
cache might slow down Explorer in that case. So
the problem may or may not apply to XP. But I figure
that the IE cache is always worth checking into,
anyway. It's an easy thing to do. (Another odd thing
I've noticed -- I don't remember the Windows versions
offhand -- is that one sometimes has to go through
the steps of clearing the cache twice in order to
actually clear it out.)

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I wasn't thinking about "malware". (What is
"malware", anyway?

"Malware" is an abbreviation for "Malicious Software." It's software
written with the purpose of hurting you in some way. It includes
Viruses, Trojan Horses, Spyware, etc.

Is it malware when an HP
printer driver installs 3 startup utilities

No.


plus spyware?

Yes.


Or is it only malware when a Chinese
driveby download starts sending email from
your PC?)

Is that malware? Yes. Is that the "only" malware? No.

XP starts out bloated

That's just nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

and that can be a challenge on
older hardware. Then people install various
things like software, printers, etc. These days
most of those add frivolous startup processes.

If somebody installs something that adds "frivolous startup
processes," blame the company who wrote that software and the person
who installs it, not Windows XP. That's exactly the kind of thing I
meant when I said (quoted above) "mistreated by its user."

I find it's very common for friends to ask me
for help with an XP PC and it's pretty much
always slowness that they're complaining about.
A couple of weeks ago it was someone whose
PC was running in slow motion. Very slow. Slow
like taking up to a minute for a folder to open
when double-clicked. It finally turned out the
culprit was Norton AV. (Then again, I'd classify
Norton as malware, so maybe you're right.

Norton Anti-virus *is* terrible software, and is the worst of all the
anti-virus programs available. But bad as it is, it was not written
with the purpose of harming you. It is *not* malware.

If you run a tight ship and you're familiar
with services, as well as startup programs,
then there's no reason XP can't stay zippy.
But most people are not familiar with either of
those things.

True.


Most people have a long line of
icons in the system tray; and toolbars on their
browser; and junkware calling home for updates;
and dozens of useless services running; and
people usually have no idea those things
are there, much less how they got there.

My point exactly. Any sluggishness they are experiencing is *their*
fault, not the fault of Windows.

 

[Leonard Grey]

You ought to quit now 'cause you're just making yourself look more foolish.

 

[mayayana]

XP starts out bloated

That's just nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

If somebody installs something that adds "frivolous startup
processes," blame the company who wrote that software and the person
who installs it, not Windows XP.

You seem to be a bit touchy about perceived
insults to XP. I never "blamed" XP for excess
startup programs. (Corporate malware, let's say.

The problems with XP bloat and the problems with
3rd-party software, though, are all one issue for
somebody who has a sluggish PC.

I suppose that "bloated" is a matter of opinion.
Windows 7 default install is 9GB, 9 times the
size of XP! And it apparently needs over 1GB RAM
just to sit there, while 9x and XP rarely need more
than 256 MB for full functionality, unless one
happens to be editing video. So bloated is relative.

I say bloated because the size of XP increased by
about 50% over Win9x. It also added loads of
processes/services. I have 7-10 processes
running on Win98. When I started weeding out
XP services I found there were about 60, many of
which were running, that were unnecessary and/or
risky on my stand-alone PC. Yet Microsoft sets these
services running by default, even on the so-called
"Home" version: Messenger service was one of the
first hacked and doesn't belong on a SOHo PC in
the first place. DCOM has no place on most
stand-alone PCs. Indexing is a waste, and XP search
still doesn't work very well even if it's enabled. WMI
is not needed by most people outside of corporate
networks. The list goes on and on. The Windows Time
service is enabled by default, for goodness sake. I
need a function to go online periodically and fine-tune
my clock settings?!

Then there are things that many people may think
are good, but are really optional and slow down
operation -- Windows Update service and Windows
File Protection come to mind.

That's what I mean by bloated. It adds up. Especially
on older hardware. But I'm not criticizing XP. As I said
initially, I find it notably more efficient than 9x on the
same hardware *once it's cleaned up*, or if you prefer,
once it's been slimmed down.

 

[mayayana]

You ought to quit now 'cause you're just

making yourself look more foolish.

I didn't realize that was your intention. You
seemed to be asking a serious question. But
no harm done. Maybe someone else can use
the info. posted.

If you really think I'm "out to lunch" then I'd
be curious to know why. Do you think that adjusting
the IE cache and dumping TEMP files as part of a
system cleanup is ludicrous? Or have I inadvertently
walked into a smugness contest via the OP's
liberal crossposting?

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

You seem to be a bit touchy about perceived
insults to XP. I never "blamed" XP for excess
startup programs. (Corporate malware, let's say.

No, but you said that XP was "is prone to sluggishness." To me that's
an unwarranted attack on XP. I don't think it's at all true.

The problems with XP bloat and the problems with
3rd-party software, though, are all one issue for
somebody who has a sluggish PC.

I suppose that "bloated" is a matter of opinion.
Windows 7 default install is 9GB, 9 times the
size of XP! And it apparently needs over 1GB RAM
just to sit there, while 9x and XP rarely need more
than 256 MB for full functionality, unless one
happens to be editing video. So bloated is relative.

I say bloated because the size of XP increased by
about 50% over Win9x. It also added loads of
processes/services.

Yes, it's much bigger than Windows 98. It also does much more than 98,
so in my view, its being bigger is not any kind of disadvantage, and
calling it "bloated" is an overstatement.

If you compare almost any two successive versions of Windows (or
almost any other software. for that matter), the newer one does more
and better things than the older one, and is bigger. That should not
be a surprise, and calling it names (like "bloated") is not
appropriate.

Moreover, if you measure the size of the disk space it takes up (or
the RAM it uses) by the dollars needed to buy the disk space or RAM,
not in MB or GB, it most circumstances almost all newer software is
*smaller* than its predecessor. To me that's good, not bad. It takes
advantage of lower hardware prices to do more and better things than
would have been affordable in the past.

 

[SC Tom]

***Comments in line

You seem to be a bit touchy about perceived
insults to XP. I never "blamed" XP for excess
startup programs. (Corporate malware, let's say.

The problems with XP bloat and the problems with
3rd-party software, though, are all one issue for
somebody who has a sluggish PC.

I suppose that "bloated" is a matter of opinion.
Windows 7 default install is 9GB, 9 times the
size of XP! And it apparently needs over 1GB RAM
just to sit there, while 9x and XP rarely need more
than 256 MB for full functionality, unless one
happens to be editing video. So bloated is relative.

I say bloated because the size of XP increased by
about 50% over Win9x.

***
And Win9x was way larger than 3.1, and ME was larger than Win9x. (We won't
even mention Vista.) "Larger" does not necessarily mean "bloated."

I agree with a lot of what you say, but to catgorically label XP as bloated
and sluggish is just not right.

SC Tom
***

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

***Comments in line



***
And Win9x was way larger than 3.1, and ME was larger than Win9x. (We won't
even mention Vista.) "Larger" does not necessarily mean "bloated."

I agree with a lot of what you say, but to catgorically label XP as bloated
and sluggish is just not right.

Yes, yes, and yes. My point exactly.