XP performance

[Fraz]

HI, i have a very strange problem

i just recently upgraded my RAM top 768 mb ddr, and for a
while everything was fine, until recently, the computer
just slowedf down on me, i scanned for all types of
spyware, and viruses and none were found. and the
slowdown is so severe, that even compressed videos that
would run flawlessly before, now seem to slow down, even
after i have removed most background software, but with
768 mb ram? i did not think this sowuld be a problem.

now whenever i ope the task manager, most times it shows
100% cpu usage (i have a p4 1.7 ghz) with most of the
usage by either the avengine.exe...part of panda
antivirus, or by explorer.exe... or by wmplayer.exe... i
tried reinstalling windows, i treid reinstalling media
player, i tried reinstalling panda antivirus, but nothing
helps.

 

[Alex Nichol]

now whenever i ope the task manager, most times it shows
100% cpu usage (i have a p4 1.7 ghz) with most of the
usage by either the avengine.exe...part of panda
antivirus, or by explorer.exe... or by wmplayer.exe...

Is WMPlayer set to automatically get updates/media info from the
Internet? That could result in it getting in a tangle. It has no real
business being loaded at all unless you are playing something (and some
of its activities, notably visualisations *do* take a lot of CPU).

Likewise a AV should not be using any appreciable amount of CPU except
when scanning. Make sure you do not have it on a setting where it is
scanning the system 'in the background' all the time. If it still does
you might be better to drop it and get some other AV - such as AVG free
version from www.grisoft.com

Explorer looping into a heavy CPU load indicates either some bad shell
extension installed (which might be one for the AV) or possibly a loop
that can arise with AVI files and the DivX codec. It looks in files for
'extra info' like frame rate; Artist etc, and with DivX can loop - or
even crash.

It may be best for people with a lot of these files to do without the
extra property info - Start - run - regedit.exe, open to

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\SystemFileAssociations\.avi\shellex\PropertyHandler

highlight that and delete it

 

[Philippe L. Balmanno]

I didn't see you say I defragged the HD. Every time I have to fix a slowed
down system the HD is so fragmented and the OPs say I never knew I was
supposed to do that.

Personally I use a series of cleanup utilities, the system's disk cleanup
through IE - taking off all IE temp files, then the system tool's disk
cleanup, then a third party temp file cleanup utility then I defrag.

Also, I've heard that Windows may have a negative performance when too much
ram is installed. See the following link for this subject then do a search
if there are similar reports.
http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html

 

[Philippe L. Balmanno]

P.S. follow the KB link in this page and you will see it applies to XP.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Also, I've heard that Windows may have a negative performance
when
too much ram is installed.

No, this is never correct. Adding RAM may or may not help your
performance (depending on what apps you run), but it never hurts.

See the following link for this subject
then do a search if there are similar reports.
http://www.memorystock.com/windows-memory.html

This page refers to Windows versions other than XP. The issue
with RAM amounts greater than 512MB in Windows 9X was a very
minor problem with a simple solution (referred to on the page you
cite).

However the statement "Note that if you are upgrading your RAM
memory, a computer using Windows 95 or Windows 98 (first edition)
will not recognise more than 256MB" is flat-out wrong.

 

[Plato]

No, this is never correct. Adding RAM may or may not help your
performance (depending on what apps you run), but it never hurts.

Only hurts if you scrape off some skin on sharp case edges in a small
case

 

[Philippe L. Balmanno]

I think the point is that Windows (what ever version) likes to manipulate
the Virtual Memory base on a formula and on the amount of physical memory
present and allowing it to do so increases to the virtual memory settings
too high. Therefore, reduce it to bring the performance back up.

 

[Philippe L. Balmanno]

Also remember that virtual memory pagefile.sys is not defragged unless you
use a third party defragger and windows does not clean it out periodically
therefore 768 x 1.5 = 1152 MB or larger as some have it as 768 x 2.5 =
1920MB pagefile.sys (768MB being physical memory) with old stuff. And the
system is assining virtual memory that it mus access on the HD in the
pagefile.sys there for it must read the entire file.

 

[Alex Nichol]

No, this is never correct. Adding RAM may or may not help your
performance (depending on what apps you run), but it never hurts.

Perhaps the proviso should be added 'Provided it is a true match to the
existing RAM'. Windows contains critical timing loops and is very
fussy about having identical performance in all modules. Mismatched RAM
can lead to frequent unexplained crashes. But not some general
degradation in performance

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Perhaps the proviso should be added 'Provided it is a true
match to
the existing RAM'.

Yes, that's certainly true.

Windows contains critical timing loops and is
very fussy about having identical performance in all modules.
Mismatched RAM can lead to frequent unexplained crashes. But
not
some general degradation in performance

Yes, that's really a different subject from the one under
discussion, but it doesn't hurt to mention it.