XP Running Worse After Memory Upgrade

[Guest]

I have a Dell Deminsion 4100 with a Pentium III and 128MB of memory. About 5
years old. Orginaly running Windows ME. Upgraded to XP for obvious reasons.
XP Runs slow but better.
Task manager tells me some 38 to forty some-odd processes are running most
of the time. Is that normal for XP?
Someone told me that is normal for XP and more memory would help. so
Installed 512MB on one board in one slot. Worked great for about an hour or
so. then I started getting lag with mouse and now keboard. Lag got worse
and worse. Now Im good for about 4 inches of cursor movement or 6 keystrokes
then the computer lags for about 5 seconds. Took 30 minutes to type this far.
Task Manager CPU performance graph is all over the place between 30%, to 2%,
to 100%, etc.. I suspect its durring the low use periods I can type and use
the mouse.

Anyone got any ideas?

 

[Support]

I have a Dell Deminsion 4100 with a Pentium III and 128MB of memory. About
5
years old. Orginaly running Windows ME. Upgraded to XP for obvious
reasons.
XP Runs slow but better.
Task manager tells me some 38 to forty some-odd processes are running most
of the time. Is that normal for XP?
Someone told me that is normal for XP and more memory would help. so
Installed 512MB on one board in one slot. Worked great for about an hour
or
so. then I started getting lag with mouse and now keboard. Lag got worse
and worse. Now Im good for about 4 inches of cursor movement or 6
keystrokes
then the computer lags for about 5 seconds. Took 30 minutes to type this
far.
Task Manager CPU performance graph is all over the place between 30%, to
2%,
to 100%, etc.. I suspect its durring the low use periods I can type and
use
the mouse.

Anyone got any ideas?

I had a similar problem with a Daewoo Pentium III that was pre-Win XP and
was shipped with Win98 in that although it met/exceeded the minimum hardware
requirements for XP it was very unstable, slow and with frequent freeze-ups.
I put it down to the motherboard not being able to cope with XP. I gave up
in the end, reinstalled Win98, and sold it as a Win98 only computer. When
WinXP came out, manufacturers made sure that their hardware was compatible.
You could try upgrading the motherboard but Dell have used non-standard PSUs
and the connectors only fit Dell motherboards. Regarding processes running
in Task Manager, my WinXP machine has 47. Good luck!

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Task manager tells me some 38 to forty some-odd processes are running most
of the time. Is that normal for XP?

I would suspect that at least one of whatever is running is causing you
the problems.

Do you know how to use msconfig?

 

[Guest]

--
- Dave
"XP" X-treemly Pissed Off??

I would suspect that at least one of whatever is running is causing you
the problems.

Do you know how to use msconfig?

Dave Writes:

Not anymore. I used it a few years ago to debug start up problems with Win
ME by turning off processes one at a time till the problem went away. But
with XP I would not know where to begin or which of the 40-odd process are
too important to mess with. I did install a USB 2.0 card, a Radeon 1300
Graphics Card (w 256 MB) and a Microsoft wireless mouse when I upgraded the
memory. Only the Graphics card required me to install a driver. That is the
only software add.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Not anymore. I used it a few years ago to debug start up problems with Win
ME by turning off processes one at a time till the problem went away.

The procedure is still the same. You can make an "educated" guess as
to which ones to turn off by googling each item first.

 

[Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM]

I have a Dell Deminsion 4100 with a Pentium III and 128MB of memory. About
5
years old. Orginaly running Windows ME. Upgraded to XP for obvious
reasons.
XP Runs slow but better.
Task manager tells me some 38 to forty some-odd processes are running most
of the time. Is that normal for XP?
Someone told me that is normal for XP and more memory would help. so
Installed 512MB on one board in one slot. Worked great for about an hour
or
so. then I started getting lag with mouse and now keboard. Lag got worse
and worse. Now Im good for about 4 inches of cursor movement or 6
keystrokes
then the computer lags for about 5 seconds. Took 30 minutes to type this
far.
Task Manager CPU performance graph is all over the place between 30%, to
2%,
to 100%, etc.. I suspect its durring the low use periods I can type and
use
the mouse.

Anyone got any ideas?

Do a thorough malware check. Help with malware:
All MS-MVP Sites.
http://aumha.org/a/parasite.htm
http://aumha.org/a/quickfix.htm
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Removing_Malware
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/unwanted.htm
http://inetexplorer.mvps.org/darnit.html
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Malware_Defence.htm

Unexplained computer behavior may be caused by deceptive software.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/827315

So How Did I Get Infected Anyway?
For quite a few people it's by installing Messenger Plus, whose ads for
malware don't identify the malware as such and try to convince you that you
owe it to the author. See also:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=27971
Don't ever do a "default" install of anything. Always choose Custom and see
what else is being carried along. Don't install any extras you're not sure
of.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Dave

I doubt that the number of processes is the problem!

Is all the extra memory being recognised? Right click on the My
Computer icon and select Propertiesto get this information.

How large is your hard disk and how much free space?

What is your anti-virus programme?

What Warning and Error reports appear in the System and Application
logs in Event Viewer?

You can access Event Viewer by selecting Start, Control Panel,
Administrative Tools, and 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/kb/308427/en-us

Part of the Description of the error will include a link, which you
should double click for further information. You can copy using copy
and paste. Often the link will, however, say there is no further
information.
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. 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.
Make sure this is the first paste after exiting from Event Viewer.

What third party drivers have you updated. Being a Dell this process
can be difficult.

Right click on your My Computer icon on your Desktop. Select
Properties, Advanced, Performance Settings, Visual Effect. Which of
the four options is checked?

What are your anti-spyware arrangements?

http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Removing_Malware

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I have a Dell Deminsion 4100 with a Pentium III and 128MB of memory. About 5
years old. Orginaly running Windows ME. Upgraded to XP for obvious reasons.

I'm sorry, but I can see any "obvious" reason to put WinXp on a machine
that old and with so little RAM. What is your processor speed?

XP Runs slow but better.

It would do, yes.

Task manager tells me some 38 to forty some-odd processes are running most
of the time. Is that normal for XP?

There is no "normal" in this regard. The number of processes depends
mostly upon what applications you've chosen to allow to run in the
background.

Someone told me that is normal for XP and more memory would help.

Most definitely.

so
Installed 512MB on one board in one slot. Worked great for about an hour or
so. then I started getting lag with mouse and now keboard. Lag got worse
and worse. Now Im good for about 4 inches of cursor movement or 6 keystrokes
then the computer lags for about 5 seconds. Took 30 minutes to type this far.
Task Manager CPU performance graph is all over the place between 30%, to 2%,
to 100%, etc.. I suspect its durring the low use periods I can type and use
the mouse.

Anyone got any ideas?

It is absolutely essential that any new RAM module(s) be fully
compatible with both the motherboard and/or any other RAM module(s)
already in the system. Additionally, there are sometimes jumper
switches on older motherboards that need to be reset for new RAM
configurations. Consult your motherboard's manual or the
manufacturer's web site for specific instructions and compatibility
requirements.

If you cannot lay your hands upon the computer's manual and the
manufacturer doesn't provide a support web site, you can use these
utilities to help determine the correct type of RAM needed:

SiSoft's Sandra
http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.php?dir=&location=sware_dl&lang=en

Belarc Advisor
http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

Unlimited Possibilities' AIDA32
http://forum.aumha.org/overflow/aida32.zip

Also, Crucial Memory's web site (www.crucial.com) has a database
to help to find the right RAM for your specific make and model
computer and/or motherboard.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I have a Dell Deminsion 4100 with a Pentium III and 128MB of memory.
About 5 years old. Orginaly running Windows ME. Upgraded to XP for
obvious reasons. XP Runs slow but better.

128MB is way too little memory. How much you need depends on what apps you
run, but almost anyone who doe more than play solitaire needs at least 256MB

Task manager tells me some 38 to forty some-odd processes are running
most
of the time. Is that normal for XP?

Yes. It's actually on the low side of normal.

Someone told me that is normal for XP and more memory would help.

Yes.


so
Installed 512MB on one board in one slot. Worked great for about an
hour or so. then I started getting lag with mouse and now keboard.
Lag got worse and worse. Now Im good for about 4 inches of cursor
movement or 6 keystrokes then the computer lags for about 5 seconds.
Took 30 minutes to type this far. Task Manager CPU performance graph
is all over the place between 30%, to 2%, to 100%, etc.. I suspect
its durring the low use periods I can type and use the mouse.

Anyone got any ideas?

These days the most common cause for performance issues is malware
infestation. The first thing to do is always to be sure you are free of
malware. I recommend that you go to Malke's Malware Removal site at
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Removing_Malware and follow
the instructions there.

 

[Frank]

I had a similar problem with a Daewoo Pentium III that was pre-Win XP
and was shipped with Win98 in that although it met/exceeded the
minimum hardware requirements for XP it was very unstable, slow and
with frequent freeze-ups. I put it down to the motherboard not being
able to cope with XP. I gave up in the end, reinstalled Win98, and
sold it as a Win98 only computer. When WinXP came out, manufacturers
made sure that their hardware was compatible. You could try upgrading
the motherboard but Dell have used non-standard PSUs and the
connectors only fit Dell motherboards. Regarding processes running in
Task Manager, my WinXP machine has 47. Good luck!

I have 19 running processes and 21 in the other boxen. _to me_ 47 seems
excessive.

 

[Dominique]

I'm sorry, but I can see any "obvious" reason to put WinXp on a
machine
that old and with so little RAM. What is your processor speed?



It would do, yes.

I have a PIII-550 - 384MB ram (I know it is more ram than the OP) that
was working in double-boot mode with WinME on one disk and Win2k
(illegal) on another disk. I had all sort of issues when I ran Win2k.
Last week I bought the WinXP Home upgrade CD, I reformatted everything
and reinstalled everything from scratch (WinME first, then WinXP on the
other HD).

I've disabled every fancy display effects in XP and use the Classic
Windows theme. It is not slower than 2k, runs much better and the machine
seems very stable. I certainly don't regret that move

Happy new year
Dominique

 

[Rock]

I have 19 running processes and 21 in the other boxen. _to me_ 47 seems
excessive.

But that doesn't mean it is excessive or abnormal.

 

[Guest]

Well Gang,
Thanks for all the good advice. Learned alot. looks like the problem is
solved. No malware problems or system errors, or incompatable memory or bad
device drivers, or anything like that.

I took all my new hardware and memory out and put the old stuff back in,
retuned everything to orginal configuration and it ran fine. Slow, but fine.
Then installed the 512 MB of memory and shut down. Then installed graphics
card and shut down, etc, etc.

All works fine now. For all the great technical advice Seems like maybe the
problem was just craming too much stuff in this old box at one time???
The websites and links were super useful tho! What an education.
Thanks again for the advice and time!

 

[Frank]

But that doesn't mean it is excessive or abnormal.

With the small CPU and the small amount of RAM it sure does......

 

[Rock]

Well Gang,
Thanks for all the good advice. Learned alot. looks like the problem is
solved. No malware problems or system errors, or incompatable memory or
bad
device drivers, or anything like that.

I took all my new hardware and memory out and put the old stuff back in,
retuned everything to orginal configuration and it ran fine. Slow, but
fine.
Then installed the 512 MB of memory and shut down. Then installed
graphics
card and shut down, etc, etc.

All works fine now. For all the great technical advice Seems like maybe
the
problem was just craming too much stuff in this old box at one time???
The websites and links were super useful tho! What an education.
Thanks again for the advice and time!

Glad it's working for you and thanks for updating the thread. From a
practical and troubleshooting perspective it is better to make changes one
at a time, test then change some more. Why things didn't work right the
first time I don't know, maybe one of the hardware items was not physically
installed properly or maybe it really just didn't like all those changes at
once.