Computer raised from the dead.

[Sibling DavidH]

The other week I had to sort an old computer out and got dramatic results.  Some siblings may be interested.
The wife's desktop is an old P4 thing with 256 MB RAM and 40 GB HDD, running XP.  It had got so ludicrously slow as to be  unusable: over 5 minutes to boot or shut down, tens of seconds to open, say, Word.
I don't have an XP disc or a backup image, so I had to fix what was there.
It had been running AVG and Spybot and had Zone Alarm as firewall.  I ran AVG and Spybot again, also Malwarebytes. Nothing.  I ran CC Cleaner and Wise Registry Cleaner, then Registry Defrag. I defragged the hard drive and did a check on it.  I had already cut down the startup items ruthlessly and disabled some un-needed services.
Little or no improvement.
Since we have 2 other computers on the net, she agreed I could try taking hers off  - she rarely used it on that machine anyway.  So I disabled the wireless LAN and unchecked AVG, Spybot and Zone Alarm from startup.
I had hoped for some improvement, but the results were totally dramatic.  It now boots up and shuts down as fast as I've ever seen XP do, and opens Office apps in a couple of seconds.  Just like new.
I'd guess one of the security apps was corrupted, or just possibly it had some undetected malware which now can't function.  I realise that a complete re-install of all that stuff might get it going better, but that machine really doesn't need to be on the net.  Now I've uninstalled all the security stuff and recleaned the registry.  Still excellent.
Any thoughts, folks?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The wife's desktop is an old P4 thing with 256 MB RAM and 40 GB HDD, running XP. 

(my emphasis)
Running XP* on 256MB of RAM is a no-no much more with a modern antivirus running. XP can run more or less with 512MB but as new software comes out it becomes more dependent on RAM (MSOffice is a memory hog BTW) so 768MB or more become more or less a necessity. Memory isn't that expensive and nor difficult to install, if you want to go that route let me know and I'll tell you what to do.

*Running Vista with less than 1GB is simply intolerable and will only be bearable with 2GB.
---
On a RAM related note I just upgraded my memory to 4GB (I wanted to add the 2GB I had working on the same motherboard but memtest failed miserably with all the slots populated). XP 32 bits only sees 3.2GB of RAM and using a RAMDisk I was able to move the swap/page file to memory effectively reaching the full 4GB. If anyone is interested in how to do this let me know.

[Swatopluk]

Some poor PhD students at the university had to try to run XP on a PC with 128 MHz processor. Iirc some poor devil was even forced temporarily on a 66 Mhz machine (not sure about memory).
I wonder how that even allowed installation, not to speak of running.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Edit: 

... Now I've uninstalled all the security stuff and recleaned the registry.  Still excellent.
Any thoughts, folks?

Yes:   ALL so-called "security" software simply sucks.  Period.  It's often bloat-ware, it thinks *IT* is the only important thing running, and it **has** to be memory-resident to be effective.

More:  most security software refuses to play nice with other security software-- even of the same brand.  Thus?  Resource-conflicts often arise, slowing everything down as these sometimes get "resolved" by simple time-out architecture-- that is, the conflict creates a halt, which eventually the OS times-out.  The faulted software then goes into "limp home" mode, which is often very slow.  Or, it might cycle a couple of times, before "settling" on an alternative route-- again many CPU clock cycles to sort-out.   And this is just at start-up time.

I'd bet against corruption-- your experience, from where I sit, is typical of these "security suites", not unusual or even unique.  Corrupt software usually breaks dramatically--i.e. messages finally pop-up, rather than the OS being able to fix it.

I hate that we must run this trashware.    For Win7?  I'm running Microsuck "Security Essentials".... right.   But, at least the authors had an inside track into the inner workings and tricks of Win7.

For WinXP?  Whatever's built-in to XP itself.   

I do not run anti-virus crapware, haven't for years and years.   My discipline is strong enough, I've never been infected-- the very few times I thought I was?  More than one different on-line scanner pronounced my machine clean after all.

Some poor PhD students at the university had to try to run XP on a PC with 128 MHz processor. Iirc some poor devil was even forced temporarily on a 66 Mhz machine (not sure about memory).
I wonder how that even allowed installation, not to speak of running.

Back in my days as a computer repair jockey (2001, 2002ish), the cheap-ass company I worked for had us all on wimpy 128meg RAM machines.  I forget the speed-- something that would've been new in '95-- we got all the cast-offs.

Anyway, I successfully had XP boot up in 128meg of RAM.  I worked well enough for what I used it for-- looking on the interwebs for solutions, loading their trouble-ticket software (even more ancient, so low overhead), running Outlook 95 for E-mail, appointments, etc.

Short answer:  it will work.  As for boot-time?  I never turned the thing off anyhow, so a non-issue.   The few times I had to?  Time for a coffee break anyhow. 

____________________________________________

Edit:

.... RAMDisk I was able to move the swap/page file to memory effectively reaching the full 4GB. If anyone is interested in how to do this let me know.

Yes, I'd be curious:  I have 8gig ram on my current machine, running Win7.  But I occasionally dual-boot into XP (via a completely separate hard drive).  Essentially 5 gig of ram is idle.  I'd be most interested in seeing a way to utilize a bit of that.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Some poor PhD students at the university had to try to run XP on a PC with 128 MHz processor. Iirc some poor devil was even forced temporarily on a 66 Mhz machine (not sure about memory).

A slow computer with enough memory will be slow but will not choke on a simple application, for instance at this point I'm running Firefox with five tabs open one of them Gmail (AJAX) and that process alone is eating 300MB of RAM, running it with one tab open will be using 100MB+ and that's just one app. The problem with little memory is that when the system runs out of it, it will use a portion of the hard disk as memory (the swap/page file) and the differences of time response between RAM and HD is orders of magnitude higher (nanoseconds vs milliseconds in the worst cases) making the computer choke.
-----
Ramdisk tutorial:

First of all: do a full Memtest diagnostic before doing anything! You can find Memtest in your Ubuntu installation disk. Let it run at least until it passes all tests. If you have errors on the process I not only advise against doing the ramdisk but to keep using the memory on W7. Memory corruption is known to kill Hard disks, (it has happened to me BTW) and create instability on systems. If you have a faulty memory module or your chipset is has trouble managing more than certain amount of memory (slots in my case), you'll have to remove the offending module(s).

To use a RAMDisk on XP I'm using Gavotte (which is free and can be downloaded from here*).

-Unpackage the file, and run the ramdisk.exe file.
-Select the size of the disk (it goes up to 3GB)
-Select a drive letter (make sure it's NOT B: because it is reserved for a floppy).
-Select 'Fixed Media' (it will see it as another hard disk)
-Press 'Install Ramdisk'

You may have to reboot.

Now go to the My computer icon (in the desktop or in the start menu depending how you use it) and do a right click.

-Click on Properties
-Go to Advanced
-Under Performance click the 'Settings' button
-Select the Advance tab
-Under Virtual Memory click the 'Change' button
-You'll see a list of Hard disk units (visible partitions, really) among which is the new Ram disk you created.
-Set the size of the page file to 0 for both Initial Size and Maximum size in the unit in which the page file currently is (most likely C:) and any other you are using.
-Set the size of the page file for the RAMdisk unit, leaving a bit of empty space on it, so if you have a 3GB set your page file to 2.8 for both Initial and Maximum size.
-Click OK, Apply, etc and you will be asked to reboot your computer.

If all goes well once you come back you'll be able to use 6 of your 8GB. Note that the system will still say that you only have 3.2GB of memory but your full load will use part of the swap which is on the RAMdisk, effectively making your computer capable of using up to 6GB of memory.



*the server is down at the time of writing, if you need the actual file let me know and I'll send it to you in an email.

[beagle]

Any thoughts, folks?

Hmm...

Badly written network card driver.
System PATH containing a network drive which is slow to respond or timeout.
Dodgy hippyware virus checkers/firewall 
Infrequently used machine deciding to do its pending updates and virus scans immediately on the rare occasions the machine is switched on.

With the benefit of hindsight, using some of the www.sysinternals.com tools like Process Monitor to monitor disk and registry requests before the changes might have revealed something.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Dodgy hippyware virus checkers/firewall 

As opposed to brand name antivirus (Norton, Symantec)?? I've had significantly more problems with those than with the free ones.
--
Nevertheless the scanning when the computer turns on is indeed a very likely culprit, in fact other related processes (like spybot's resident) may take a while working in the background until they release memory/CPU cycles.

Another trick that has improved things before is to use a new profile (essentially create a new user, log on as him and kill the old one). That even helps with some malware. WARNING: if you decide to do that move all the info in My Documents to a safe place, and also copy your browser bookmarks, before deleting the old profile.

[beagle]

Dodgy hippyware virus checkers/firewall 

As opposed to brand name antivirus (Norton, Symantec)?? I've had significantly more problems with those than with the free ones.

Just winding you up. I hate Norton too. I used to much prefer Trend Micro but then they produced a bloatware version. Using the Evil Empire's own stuff now.

[Sibling DavidH]

Thanks for all that, folks!
It could obviously do with more RAM, that's clear, but when we were first given it, second-hand, it ran reasonably fast with the same anti-virus apps.
Last week I got hold of a similar old machine which is now my main desktop.  As I  rebuilt it I immediately upped it to 512 MB.  It now uses the same network thingy taken from the wife's machine, and it's quite reasonably fast.  Same AVG etc.
It's a good thought about the protection software doing updates at start-up, but in fact it never improved however long it was on.  The slowness seemed to creep up slowly over the months; I never noticed any particular sudden change.
Anyway, as I said, as far as we're concerned the problem is solved for now and I shall leave it alone unless circumstances change.  However all your advice is very interesting and likely to be handy in future.  We might want to restore it some time.  I have copied the entire thread off into Notepad and saved it.
Thanks again!   

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Just winding you up. I hate Norton too. I used to much prefer Trend Micro but then they produced a bloatware version. Using the Evil Empire's own stuff now.

Yep on both:  I now use "Security" essentials from Micro$uck.

But, I keep wondering.....

Is it like M$'s "genuine advantage"?

=========================
A telephone conversation:

Microsoft Tech Support:  "Hello, you have reached Microsoft Tech Support, how may I help you?"
Windows user:  "Yeah, I just updated my windows, and it installed something called 'Microsoft Genuine Advantage'?"

MTS: "Yes?"
WU:  "Well prior to that, my computer was working well enough, considering.  Now, after installing this 'Microsoft Genuine Advantage' package, it is running very slow.  So I tried un-installing it, but when I do that, I can no longer access the Microsoft update site."*

MTS: "Yes?  I do not see your problem."

WU:  "How can I update my PC without running 'Microsoft Genuine Advantage'?"

MTS:  "You cannot.  The update site now requires the installation of 'Microsoft Genuine Advantage' package."

WU: "Oh, I see.  How, then is this an advantage to me?"

MTS:  "We did not say it was a genuine advantage for you."

..........

* Alas, this part of the story is actually true:  'Microsoft Genuine Advantage' must now be installed to access automatic updates.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Perhaps in SP3, on SP2 I have been able to update the system without the dreaded WGA, and in fact I don't leave updates automatic but to warn me or even disabled for periods of time (it sometimes tries to install stuff without my consent).

As for W7 I would assume that thing is there already, in fact the hideous file management problems of Vista are likely related to DRM related stuff like WGA.

[Sibling DavidH]

Yes. The machine I was on about is a home-made job which I was given.  When MS Genuine "Advantage" appeared, it turned out the XP installation was not kosher.  I found out on the net how to get rid of WGA (I seem to remember it's a registry hack), but then had to disable updates to stop the damn thing coming back.  Now the beast is off the net, that's another worry I won't have.

As far as antivirus goes, I like AVG.  The simple version is free and works as well as any, they say.  In fact I'm running the paid-for version on my Vista laptop now, so as to get a decent firewall.  Zone Alarm won't work, not even the Vista version.  (Well it worked, but the only way of shutting down was to remove the battery!)

[Griffin NoName]

It may be the spyware. I installed Spyware Doctor and it made my machine unbearably slow. Uninstalled and it went back to normal speed.

[Sibling DavidH]

It may be the spyware. I installed Spyware Doctor and it made my machine unbearably slow. Uninstalled and it went back to normal speed.

I never found Spyware Doctor very satisfactory either.  I'm not about to use it again.