Computer Performance

gerryjuice

OK I have a computer 4 years old pentium 4, 64 ram (min required for XP), Windows XP
I only want the computer to go on the internet and do some word processing, printing etc.
The issue is that the computer when i turn it on, is very very very slow. I need to go away from the computer for about 15 minutes to let it "sort" itself out before doing any actual work.
I am thinking the ram is too small, but when the computer is running it is only using about 38-42 processes/threads.

I have recently wiped the system and reinstalled the OS with the relevant drivers. I have 2 anti-virus programs running on it, have MS-Offfice, and ie installed.

When you wipe the computer and reinstall everything, should the computer act as if it is new?
I find it hard to believe that a "new" computer should be so slow, am i missing something, is their a way to speed up the computer by trying to tell the computer what processes to run and not to run at start up?how?
Do i need to try and upgrade the ram?
Is this a big job and can i do it myself?

ActorSeeksJob

this link might help a bit
http://users.telenet.be/bluepatchy/miekiemoes/slowcomputer.html

Running 2 anti-virus programs is not a good idea, especially if they are running real-time protection. So that could be another reason for why your pc is slow, so pick one anti-virus and stick with it.

You might have a lot of start up entries running that you dont need, go to
Start > Run > type Msconfig > click ok > click on Startup tab
and disable any entries that aren't required, like quicktime or steam.

In my opinion you definitely should update your ram, 64ram is way too low. As far as I know its relatively cheap to do, and not too tough. Maybe a friend can help you with it?

gerryjuice

Thanks for the link.

I guess i wanted to uses an open source & a non-open source Anti Virus as i have read it is the best way to protect against virsu's/malware etc.

Ill have a go at what you have suggested, thanks for the help

Khannie

64M of ram is the problem here. No question. XP cannot function properly with that small amount of memory.

d_advocatus

I installed XP Pro SP1 on a PIII 450MHz with 64MB PC-133 and it wasn't too bad. XP is pretty scalable, obviously more RAM is better but it will run ok on 64MB. I would definately think it's the two AV programs. That many processes is also too much. As was mentioned, use msconfig to control what runs and what doesn't.

Kintarō Hattori

I'll go with Khannie, 64MB is wayyy too little for XP.
(Though 2 anti-virus program's isn't good either!)

challengemaster

also agreed with khannie, you need more ram. its not exactlly hard to do tbh.

layke

Khannie wrote:

64M of ram is the problem here. No question. XP cannot function properly with that small amount of memory.

Agreed it did it until SP1 was released. Then you needed (well not needed but should have) 128MB min, then 256mb when SP2 came out.

You can run it on 64MB ram but why? Your PC would constantly be crunching your HDD desperately trying to push as much data through the page file as poss.

papu

what kinda ram you runnin if its sd i can probly rustle up a spare chip or 2 for ya ;D

TerrorFirmer

What I find strange is how you came across a Pentium 4 with only 64mb of Ram in the first place...

ethernet

d_advocatus wrote:

I installed XP Pro SP1 on a PIII 450MHz with 64MB PC-133 and it wasn't too bad. XP is pretty scalable, obviously more RAM is better but it will run ok on 64MB. I would definately think it's the two AV programs. That many processes is also too much. As was mentioned, use msconfig to control what runs and what doesn't.

Of out interest, how long does it take to boot up? Just benchmarking against this crazy experiment that's been mentioned here before. I hope you're using the classic interface and have turned off the 'fancy' effects.

Windows 98SE or 2000 would run better on that machine.

SouperComputer

HavoK wrote:

What I find strange is how you came across a Pentium 4 with only 64mb of Ram in the first place...

+1

OP, find out what type of RAM is in the machine and add some. It will make a world of difference.

papu

lol!!! on this crazy low stuff the world record for underclocking and booting is 8mhz !! you learn something useless everyday

Joeface

well if its SDRAM and I can donate to your cause Im pretty sure i have some SDRAM lying around .2x128mb should help . Never seen a DDR stick of ram with only 64mb on it.

other silly things can help with the general speed also , like in the
in the folders options>views un tick automatically search for network folders and printers , and tick do not cache thumbnails . Small but they help
and if ya want you can turn of indexing as well. unnecessary use of resources doesnt help ...:)

And last there is start>run>msconfig and edit the startup menu ...but thats all at ur risk

gerryjuice

Thanks for all the response lads.
Computer actually belongs to the sister, she got it as a pressie / original owner was not using it. Definitely has a P4 sticker on side, with 64 ram, the fact that it is 4 years old is debatable - it may be older.

Joeface - not exactly sure of the type of ram is in the machine at the moment as have not being near the machine in the last 24 hours, but will check when i get a chance. Thanks for the offer

Dont like the idea of going near msconfig as im not sure what process's should or should not be running.

L31mr0d

grab gadwin off the net then take some screenshots msconfig under the startup tab. 9 times out of 10 a slow startup on a pc is because of all the crap that has been set to load at startup.

BUT, if after a fresh install you still find that your system takes a while to load. It is more than likely your RAM.

ActorSeeksJob

If you want to post a SS of your msconfig we could tell you whats ok to disable. Programs like QuickTime you really dont need running on startup. Or you could just google a lot of them. Will help a bit with pc speed

TerrorFirmer

The original owner probably took out all the Ram before he gave it away. It has never been possible to actually purchase a p4 machine with only 64mb of Ram, and anyone self building would never put such a ridiculous amount of ram in either. Other then that, it's possible it's actually not a P4 at all but for some reason has the p4 case sticker on it.

It's also probably an early P4 - if it definately is a p4 - in which case it most likely uses RD-Ram - hideously expensive and very hard to come by.

Joeface

some P4 boards i think my orignal P4 1.8 or 1.9ghz had both SDRAM sockets and DDR sockets on it . Cant remember the manu think it was EISA or something like that.

anyway Doesn't CPU-Z tell you the processor and Ram type used on the board.

d_advocatus

ethernet wrote:

Of out interest, how long does it take to boot up? Just benchmarking against this crazy experiment that's been mentioned here before. I hope you're using the classic interface and have turned off the 'fancy' effects.

Windows 98SE or 2000 would run better on that machine.

I can't remember how long it took. I reformatted after a few days and installed Smoothwall. That's the reason I took the computer in the first place, but I just wanted to install XP to see if a) it would install, b) if it was usable. It was just curiosity.