PC becomes very slow to respond

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#521
AndrewT said:
Do I avoid all updates after 2012?
Click to expand...

From around April/May 2015 is the time when the W10 stuff started creeping in so I would bring it up to date to that point and then see what's left and look on an individual basis.

From memory... there might be a browser upgrade in amongst those or some update that asks you to confirm the license conditions. Unless you realise you can be sat staring and wonder why nothing is happening. Clue would be a glowing yellow notification box in the system tray.
 
#522
All that I have done today has worked
Installed those four pre 2103 updates. Took a while for just 50MB
Installed IE11 and it went straight into update.
Restart to configure.
1.6GB in recycle bin 29269 files. Emptied.
C: drive is now 19GB. Just as well I followed your advice to increase the partition from 20GB.
Every download I ask for, goes straight to F: partition.
E: is my Backup and Image partition.

I will add the second HDD and save the next Backup+Image to the separate HDD

Shut down and start up are nice and quick, 7seconds and 65seconds

And your right about the MS help instructions. Absolutely precise. Every step is exactly as they say and they all worked.

I'll go back and find the date that Ost stated for avoiding. But did that apply to "Updates for Win7" only or did it also apply to "Security Updates" for Win7 and .NET framework?
 
Last edited:
#523
#525
AndrewT said:
Why should I open win explorer?
Click to expand...

You do every time you click on My Computer and so on 🙂

wdecho said:
I know people that went with Linux and it is free open software and will satisfy most users. If I had a problem with my operating system and the original Windows OS was not an option I would have no problem changing to Linux. In ways if is actually better.
Click to expand...

Do not want to start a flame war in this thread so will comment this only once.

I have a dual boot - now Win 7 64/Ubuntu 14.10. Before I used for two years Linux Mint. There is software you cannot run properly under Linux, even with a VM ( graphic drivers ). If your computer runs an Ati card, chances to get your fglrx driver to be the actual Ati driver and not the open source one which had issues with external displays in my case, are very low. Some .odt documents are not going to be displayed properly on MS Office which is standard in most industries. MS Office pack is better than Libre/Open office. Your computer will likely run slower with most Linux distributions.

Don`t get me wrong - Linux is incomparably more stable than any Windows and the Mint had some very nice features, I much prefer it over Windows ( especially the audio 😀 ) but the above constraints are just nailing it to remain unpopular. By the way, Arta works like a charm under Wine.
 
#528
Personally, I would install all updates apart from those that are specifically aimed at W10.

There was an interesting article last week in one of the computer mags (reading it in Morrison's as you do) that tested MSE on a fully updated version of W7 (I'm sure it was W7) and compared it to a partially updated install. The difference was staggering with MSE only picking up something like 66% of threats for the partially updated one and nearer 99. something for the fully updated. So there seems to be more going on with updates than is immediately apparent.

So I would update.
 
#529
This from a search of what superfetch is and does.
Seems to describe some of my symptoms and it uses svchost of which I had 10 to 12 running
Superfetch is a service that was introduced with Vista and has been part of Windows ever since. It tries to speed up your computing experience by pre-loading parts of programs into memory with sometimes detrimental effects as you had to experience. It tries to determine which software you use and stores parts of it to the Windows folder.

Unfortunately, Superfetch doesn't always get it right which software you're going to use and can keep your hard drive busy for minutes after booting. I found it especially annoying since it kept on loading software I wasn't even going to use or that I had only used once. Since I use a plethora of different programs every day, Superfetch actually had a massive negative impact on my computer's performance with keeping the hard drive busy for 5-10 minutes after a fresh boot. This is the very reason I have been running Windows with deactivated Superfetch ever since it came out.

Additionally, since Superfetch uses memory for applications you might not even run, your free amount of memory will take a hit and might result in more swapping which adds just more wear to the hard drive.
Click to expand...
and this link says that more RAM allows superfetch to work even better.
http://www.osnews.com/story/21471/SuperFetch_How_it_Works_Myths
 
Last edited:
#530
Mooly said:
Personally, I would install all updates apart from those that are specifically aimed at W10.

There was an interesting article last week in one of the computer mags (reading it in Morrison's as you do) that tested MSE on a fully updated version of W7 (I'm sure it was W7) and compared it to a partially updated install. The difference was staggering with MSE only picking up something like 66% of threats for the partially updated one and nearer 99. something for the fully updated. So there seems to be more going on with updates than is immediately apparent.

So I would update.
Click to expand...
I have a couple of PC advice sites open and they give some "AVOID" lists.
Maybe I can update many of the "Security updates" ?
 
#531
Yes, superfetch tracks how you ue your PC. If for example you always update an office document at say 19:00 hours then you will find that around that time Windows has anticipated that and loaded the main parts of the program ready for instant launch. Its self maintaining and works well out of the box.

Always try and remember that free RAM is serving no purpose, only when it has useful stuff in it is it doing something worthwhile. So loading stuff you use into RAM isn't a problem, its a bonus.

If I can get Vista to fly on 2Gb RAM and an AMD64 processor then you have absolutely no worries with your set up.

When I first got interested in all this stuff and looked into things like this, often trying much of it, I came to the conclusion that tampering often either brought no benefit or actually caused other issues. I don't even use CCleaner now (and certainly not the registry cleaner) because Windows used properly takes care of itself. It also has pretty much all the tools you need built in to do all the housekeeping required.
 
#532
AndrewT said:
I have a couple of PC advice sites open and they give some "AVOID" lists.
Maybe I can update many of the "Security updates" ?
Click to expand...

Genuine security updates should be fine. The real problem ones are the data gatherers for W10 and the W10 nagging updates. Once I got down to just 2015 for the remaining updates I dialled each KB number up and looked what it did. Those that were offenders I did not install but hid (if you right click an update you can hide it so it no longer shows)
 
#533
An incomplete and potentially inaccurate list, of service packs to question/avoid, follows:

KB2545698 IE9, even worse than useless
KB2506928 Some random excuse in the description
KB2592687 No idea what that is
KB2660075 Even less idea what that is
KB2726535 Half as useful as a paint spill
KB2819745; it’s a “possibly to be avoided”
KB2876229 SKYPE, If you want Skype then install it normally
KB2923545 Reduces RDP compatibility
KB2952664 Windows 10 Upgrade preparation
KB2970228 Beyond pointless
KB2976978 Windows 10 Upgrade preparation
KB2977759 Windows 10 Upgrade preparation
KB2990214 Windows 10 Upgrade preparation
KB2994023 Every bit as good as motor scooters made for cats
KB2999226 Useful for when plumbers go to dentist school
KB3021917 Windows 10 Upgrade preparation + Telemetry
KB3022345 Telemetry
KB3022345 Replaced by KB3068708 Telemetry
KB3035583 Windows 10 upgrade preparation
KB3050265 a June 2015 replacement for 2990214
KB3065987 a July 2015 replacement for 2990214; may be OK as it might allow a way to block other Win 10 related KBs.
KB3068708 Telemetry a later replacement for 3022345
KB3075249 Telemetry
KB3077715 Even worse than Windows Millennium
KB3078667 Prevents excessive speed online
KB3080149 Telemetry
KB3083324 Windows Update Client; possibly benign; but, how likely is that?

Well, I did use this list and my computer did go faster.
It does seem that the updates weren't as important as the descriptions, and that's news.
 
#535
danielwritesbac said:
An incomplete and potentially inaccurate list, of service packs to question/avoid, follows:

Well, I did use this list and my computer did go faster.
It does seem that the updates weren't as important as the descriptions, and that's news.
Click to expand...

Many of the unknown updates are to patch the media player or the other
lame "features" included with windows.

The Russian hackers slipstream about 20 updates post SP1 , addressing
TCP/IP , Kernel , and other core OS vulnerabilities.
To avoid the "features" , the hackers just remove them from W7. Mine
has no Help , IE , or other B$.

W7 can run about as efficiently as XP SP3 on a 2GB machine in this
configuration (with full functionality).

OS
 
#536
Mooly said:
Which tbh is the same as all the descriptions you have tagged to the KB numbers.
Click to expand...
No, I harmed only the blank descriptions and the point of that was to drop a hint that such lists are unreliable. That list won't work as a security measure, or at least not for long term. However, the list IS usable to make your computer more efficient by cleaning out junk that you didn't need.
Compare:
Real security comes in the form of Zone Alarm firewall-only product and/or assisted by Peerblock set with a Microsoft ip ban list (including also advertisers they would sell you to). Also usable is the jdrop feature of a linux powered router. Basically, a reason to assume success requires a means to work. My point is that if one wants to cut off inappropriate communication, there are proper tools for doing it. After doing that job directly and well, then any version of windows is okay. Otherwise, none.
 
Last edited:
#537
ostripper said:
W7 can run about as efficiently as XP SP3 on a 2GB machine in this configuration (with full functionality). OS
Click to expand...
I have one machine running XP SP4-nopos. It runs stable and quick like SP2. The only problem that I have discovered is the reliance on older hardware.

Newer hardware seems to be based on APU sort of tech, which is pretty much the same concept as a "winmodem" whereby outright omitted hardware for costs savings, is substituted by more complicated drivers that load up the main CPU, easily reducing both the performance and the price. Even HP has begun making computers in that way, and the newer examples that I have seen, are very "softmode" as in highly driver reliant. That also increases the potential for instability while also reducing compatibility and cost too. That sort of thing will definitely hinder XP's effectiveness.

You know, it does seem that we have been comparing Win7 updated to 2013, to XP updated to 2014. Except for hardware support, including the amount of memory utilized, there's not much in the way of a noteworthy difference.
So, when an older computer has been upgraded from XP to Windows 7, most of the cases may represent a laborious method to make a computer slightly less useful. 😀
 
#538
Mooly said:
So there seems to be more going on with updates than is immediately apparent.
Click to expand...
There are two kinds of security update, those that are pro-active and those that are retro-active.

IME most microsoft updates are to fill holes that have been left in the release versions. IMHO microsoft releases too early, and values timing above public opinion of them and their practices.

OTOH open source software holds of until reasonable testing has happened. They make mistakes but can justify that they tried to do the right thing.
 
#539
danielwritesbac said:
I have one machine running XP SP4-nopos. It runs stable and quick like SP2. The only problem that I have discovered is the reliance on older hardware.

Newer hardware seems to be based on APU sort of tech, which is pretty much the same concept as a "winmodem" whereby outright omitted hardware for costs savings, is substituted by more complicated drivers that load up the main CPU, easily reducing both the performance and the price. Even HP has begun making computers in that way, and the newer examples that I have seen, are very "softmode" as in highly driver reliant. That also increases the potential for instability while also reducing compatibility and cost too. That sort of thing will definitely hinder XP's effectiveness.

You know, it does seem that we have been comparing Win7 updated to 2013, to XP updated to 2014. Except for hardware support, including the amount of memory utilized, there's not much in the way of a noteworthy difference.
So, when an older computer has been upgraded from XP to Windows 7, most of the cases may represent a laborious method to make a computer slightly less useful. 😀
Click to expand...

This is why I usually disable on-board software(codec) reliant devices ,
replacing them with real PCI/PCI-E cards.

This PC I'm on now is connected though a broadcom (pci) GB ethernet , not the
"fake" realtek adaptor. Has a buffer cache - 500 bit-torrent connects plus
this forum is flawless.

So this levels the playing field between my XP/W7 installs , most of my 6
workstations have "real" hardware. W7 is better with the codec powered
hardware - a more advanced kernel.
With this in mind , an older machine with all motherboard hardware could
possibly be a little faster on W7 (IF ) ... you disable all the memory/CPU
"hogging" garbage that is included with the newer OS.

PS - my lite W7 and XP SP3 run nearly the same (instant) on everything
from a 3Ghz dual core AMD , or slightly faster Intel core duo's. The only
thing this quad can do better is number crunching (audio/video encoding ).
Actually have a fast P4 (single) that surfs a fast W7 !! Can't run a movie
plus twenty firefox tabs with that one ..... 😱

OS
 
#540
danielwritesbac said:
Real security comes in the form of Zone Alarm firewall-only product and/or assisted by Peerblock set with a Microsoft ip ban list (including also advertisers they would sell you to). Also usable is the jdrop feature of a linux powered router. Basically, a reason to assume success requires a means to work. My point is that if one wants to cut off inappropriate communication, there are proper tools for doing it. After doing that job directly and well, then any version of windows is okay. Otherwise, none.
Click to expand...

Yes , 3rd party ... like zonealarm and peerblock.
Have you seen an instance where Zonealarm blocks something from windows itself ?
There are a couple of updates (beyond my updates) that change the
W7 firewall's behavior.
Along with the update to the update service , this gives M$ expanded
"trusted installer" status.
I DO NOT trust M$ , they are no longer "trusted installers" ... why would
anyone give them expanded administrative privileges ?

OS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom