Adding Memory
in [Help and Support]
|
Prev: error message \NSW\ESDSTART.exe
Next: The instruction at "0x77d4bbcd" referenced memory at "0x00000048".The memory could not be "read".
From: Gerry on 15 Dec 2008 19:55 Norman Let's see what it reveals. You will most likely get a flavour regarding computer use and programmes installed. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Norman wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:02:50 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >> Norman >> >> A Disk Defragment Report is a good source of background information. >> >> Disk Defragmenting is only component of housekeeping but I have asked >> for the Report for other reasons. > > Thanks for the quick reply. What "background information" and "other > reasons" would be in the defrag report that would help to diagnose the > problem of a slow PC? > > I would really like to know. > >> If you read the whole thread you would >> see the computer is marginal for Windows XP > > I did read the whole thread. I ran XP on a machine I built in 1999 > that was powered by an original 600mhz Athlon and had only 256k of > RAM. I think you would call that "marginal", yet I had no complaints > about the system - especially it's slowness. > > I just got the "itch" to upgrade everything a couple years ago.
From: Norman on 15 Dec 2008 20:03 On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:55:03 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote: >Norman > >Let's see what it reveals. You will most likely get a flavour regarding >computer use and programmes installed. IF the report is posted.... -- Norman If people concentrated on the really important things of life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles. Doug Larson
From: Anna on 15 Dec 2008 22:16 >> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:45:23 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> >>> I would be interested in seeing a Disk Defragmenter report . Open >>> Disk Defragmenter and click on Analyse. Select View Report and >>> click on Save As and Save. Now find VolumeC.txt in your My Documents >>> Folder and post a copy. Do this before running Disk Defragmenter as >>> it is more informative. >> Norman wrote... >> I would be interested in knowing just how much fragmenting it takes to >> really slow a machine down to the point where its owner begins to >> complain. >> >> I would guess that level is never reached and that disk defragmenting >> as a cure for slow systems is way over-rated. >> >> I have gone for as long as a year without defragmenting. When I ran >> an analysis, it showed less than 20% fragmenting. I defragged just >> for the heck of it - I didn't notice any slowness, I was just bored >> and looking for something to do - and the pretty picture of my drive >> looked better, but I didn't notice any pickup in speed or >> "snappiness"> "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:Ojx5pGxXJHA.5272(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Norman > > A Disk Defragment Report is a good source of background information. > > Disk Defragmenting is only component of housekeeping but I have asked for > the Report for other reasons. If you read the whole thread you would see > the computer is marginal for Windows XP > -- > Gerry > ~~~~ > FCA > Stourport, England Norman, Gerry (and anyone else who cares to listen)... With respect to only the general topic of defragmenting (since the topic has arisen!) and not bearing directly upon the OP's problem... During the Win9x days there was a standing joke at the shop where I was working as a computer technician. When we techs arrived at the shop bright & early Monday mornings we would invariably see a number of customers (new & old) standing in line outside our door with computers in their hands (as well as lying at their feet) waiting for the shop's door to open. The standing joke around the shop was "Looks like the defragmenters were busy over the weekend, huh?". Invariably many users who were having no problems with their PCs prior to defragmenting their HDDs certainly did encounter problems of one sort or another following their attempt at "defragmenting" their HDD. And it didn't seem to matter whether the OS's defragmenting utility was used or whether a third-party program had been used. In nearly every case the only "fix" was a reformatting of the drive and a reinstallation of the OS. Now I have to emphasize that the preceding events occurred during the Win9x days. Admittedly (based upon our experience with the XP OS environment) those problems arising from the defragmentation process going awry seem to have pretty much disappeared. The XP defragmenter is apparently much more reliable in that it doesn't seem to cause the mischief its predecessors sometimes caused (or at least were culpable in some respects). Ditto for the latest generation of third-party defragmenters based on limited experience we've had with them. How effective the defragmenting process is in achieving "real-life" improvement of a system's performance is another story. In our experience, very little, if anything, is gained by the great bulk of PC users. (There was an interesting article on defragmenting in (I believe) PC World a few years back. After rather exhaustive testing, they concluded that the defragmenting process yielded no significant performance improvement affecting the XP OS for the vast majority of users, whether the XP integrated utility was used or a third-party defragmenter was employed in the process. When we're asked about the value of defragmenting one's HDD, our standard response for must PC users is that by & large the process is unnecessary to achieve better performance of one's system. But if you feel you *must* "defragment", do so twice a year - on New Years Day and Independence Day (we're talking USA here). That's more than sufficient in our opinion, again, for the vast majority of PC users. There are (naturally!) certain exceptions to the point-of-view I've expressed above (at least based upon reports I've received from a number of users). It seems (according to these reports) that if the user is heavily engaged in decoding/encoding video files and/or creating, deleting, or modifying a *huge* volume of files on a very frequent basis, then there *might* be valid reasons for undertaking more-or-less routine defragmenting operations. I'm aware that contrary viewpoints will be expressed re this issue, so let me hastily say that if you are one of those who regularly defragments their HDD(s) (either through the "built-in" XP utility or some third-party "defragmenter") and believes that by so doing your PC performance is truly enhanced, then obviously you should continue to do so. In no way would I wish to dissuade those who feel they're deriving some value from regularly defragmenting their HDD(s Anna
From: Daave on 15 Dec 2008 22:29 "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:OlKggmuXJHA.2444(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Jimbo > > According to this link the answer is no. You already have the maximum. > http://www.shopping.com/xPF-E-Machines-T1090 However, according to this other link, the answer is YES! http://www.crucial.com:80/store/listparts.aspx?model=T1090 To OP: As you know, your PC is on the old side. However, if you intend on keeping it for a while, $34 (or even $68) is a small investment for a considerable performance boost.
From: Norman on 16 Dec 2008 01:11
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:16:31 -0500, "Anna" <myname(a)myisp.net> wrote: >How effective the defragmenting process is in achieving "real-life" >improvement of a system's performance is another story. In our experience, >very little, if anything, is gained by the great bulk of PC users. (There >was an interesting article on defragmenting in (I believe) PC World a few >years back. After rather exhaustive testing, they concluded that the >defragmenting process yielded no significant performance improvement >affecting the XP OS for the vast majority of users, whether the XP >integrated utility was used or a third-party defragmenter was employed in >the process. Thank you. I was all but sure of that based only on my own experience, so I never bothered to look for reassurance. Today's speedy drives and powerful CPUs more than make up for any speed degradation that might occur in a fragmented drive. -- Norman If people concentrated on the really important things of life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles. Doug Larson |