Prev: Can't connect to the internet?
Next: switching users
From: Buffalo on 28 Mar 2010 11:03


henry markov wrote:
> I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run
> "well enough" however sometime in the last several months its
> responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance
> monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into a
> condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather
> continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the machine returned
> to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps
> open and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates changed
> in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally)
> recently in a way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some
> people will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an
> adequately sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such
> that it really does work decently for anything else I do including
> software development.

Henry, read Glee's repy to you and click on the link he suggested and read
the 3rd post down. It could explain what is happening to your PC using XP
SP3.
Buffalo


From: "db" databaseben at hotmail dot on 28 Mar 2010 11:03
true.

--

db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen

>
>

"Patrick Keenan" <test(a)dev.null> wrote in message news:#hrTuslzKHA.4328(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "db" <databaseben at hotmail dot com> wrote in message news:0917F807-B7F8-48FA-B81D-13933E17ACD5(a)microsoft.com...
>> the poor system performance
>> is likely due to have only 384
>> megs of ram.
>>
>> you will likely see an improvement
>> by having at least 512 megs of
>> ram installed.
>>
>> personally, I would go with 1
>> gig of ram.
>
> Boards of that vintage often had memory capacities below 512 meg. It may already be fully populated.
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> db���`�...�><)))�>
>> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
>> - Systems Analyst
>> - Database Developer
>> - Accountancy
>> - Veteran of the Armed Forces
>> - Microsoft Partner
>> - @hotmail.com
>> ~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "henry markov" <hm(a)noplace.net> wrote in message news:O#KFJtQzKHA.5332(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run "well enough" however sometime in the last several months
>>> its responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving
>>> it into a condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the
>>> machine returned to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps open and get reasonable performance. Has
>>> automatic updates changed in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally) recently in a way that explains this
>>> behavior? Oh, since I know some people will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an adequately sized paging
>>> file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that it really does work decently for anything else I do including software
>>> development.
>>>
>>>
>
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Can't connect to the internet?
Next: switching users