High Desert Charlie- THIS IS A COMPLETE AND CLEARLY EXPLANATION OF WHY A FRESH XP INSTALLATION HAS FAILED , CONNGRATULATIONS FOR THIS ANSWER, THE BEST
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
High Desert Charlie- THIS IS A COMPLETE AND CLEARLY EXPLANATION OF WHY A FRESH XP INSTALLATION HAS FAILED , CONNGRATULATIONS FOR THIS ANSWER, THE BEST
Very nice job, sir. You talk like a person who has supported users before.
My HP Pavilion a810n is 6-1/2 years old with "thousands" of hours on it. 2 weeks ago I got the ominous "Blue screen", after many crashes. I had been able to restart it myself in the past, but this time it refused to boot all the way. It would stop part way thru the boot and lock up. So I took it to Staples where they did a "Diagnostic" test to tell me what was wrong with it. They determined that all of my hardware was good and the problem was a glitch in a Windows "update". It took them 2 weeks, but they corrected the problem and it is now running well, possibly a tad faster than before. Because the machine is so old, I told them to install a new hard drive, but they talked me out of it! They said that because my machine was so old, a new hard drive MIGHT have some incompatablities with other hardware in my machine. They told me to just run it until it fails and get a new machine at that time. A new 500GB hard drive would have cost me $180 w/installation and moving everything on mine to the new one, and I could buy a NEW HP better than mine without a monitor for $400. Economically, it made sense to me so I'm going to run it till it quits.
and they are right. The old PCs used IDE controlers and connections; and the new ones a way better with the SATA technology. I wished our Staples was that practical! ![]()
For those old PCs that have old hard drives you want to get faster by upgrading to SATA, there does exist SATA controlers available on PCI boards (in fact those boards are mostly used for the case where you need more SATA controlers on new PCs that are frequently shipped with only 2 SATA connectors and a single SATA controler.
Hi. It is your hard drive, which would explain why even after a fresh install, you still have poor performance. Also, try to note whether the problem exists immediately after a 'cold' start or if it happens once the PC has been running for a good few minutes. If it's the former, change your HDD immediately. If its the latter, you still have some time before total failure.
Also at times some of the updates will contine to try loading and will always seem to fail one for me was frame.net. After it attempted to about 30 times. But it really does not matter since Microsft no longer supports XP for free that should tell you that it might be time to move on to Windows 7 seems many websites are switching over and XP have conflicts when going to these websites at least for me running xp is... slow to load and script errors when they worked fine prior...
With paying for support for XP they are trying to tell us something... at $49.00 an hour....
Only I have old machines that lack the hardware to run Windows 7 so buying a new computers is not in the budget... So I will be behind like I have been with many things like Office 2007 since my company has switched to get it emails are working maybe half the time among other issues...
Changes make it hard to keep up with older software...
1Mike 123
I did a clean install having zeroed the disk so there were no hidden segments of code. Having done so I found the system was very slow after completing all of the updates that were available. I loaded only XP and a new version of MSN. I am using IE 8.
After doing all of that I found the same thing. The solution appeared to be a simple one for me and that was to do several defrags in a row. It appears that pieces of the OS get loaded all over the disk during the install and the patches that are made to the OS over time. I keep my system defraged and I have no problems. Patches by Microsoft seem to be disruptive. Every thing needs to be together in order to have the most rapid response.
This is a pretty simple step to try. I was really surprised having read all of the various ideas out there. Some one else suggested this in an article I found and it proved to be true in my case.
There are still too many variables here so a lot more information is needed:
1) 2 GB of RAM is a bit slow for a fast processor like yours. You should launch the Task Manager and look at performance info. Are you CPU-bound? Memory-bound? How idle is your CPU? Sort the processes by the CPU column and see what is running at the top of the list (most CPU).
2) Your disk: Have you tested it yet to see how fast it is compared to other drives? Are you getting any errors (even "soft errors" can really slow things down.
3) How big is your paging file? Is Windows managing it or are you? If it is too small or non-existent? That could be a big issue.
4) Are you running a GOOD anti-virus? The cheaper ones may run slower. Or you might not be on the latest and greatest. I'm assuming you did not overload the computer with a lot of different malware programs. Have one that does it all.
5) Big issue: Is your hard drive encrypted (should be if you have personal financial data or are running a laptop). Depending on the brand, this could slow things down. Certainly don't over-encrypt the drive. One encryption type (such as AES-256) should be enough. Is bi
6) Compression: If your files are compressed, that could be a good or bad thing. Compressed files take less I/O time to write to the disk or read from it, but take more CPU to handle the compression. Some files you should NOt compress, such as Windows System files or databases or anything that is going to be used a LOT!
7) How loaded is your hard drive. Ideally, you should have less than 50% of the disk full of stuff.
Network: How fast is your network running? Are you wireless, meaning slow network speeds (56K bps) or do you have 100+ mbps? How fast is your internet connection? Are you secure enough that your neighbors are not using your network?
9) Do you have a LOT of stuff running in the background? Are you downloading all the time? Watching movies?
10) Are you seeing errors in the Event Viewer? Is your system clock OK. Are you running Hi-Res graphics?
Some suggestions:
Start simple! Look through the event viewer for anything that doesn't seem right. Look at the tabs in the task manager to see if you are dealing with CPU, Memory, Network, or I/O. Sorting processes by CPU should help.
Run a full hardware check. There are probably a lot of hardware testers you can buy or download.
See if you have a friend who can lend you more memory, just to see if it improves anything. If you are running XP 32-bit (you'd know if it was 64-bit), then you are going to be limited to 3.something GB.
Have you done any "upgrades" such as memory or something else about the time this started? Maybe you got something that doesn't work together with the rest of your system.
Check cable connections (especially network). Are any cables damaged?
Good Luck!
Really take a loo
Actually, the way Windows XP manages its data caches can effectively become a problem when it constantly spreads files throughout the surface, in a highly fragmented way, including for NTFS index structures, and NTFS journaling logs. With 2GB of memory, the cache will frequently become inefficient in order to allocate space, or just to maintain and rered a highly fragmented allocation bitmap in memory: it causes excessive paging on any system partition larger than about 100GB, if the drive is filled at more than 50%.
Harddisks are not the source of the problem: whatever their technology, the NTFS driver in Windows XP performs poorly and incorectly manages its I/O priorities and flushes essential sector caches too often by not prioritizing them correctly.
right now, I don't know why you wish to use xp pro. maybe consider a change to 7? reading your description of your hardware, I think your computer could handle the change. In addition, again in consideration of the hardware you list, I would not buy into any additions or upgrades. For example, buying a new motherboard and going through all the pain and possible heartache is just not worth it. With what you describe I am sure that a fresh install of 7, from the ground up, would provide you with adequate driver support to at least, then, get online after the install and secure all the most appropriate drivers. My other suggested alternative, if possible, is look into a new system. I don't mean to sound harsh, but things do wear out and are often best replaced. You can get much satisfaction with something new if you shop around, and are careful. One final thought: when I read about all the various security scanners, malware whatevers, etc. that people employ I shudder. One good product can usually do it all in this area. I prefer Symantec Corporate, but maybe I am just funny that way. And, if you do go ahead with that computer and to 7, excercise care with what you might load that will excecute at boot. It is always easier to start with a smooth, easy boot and then load up. The alternative, to have multiple apps launching at boot on an older system is just lag city, trust me.
I too have a slow running XP machine that has only recently started to be so. Boot up time is terrible, all cleaned up etc. But my cynic's eye suspects MS themselves. The last thing they want would be a large XP legacy when they stop supporting the OS in a year or so. (Hardly any updates now anyway).
So why not slip in a little bit of code that just slows things up and encourage users to upgrade to 7 sooner rather than later?
MS (and Apple) make their money selling new software, not supporting old software. Cannot understand the need to keep updating OS anyway. 95 would probably still suffice for my purposes. Why is there not an annual fee option that secures ongoing support? (Cynic again - the markets see new sales as a barometer of corporate success or failure - silly me!) I'm seriously considering Linux.
RichardS
I have Win 7 and XP running on the same machine. There is no significant difference in speed and I'm running an up-to-date machine. (4GB, 3GHz dual-core, 1.5TB SATA-2) Both installs have slowed down somewhat as I have added programs. I have about 5 wordprocessors, 7 graphics editing programs, 2 web-editing suites, 2 PDF editing suites, and a host of other programs/suites. Win 7 does boot somewhat faster (probably about 30%) but that is because XP tries to load everything at boot and Win 7 lets some things be delayed. Both installs use the same data files and programs, so the OS is the only significant difference.
(I am planning on switching the Win 7 install to an SSD when they come down a bit more in price. I assume that will make a difference!)
What you're talking about is called "paranoid delusional conspiracy theories."
Microsoft has committed to support of Windows XP until at least 8/14/2014. Where do people get their info from? Sheesh!
If you've never used Linux, and have experienced Windows since long, you'll probably start by Ubuntu, which is quite simple to use and is prepackaged with a cute interface. You'll see differences, but nothing that yo can't manage (compare your experience on a PC and on a smartphone or tablets: the differences are much stronger there). Note that most softwares used today are developed to run on multiple OSes, and share common libraries. The most remarquable thing you'll note with Ubuntu, is that it works with much less problems when handling device drivers (most Linux users don't really have to manage them, but instead have to concentrate on the customization of their desktop interface). And as today, we spend so much time working online with a browser, including for applications, you'll immediately see that the experience with a web interface is almost the same.
Ubuntu was really designed for be used by normal users and not specialists and geeks. It is made to be usable immediately out of the box. Popular apps include : Mozilla Firefox, Open Office, The GIMP, PDF reader, but simple text editors are also packaged. And you'll be able to use online games (most of them based on Adobe Flash).
Normally after a clean install Windows XP should run just as fast as when you first bought the system, but it can go sluggish again due to a few problems, here are a few I have found to cause XP to run slow -
I did not catch you Hdd size..but first of all Does your Pc support 2Gb System memory?...run memory check...it reads 2 Gb..but could be using 1Gb..try using the C:/ Partition..don't make partitions..(After format it ask you)...DO ALL UPDADTES(maybe more than 110..all together..if use Sp2 Cd..jump to Sp3(doing the updates) DO NOT USE REGISTRY CLEANER..(some times do(Ccleaner) I expect you Xp Cd is original..Key # etc.....go for
Assuming no virus, using an OEM version of XP that isn't from a PC manufacturer helps you avoid installing junk (like AOL) that the manufacturer added to their disk. Once the key from the Windows sticker on the PC is entered, there shouldn't be any problem with Genuine Notification- Microsoft doesn't care much about something as old as XP anyway.
Most OEM preinstallations of Windows include at least a licence of a commercial antivirus (generally a trial version, which means that you can use it for at least 3 months (most often Norton).
If this is enough to start using the PC safely and configure it like you want with security, this licence won't be valid when you later need to reinstall your PC using the manufacturer's system image saved on the restoration partition and/or the supplied DVD (or the DVD you must burn yourself as a backup of the hidden system restoration partition).
This means that you'll resintall the PC without a working antivirus (no more updates of the old database). But the same will be true if you reinstall Windows from a retail version of Windows from Microsoft.
Hey you might possible have a defekt on your motherboard , Have experienced the problem on one of my freinds pc . I looked at it at tryed other ram and so on , at last i replaced his motherboard , that solved the problem .
kindely regards Allan
All "clean" installs of Windows, which immediately must be followed by a long series of Windows Updates installs and reboots as needed, will live your system installed but with a highly frgmented disk state.
In addition, Windows XP will not preinstall a static swap file for the memory manager, and the default dunamic file will also add to the constantly fragmenting disk.
I assume you installed xp from original cd
you updated the chipset drivers for the motherboard from the pc cd
and put sp3 after
you installed last updated drivers for your pc hardware
try bios setup on default option
if still slow then
try with network disabled
if still slow
then it can be
disk or ram problem
good luck
Your remark contributes nothing and shows you are devoid of understanding.
With the size of your CPU and RAM, you shouldn't be having problems,best thing to try is a clean install on another HDD,or a possible BIOS update,you could also reset the CMOS and update date & time . boot priority etc; I've just performed a clean install of XP Pro and over 100 automatic updates were available,so MS is still offering support for this OS. XP is still one of the best systems,it will run happy on the minimum RAM and Graphics. So experiment before you spend any money. Good luck.
If in fact you did a genuinely clean install, your computer has adequate capability to be running well again. A clean install would eliminate the possibility of software being a culprit, leaving only firmware or hardware as suspects.
First, ROM BIOS programs frequently become corrupt, which slows down a computer significantly. Because it's the most likely, the cheapest, and the easiest of your various options, and because you probably should do it anyway, obtain an appropriate update to flash your ROM BIOS with the latest firmware version from the manufacturer. This used to be a complicated and risky procedure but most chipset manufacturers have now put these into easy install programs that make it almost as simple as installing a regular application. I have had instances where flashing the ROM BIOS fixed a slowdown problem very nicely.
If that doesn't help, your most likely culprits are the disk or the RAM, but problems here usually have symptoms other than the system merely slowing down. When it's RAM you usually get a lot of "Blue Screens of Death" indicating page faults and some such. When it's the disk, any slowdown will usually be accompanied by file corruption and inaccessibility. Disk problems can sometimes be circumvented by programs included with the Windows O/S like chkdsk and scandisk, which will lock out bad sectors.
There are many free utilities that let you diagnose RAM and disk problems. For RAM testing, a fairly industry standard app is Memtest, available at http://www.memtest86.com/. This is a CD image .iso file -- it runs from a CD that you insert into your drive and then reboot.
Testing your disk drives is also pretty easy. Here's a site that gives you procedures and options: http://www.labnol.org/software/test-hard-drive-for-problems/17430/ .
If the problem isn't your ROM, your RAM, or your disk drive, well, things get tricky. CPU and motherboard problems usually manifest themselves more catastrophically than just a slowdown. Conflicting interrupts usually show up in BSODs. It could be obsolete drivers, but you can spend weeks trying to track that sort of thing down (there are fairly inexpensive applications that can help).
Tell me... This is just a guess, but do you have an HP AIO printer and are you running an older version of their "Solution Center" full drivers? This can slow a Pentium down to a crawl. So can older (pre-2010) versions of Norton or McAfee (or other, for that matter) antivirus programs, which got so bloated that I'm surprised more computers didn't actually explode.
We all slow down as we get more elderly, but these are a few things to try.