Computer Problems

[GrayPilgrim]

Yesterday my desktop stopped working! I am currently using my laptop.

I have WindowsXP Pro with service pack 1 installed. I noticed that it started slowing down where if I would open a second IE browser window it would stop functioning. I would hit ctrl+alt+del and nothing would happen. I would try to logoff and the loggoff button would appear, I would hit the button then nothing would happen. I would try to shut down and the "shutdown, restart, standby buttons owuld appear, I'd hit restart and nothing would happen.

I would shut my computer down manually, as nothing else would work restart, it would take three eons and then, it would finnaly get to the login screen. I would login (I tried both my settings, my wife's settings and my guest login) it would take another three eons and it would allow you to open one program; maybe, sometimes it would just hang. I then booted using safe mode uninstalled a program that I had installed Sunday thinking it was the culprit, but no improvement. Then I rebooted using safe mode and ran Norton Anti-Virus (my definitions were updated the 9th) and still no improvement.

Any clues, short of throwing my computer out the window?:argh: :argh: :argh:

[$cirisme]

When did this start?

How much ram do you have? What kind of/speed of processor?

Have you tried booting into safemode with "Last Known Working Configuration for Windows"?

Is the only problem is that it is slow?

[yxboom]

You should wrap up the computer than throw it out the window.

[$cirisme]

That was very helpful, boom.

:wink:

[GrayPilgrim]

03-12-2003 @ 01:49 PM
cirisme:

When did this start?


Yesterday, I first noticed it when I followed a link that Iceman had posted in the Dorm on the scams thread.



How much ram do you have? What kind of/speed of processor?


128M, Pentium III



Have you tried booting into safemode with "Last Known Working Configuration for Windows"?


Yup



Is the only problem is that it is slow?


No, after taking about 10 minutes to get everything logged-in (and that if anything is a low ball figure). It might allow me to open one program then everything stops working and the processer just shows all kinds of activity but nothing happens.

GP

[yxboom]

Go to your local shop and get a cardboard box. Put in the contents of your computer into the box. Put said box into the trunk of your car drive to the local dump site put the box onto the heap...........find a bat, 2x4 or anything with a fighting chance and beat it until you can afford a new computer then repeat as necessary.

[GrayPilgrim]

Is that before or after I fill it with water?:tongue:

[GrayPilgrim]

BTW what is the difference between safe mode and debug mode?

Gp

[$cirisme]

Try clearing the prefetch. (C:\Windows\prefetch)

[$cirisme]

BTW what is the difference between safe mode and debug mode?

Safe mode loads as few drivers as possible. In fact, it loads just enough drivers that it barely runs.

Debug mode allows you to selectively load drivers. If you've installed any new devices recently, try this as you may have bad drivers.

[GrayPilgrim]

I deleted the prefetch the other day and jsut tried it again. I have to go into safe mode to be able to delete anything as the sytem hangs as soon as I hit the delete button.

I remmeber reading about being able to disable programs somehow but have forgotten how. It was in relation to disabeling spyware that came with Turbo Tax, any clues as to what that might be?

When I installed Correl Draw I think it put on a lot of fonts (I mean in the thousands a lot) could that be a problem of too many fonts in the registry?

(The just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous) GP

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-12-2003 @ 03:25 PM
GrayPilgrim:
128M, Pentium IIIYou can run XP Pro on that machine? Don't you need 256 MB to do that?


No, after taking about 10 minutes to get everything logged-in (and that if anything is a low ball figure). It might allow me to open one program then everything stops working and the processer just shows all kinds of activity but nothing happens.

GP First off, why use IE? Its good for certain webpages, but it is too open for hackers to do ANYTHING to your computer. Netscape is much much safer.

Second, do you have a virus?

[$cirisme]

I remmeber reading about being able to disable programs somehow but have forgotten how.

I'm not sure if this is the same as you're talking about, but you can disable services:

Goto the Control Panel.
Switch to Classic view.
Goto Administrative Tools.
Goto Component Services.
Then Services.

Disable and experiment to your liking. :teeth:

(Note: I am running XP Pro, so I'm not 100% sure this is available in XP Home :doh:)

[$cirisme]

You can run XP Pro on that machine? Don't you need 256 MB to do that?

Yes, I'm running Pro on 196meg ram, with 500mhz. Not perfect, but it works. :teeth:


Netscape is much much safer.

It's not gonna fix his problem.

Besides, IE is still highly integrated into the shell, so if the problem *is* IE(and I doubt it is) he's still screwed.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-12-2003 @ 04:54 PM
cirisme:
Yes, I'm running Pro on 196meg ram, with 500mhz. Not perfect, but it works. :teeth:YIPES! If any advice is open, I'd recommend getting a very large hard drive. That would certainly increase speed performance. I went out and got W2k Pro for my computer, same memory and processor as yours. Its an absolute gem. There is a reason they are selling it in the hundreds and Xp for 100 as an upgrade! W2k is a superior system. Its so stable. My computer crashes have dropped to probably 5 to 10% of what I was experiencing with 98 SE.

As for IE, I know it won't solve the problem they've got, but more of a suggestion for all people. You don't want to know what Microsoft is doing with IE. At worst, doing 100% free marketing research, at worst....



It's not gonna fix his problem.

Besides, IE is still highly integrated into the shell, so if the problem *is* IE(and I doubt it is) he's still screwed. [/QUOTE]

[GrayPilgrim]

I upgraded to 512M thinking that might fix the problem, no dice. Dumped a lot of those fonts I never use, no dice. Found a virus update, no dice... Urgh, I guess I am about to resintall XP, again (I think this will be the fourth time in the last year, at least htis time I can access my hardrive and don't have to reformat like I did the last three times)

GP

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-12-2003 @ 11:29 PM
GrayPilgrim:

I upgraded to 512M thinking that might fix the problem, no dice. Dumped a lot of those fonts I never use, no dice. Found a virus update, no dice... Urgh, I guess I am about to resintall XP, again (I think this will be the fourth time in the last year, at least htis time I can access my hardrive and don't have to reformat like I did the last three times)

GP Just drop XP and go to Windows 2000 Professional. Its the best. And it only needs 64 MB to run, so that extra RAM you have will be applied to actually running the programs, not just the operating system.

What devices do you have attached to the computer?

[GrayPilgrim]

How much is 2000 and how do you revert to an earlier Windows OS? Is it NTFS or will I have to reformat?

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-13-2003 @ 12:40 PM
GrayPilgrim:
How much is 2000 and how do you revert to an earlier Windows OS? Is it NTFS or will I have to reformat?
To obtain a copy of 2000's OEM version (only get the CD, key, and small booklet on installation), you are looking at about $150. Go to a store and you'll pay $300. You'll get tech support, but it costs alot. Maybe you can get down to $250 somewhere. Or you could find someone that has it, a full copy, and buy a license, and that would go for around $80. You could check out Pricegrabber.com for places that sell the licenses. Each way is perfectly legal.

You can install 2000 with an NTFS formating. I'd suggest formating the entire hard drive, then installing 2000. This is in my opinion, though. I haven't used XP, but I really haven't been impressed by what I've heard. We use 2000 at work and its great. Without all the networking, its even better.

[$cirisme]

If any advice is open, I'd recommend getting a very large hard drive. That would certainly increase speed performance.

For you, I would recommend not giving out computer advice. :hrm:

The only possible difference a large hard drive would do would be to increase the available swap space and that really wouldn't help. :ahem:


Its so stable. My computer crashes have dropped to probably 5 to 10% of what I was experiencing with 98 SE.

I use Win2k and XP, and they both are far superior to Win 9x, however they are both built on the same platform, so 2k is not superior to XP or vice versa.

Installing 2k will help GP's performance, but so will reinstalling WinXP.

[$cirisme]

I upgraded to 512M thinking that might fix the problem, no dice. Dumped a lot of those fonts I never use, no dice. Found a virus update, no dice... Urgh, I guess I am about to resintall XP, again (I think this will be the fourth time in the last year, at least htis time I can access my hardrive and don't have to reformat like I did the last three times)

GP, this sounds like a device problem. Have you checked all your components to ensure that they are XP compatible?

I would check out http://pcpitstop.com/xpready/default.asp which tests your system for XP compatibility. You may also want to check out Microsoft's own tester, as it is more comprehensive.

Did you get XP preinstalled, or did you install it yourself?

I don't think 2k will help you too much, as on the computer I am currently running, I upgraded from 2k to XP without much of a performance loss.

:huh:

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-13-2003 @ 01:28 PM
cirisme:
For you, I would recommend not giving out computer advice. :hrm: I guess I'll just leave my 18 years of computer experience behind me. Note, I'm only 26.

The only possible difference a large hard drive would do would be to increase the available swap space and that really wouldn't help. :ahem:Have you tried it? I've used that solution before in situations where the memory a computer has is minimal to the operating system's need. The performance increase is most certainly noticable. They said they had only 192 Meg Ram. That is rather tiny for XP. A larger hard drive would have seen an appreciable increase in performance.


I use Win2k and XP, and they both are far superior to Win 9x, however they are both built on the same platform, so 2k is not superior to XP or vice versa.An opinion. Compatability with XP is less likely than with W2K. I've never had an issue with W2K. I haven't heard many say the same for XP.

Installing 2k will help GP's performance, but so will reinstalling WinXP. You are assuming XP isn't the problem. All in all, more info is needed to fix the problem, actually to define it.

[$cirisme]

They said they had only 192 Meg Ram. That is rather tiny for XP.

Nevermind the fact that I've been running it at less than that ammount nicely for over 3 months.

:ahem:

If you're only here to argue, I'm not interested.

[Solly]

Strange, out of all this geek babble, Yxboom is the only intelligible speaker here. Where's that box...

[Jimmy Higgins]

To argue?! I'm here to try and help.

So what was the end result of this problem? Reinstall the system or what happened?

[Sher]

03-12-2003 @ 04:51 PM
cirisme:

(Note: I am running XP Pro, so I'm not 100% sure this is available in XP Home :doh:) FYI: It is available on XP Home.

[Sher]

03-13-2003 @ 01:05 PM
Jimmy Higgins:


To obtain a copy of 2000's OEM version (only get the CD, key, and small booklet on installation), you are looking at about $150. I'd recommend checking eBay. You might even find the boxed version cheaper there. Watch out for copies though. :eek:

{edit}: Or I could read the rest of the posts, mind my own business, and slink back to another posting area .... :xmm:

But :rofl: at yxboom's comments...

[GrayPilgrim]

I am going to have afrind look at it before I do any damage. Another guy said that it sounds like a virus that one of his co-workers got and then proceeded to infect the office since he didn't keep his virus software up to date.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:31 PM
GrayPilgrim:

I am going to have afrind look at it before I do any damage. Another guy said that it sounds like a virus that one of his co-workers got and then proceeded to infect the office since he didn't keep his virus software up to date. Good luck. Hope all works easily.

[GrayPilgrim]

Well after a re-install all seems to be going fine. I just ahve to transfer my data files adn reinstall my programs and I should be cookin' with gas!

Thanks for all the help!

GP

[Em7add11]

03-13-2003 @ 07:47 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=34414#post34414)
Jimmy Higgins:
Compatability with XP is less likely than with W2K. I've never had an issue with W2K. I haven't heard many say the same for XP.
My experience has been quite the opposite. Win2K has been pretty stable but I've had numerous software issues from programs that worked without incident in XP.

[$cirisme]

Plus, XP has compatibility mode and 2k does not. :smile:

[simchat_torah]

I am quite surprised no one has reccomended that you Defrag Windows...

Go to start --> run ---> then type defrag and hit enter.
Then defrag the partition that windows is in.

I'd reccomend doing this overnight, as sometimes it can take several hours depending on how large your hard drive is, etc.



Have you tried it? I've used that solution before in situations where the memory a computer has is minimal to the operating system's need. The performance increase is most certainly noticable. They said they had only 192 Meg Ram. That is rather tiny for XP. A larger hard drive would have seen an appreciable increase in performance.


Chris was correct that a "larger hard drive" would NOT solve this issue, nor would it solve any issue concerning lack of memory.

I believe you are confusing RAM with hard drive. Memory is your RAM, not your hard drive. Potentially, if one has a memory problem, it could be solved by adding more memory... another solution would be to play with the swap file.

Anyway, getting a larger hard drive wouldn't do a dang thing.

Shalom,
Yafet.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 04:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
simchat_torah:
Chris was correct that a "larger hard drive" would NOT solve this issue, nor would it solve any issue concerning lack of memory.It would free up space for the system cache.


I believe you are confusing RAM with hard drive. Memory is your RAM, not your hard drive.And I bet you know that your memory could become your hard drive, right? Well, it used to when employing a Ram Drive in DOS. That rocked for performance.


Potentially, if one has a memory problem, it could be solved by adding more memory... another solution would be to play with the swap file.Some people may be maxed out. 192 MB RAM that she had seemed too low to allow for an upgrade to 512 MB. I made the jump, to my error that a memory increase wasn't in the cards.

Anyway, getting a larger hard drive wouldn't do a dang thing.Well I better get that larger hard drive out of my computer and replace it with a 10 GB drive. Oh wait, your wrong.

It isn't the best solution, but it does increase performance. My computer is going on 3 years old soon. Its still rocking. I must know something.

[yxboom]

Swap space is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than any other form of cache be it L2 or RAM. Getting a faster spindle around 10K SCSI or a 7200 will greatly improve the time it takes for access but it does nothing as far as memory when the CPU makes RAM requests which it will always do before seeking the HDD. So by enlarging the HDD will only affect the speed of access when a program is not available in the memory but will only slow things down when being used as swap which seems to be what you are insisting it does not. As for memory speeds the HDD is the last resort to upgrade as the CPU makes 3 requests from L1- L3 (RAM) cache before even considering looking at the HDD. You are building speed backwards. If you have like 32MB of RAM and you upgrade your HDD of course it will increase the speed of your computer because it is accessing the HDD the entire time. But you are going from terrible to horribly slow whereas RAM would do in nano-seconds what you are doing in full seconds, minutes if you really load it.

And on another note a RAM Drive is used to load all your programs of your HDD to your available RAM which of course would drastically increase the speed as it removed any need to access the HDD. A RAM Drive did not read from the HDD except at bootup when it loaded all the program .exes into the RAM.

[flipper]

Why would getting a large hard drive increase performance?

That's not very likely unless it has a large cache or something.

Has this always been a problem for you since getting XP Pro? Did it start happening reasonably shortly after getting it? If so, you might do better getting another 128 MB of RAM to prevent the HD from being thrashed every time you open a largish file or complex program.

The threads that XP keeps open just to run in the background probably suck down a sizeable amount of that. Once you start loading other things into the memory and fill the available space then it has nowhere to go but the HD, which is high latency a-go-go by a grotesque amount of nanoseconds.

You should try more memory first. Once you're at 256 MB (and I know people with XP Pro who won't consider less than 512 MB), if the problem hasn't improved, then my nex step would be to backup my bookmarks and reinstall IE with all the patches.

XP Pro is a resource hog. It's still a good OS.

[simchat_torah]

Grey P,

Have you tried running defrag yet?
I'd also reccomend, before wiping the hd clean, to try WinDoctor by Norton, it does magic.


Jimmy,

People who know a little about computers are the most dangerous kind....



ST: Chris was correct that a "larger hard drive" would NOT solve this issue, nor would it solve any issue concerning lack of memory.
JH: It would free up space for the system cache.


No, it wouldn't.
You choose the size of your swap file (cache) not the Hard drive. If you are using Windows XP, you would....
right click on 'my computer' ---> advanced tab --->Performance Settings ----> Advanced ---> under 'virtual memory' click on "change"... then select how much space you want to dedicate to your virtual memory (aka cache or swap file).
The typical reccomended ammount of virutal memory is 1.5 times the ammount of physical memory you have (ram, not hard drive). However, with computers having soooo much ram these days, it's safer to notch that down a bit for better performance. I believe Windows automatically sets it at 1.5 x ram as the default setting.

However, if you begin to see programs freezing up, it'd be wise to rachet it back up to the reccomended ammount.

However, Jimmy, remember that the cache (virtual memory) is much slower than the ram access time, so I wouldn't reccomend to people to raise that up unless other problems have been eliminated first.



ST: I believe you are confusing RAM with hard drive. Memory is your RAM, not your hard drive.
JH: And I bet you know that your memory could become your hard drive, right? Well, it used to when employing a Ram Drive in DOS. That rocked for performance.


Key word there... "used to". Actually, technically part of your hard drive is memory (virtual memory). However, what I think you're referring to with the 'used to' was before the X86 processors.... oh yeah, ancient times. I think that my apple IIe used only cache, but I forget now, that's been like 15 years or so?
phew... long time ago...
I'd also like to point out that Ram Drives are still available, BUT that's NOT affected by the size of a hard drive still....




ST: Potentially, if one has a memory problem, it could be solved by adding more memory... another solution would be to play with the swap file
JH: Some people may be maxed out. 192 MB RAM that she had seemed too low to allow for an upgrade to 512 MB. I made the jump, to my error that a memory increase wasn't in the cards.


I can't think of a single vendor that had a limit of 192 mb. I've seen memory limits at 256, 512, 1gig, ect... but not 192.... I don't know where you got that idea... :huh:
I'm also unsure how she can't add more memory to the original 192mb. I'm sorry you had problems when you tried to add to your total, but I'd reccomend that one would refer to their mobo manual first, to see what the max allowed is.
However, pretty much anything made since last year will have at least 512mb if not 1gig... in fact, I'd be surprised if a mobo made since last year capped it at 512mb.
But none the less, refer to your manual.... or website of the vendor/mobo manufacturer.



ST: Anyway, getting a larger hard drive wouldn't do a dang thing.
JH: Well I better get that larger hard drive out of my computer and replace it with a 10 GB drive. Oh wait, your wrong.


No, I'm not wrong. A larger hard drive will NOT affect memory performance issues. Sure, getting a larger hard drive would allow you to load more programs, etc... but it won't affect your memory performance.

It's funny to me that you were sarcastic and ended up being wrong... I'm still laughing.



It isn't the best solution, but it does increase performance.


Nope. Not at all.
If you get a faster hd... and by that I mean higher RPM's or faster data bus... ie: a 133 instead of 66... then you may see a difference in performance, but you'll never see a difference in performance merely by getting a larger hard drive.




My computer is going on 3 years old soon. Its still rocking. I must know something.


Well, I've had a computer running for over 10 years... but that doesn't imply that I know anything...

No...
my b.s. in CIS
my MCSE
my A++ cert
and my 10+ years in hardware and networking
not to mention my complete fascination of total freek-a-zoid pimped out daddy nerd obsession with computers...
implies that I know something.

But alas, as I said earlier in this post, People who know a little about computers are the most dangerous kind.

I'll just simply quote Chris and leave it at that...


I would recommend not giving out computer advice.


Shalom,
Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

Hey Flipper,



Why would getting a large hard drive increase performance?
That's not very likely unless it has a large cache or something.


You are correct in questioning the "larger hard drive affecting memory performance" issue....

However, I'd like to point out that the cache (swap file) that Chris was referring to earlier was the one run by windows. Granted, there is cache on a hard drive, and the newer IDE drives that have come out recently (specifically by IBM and WD) are adding a lot to performance, but it wouldn't solve a memory performance issue... only make your system slightly zippier... like if you were a big gamer or what not.

Shalom,
Yafet.

[GrayPilgrim]

I ended up reformating the drive and upgrading to 512K and everything is working fine now. Thanks for the ideas in case it happens again.

GP

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 08:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
GrayPilgrim:

I ended up reformating the drive and upgrading to 512K and everything is working fine now. Thanks for the ideas in case it happens again.

GP Glad to hear that it all worked out fine. Computers can be real funny at times. Hope it stays well.

[$cirisme]

Great! :yipee:

[flipper]

Simchat;


You are correct in questioning the "larger hard drive affecting memory performance" issue....

I know. I write about graphical workstations and servers for a living. I just don't enjoy contradicting people (unless they richly deserve it, of course)...

[flipper]

Swap space will only help free up the resources of the memory you have. If you fill the RAM and your programs are still making lots of calls, you're going to end up thrashing the drive. This is a very bad thing.

Better to get a nice balanced system that doesn't have any particular bottlenecks and has either low latencies between the memory and the processor, or particularly clever prefetch routines. Big on-chip and off-chip caches can help with programs that make frequent calls to the memory.

[$cirisme]

Hey, Jimmy, our server(as you can tell) is really bogged down. We keep running out or memory.

What is your advice?