S-l-o-w PC, any ideas?
Discussion
My home PC is running like a dog. I run CA Security Centre (paid for) which comes up clean for viruses, I've done an Ad-aware scan (also clean) and I downloaded and ran both AVG antivirus and spyware tools (both freeware) and they also show clean.
Any ideas? Should I try one of these registry cleaner jobbies, is that likely to sort it and if so which one?
I have an external HDD backing up my work PC. Should I just back up the entire home PC, and just wipe the disk clean and start again? Or will it just restore it to it's "slow" state?
Any help really appreciated!
Any ideas? Should I try one of these registry cleaner jobbies, is that likely to sort it and if so which one?
I have an external HDD backing up my work PC. Should I just back up the entire home PC, and just wipe the disk clean and start again? Or will it just restore it to it's "slow" state?
Any help really appreciated!
How much Ram have you Ggot & what processor?
Have you ever installed Norton?lol
It could/probably be all the little startup programs that run in the background when your PC loads up windows, a handy tool in Windows to kill the pesky buggers is MSCONFIG: see www.netsquirrel.com/msconfig/
Have you ever installed Norton?lol
It could/probably be all the little startup programs that run in the background when your PC loads up windows, a handy tool in Windows to kill the pesky buggers is MSCONFIG: see www.netsquirrel.com/msconfig/
Whoah! First things first...
How much available RAM do you have (check task manager)? If you're out of memory, everything will be caching to hard disk and the system will run slow.
Secondly, is your CPU being caned? Check task manager again and sort the Processes tab by CPU to see if there are any culprits there.
Do the above before anything drastic and let us know what you find.
How much available RAM do you have (check task manager)? If you're out of memory, everything will be caching to hard disk and the system will run slow.
Secondly, is your CPU being caned? Check task manager again and sort the Processes tab by CPU to see if there are any culprits there.
Do the above before anything drastic and let us know what you find.
I've seen this recently with quite a few systems. The problem is the wuauclt.exe (along with svchost) process using up all the processor cycles. This is the Microsoft Update process and it is downloading updates in the background. The system slows down considerably until the process completes (can be hours, could be minutes) and then the system reverts to normal.
This may not be your problem, but worth bearing in mind. To check, right-click the taskbar, select Task Manager, click on Services tab, click twice on the CPU heading to sort into descending order. If wuauclt or svchost is using a high percentage, then that's your issue.
This may not be your problem, but worth bearing in mind. To check, right-click the taskbar, select Task Manager, click on Services tab, click twice on the CPU heading to sort into descending order. If wuauclt or svchost is using a high percentage, then that's your issue.
2something said:
I ran 'error-checking' on my C: drive last week, fixed my slowness problem immediately. Some dodgy clusters or something like that, took a long time to run but it was worth it.
If it took "a long time" it sounds like it was doing a surface scan. If that found things wrong then I'd seriously suggest backing up everything important and scouting out a new drive. Bad sectors have a nasty habit of growing!
Flyer has the cause here, I think.
Automatic Update runs via the process described, and also an svchost.exe process. If you check Task Manager, you may see an svchost.exe process consuming a huge amount of RAM.
The following link expands this: http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.
On both my systems, I have disabled the Automatic Updates process, instead checking manually twice a week via the Windows Update site. Both systems run clean as now.
I also like Passengers idea of backing up, then flattening and rebuilding. Always a good idea. However, unless you're a slipstreaming wizard and have all of your post SP2 hotfixes streamed into your XP installation, it will rebuild, go to Windows Update and download a shedload of stuff.
The other point well made here is RAM - I started running XP when it was first out with 512MB. Now, I'd say 1GB as an absolute minimum.
Hope this helps.
Automatic Update runs via the process described, and also an svchost.exe process. If you check Task Manager, you may see an svchost.exe process consuming a huge amount of RAM.
The following link expands this: http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.
On both my systems, I have disabled the Automatic Updates process, instead checking manually twice a week via the Windows Update site. Both systems run clean as now.
I also like Passengers idea of backing up, then flattening and rebuilding. Always a good idea. However, unless you're a slipstreaming wizard and have all of your post SP2 hotfixes streamed into your XP installation, it will rebuild, go to Windows Update and download a shedload of stuff.
The other point well made here is RAM - I started running XP when it was first out with 512MB. Now, I'd say 1GB as an absolute minimum.
Hope this helps.
GregE240 said:
Flyer has the cause here, I think.
Automatic Update runs via the process described, and also an svchost.exe process. If you check Task Manager, you may see an svchost.exe process consuming a huge amount of RAM.
The following link expands this: http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.
On both my systems, I have disabled the Automatic Updates process, instead checking manually twice a week via the Windows Update site. Both systems run clean as now.
I also like Passengers idea of backing up, then flattening and rebuilding. Always a good idea. However, unless you're a slipstreaming wizard and have all of your post SP2 hotfixes streamed into your XP installation, it will rebuild, go to Windows Update and download a shedload of stuff.
The other point well made here is RAM - I started running XP when it was first out with 512MB. Now, I'd say 1GB as an absolute minimum.
Hope this helps.
Automatic Update runs via the process described, and also an svchost.exe process. If you check Task Manager, you may see an svchost.exe process consuming a huge amount of RAM.
The following link expands this: http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.
On both my systems, I have disabled the Automatic Updates process, instead checking manually twice a week via the Windows Update site. Both systems run clean as now.
I also like Passengers idea of backing up, then flattening and rebuilding. Always a good idea. However, unless you're a slipstreaming wizard and have all of your post SP2 hotfixes streamed into your XP installation, it will rebuild, go to Windows Update and download a shedload of stuff.
The other point well made here is RAM - I started running XP when it was first out with 512MB. Now, I'd say 1GB as an absolute minimum.
Hope this helps.
busy tonight Greg ?
cheers for that
Edited by Shadytree on Friday 11th May 09:21
I think I have done most of the checks suggested, and tested flyers suggestion, svchost is saying 00, I assume thats good. Still slow though.
I am running 240mb RAM I am sooo old
GregE240 said:
Flyer has the cause here, I think.
Automatic Update runs via the process described, and also an svchost.exe process. If you check Task Manager, you may see an svchost.exe process consuming a huge amount of RAM.
The following link expands this: http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.
On both my systems, I have disabled the Automatic Updates process, instead checking manually twice a week via the Windows Update site. Both systems run clean as now.
I also like Passengers idea of backing up, then flattening and rebuilding. Always a good idea. However, unless you're a slipstreaming wizard and have all of your post SP2 hotfixes streamed into your XP installation, it will rebuild, go to Windows Update and download a shedload of stuff.
The other point well made here is RAM - I started running XP when it was first out with 512MB. Now, I'd say 1GB as an absolute minimum.
Hope this helps.
Automatic Update runs via the process described, and also an svchost.exe process. If you check Task Manager, you may see an svchost.exe process consuming a huge amount of RAM.
The following link expands this: http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.
On both my systems, I have disabled the Automatic Updates process, instead checking manually twice a week via the Windows Update site. Both systems run clean as now.
I also like Passengers idea of backing up, then flattening and rebuilding. Always a good idea. However, unless you're a slipstreaming wizard and have all of your post SP2 hotfixes streamed into your XP installation, it will rebuild, go to Windows Update and download a shedload of stuff.
The other point well made here is RAM - I started running XP when it was first out with 512MB. Now, I'd say 1GB as an absolute minimum.
Hope this helps.
I am running 240mb RAM I am sooo old
El Reg is reporting on this: MS update ate my CPU cycles
the register said:
The latest batch of patches from Microsoft has left some users in the slow lane.
After applying the seven critical updates released by Redmond, some punters are finding their processor's resources eaten by an application called svchost.exe, in a way that mimics a viral infection. Svchost.exe is a generic name for services that run from dynamic-link libraries (DLLs).
Outlook 2003 users have been hardest hit, with some linking the application's slow-down to the effects of a cumulative update to Internet Explorer. However, the effect is far from limited to Outlook 2003 users.
The issue has cropped up on the WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) blog and among reports to the SANS Institute's Internet Storm Centre (ISC). The precise cause of the problem remains unclear. Microsoft is yet to respond to our requests to shed some light on the problem.
Some users are experiencing relief by applying a hot fix issued to address problems involving non-response of svchost.exe (not exactly the symptom most are reporting) prior to upgrading their Windows Update client, ISC reports. Your mileage may vary. ®
After applying the seven critical updates released by Redmond, some punters are finding their processor's resources eaten by an application called svchost.exe, in a way that mimics a viral infection. Svchost.exe is a generic name for services that run from dynamic-link libraries (DLLs).
Outlook 2003 users have been hardest hit, with some linking the application's slow-down to the effects of a cumulative update to Internet Explorer. However, the effect is far from limited to Outlook 2003 users.
The issue has cropped up on the WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) blog and among reports to the SANS Institute's Internet Storm Centre (ISC). The precise cause of the problem remains unclear. Microsoft is yet to respond to our requests to shed some light on the problem.
Some users are experiencing relief by applying a hot fix issued to address problems involving non-response of svchost.exe (not exactly the symptom most are reporting) prior to upgrading their Windows Update client, ISC reports. Your mileage may vary. ®
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff