My computer uses too much RAM; how to fix this ?

[Fly]

This is about my old computer, Windows XP SP 2 Home Edition.
Also: HOSTS file, Avira security suite.

Not long ago this computer started to have performance issues, especially after boot.
I think I know why. Sort of.

The system has 512 MB RAM. At times, the system uses almost 512 MB RAM, sometimes more than 512 MB. Which could account for the slowness. Sometimes I can hear the computer accessing the harddrive when it's sluggish.

It took me some time to figure this out, because I have difficulty using the task manager at times, it's that sluggish ! Also, my computer seems to freeze sometimes, or something close to that.

When did this start ? I'm not sure. I restored a known clean image, and got the update for MS-Word. Since I have SP2 I won't get any updates for Windows, only for other Microsoft updates. I have seen the process for Microsoft updates (or Windows updates?) running frequently, consuming CPU resources. Also, svchost seems to take a lot of memory at times.
I don't run third party applications (aside from the Avira security suite) that consume much memory, this computer is used for internet access only.

Anyway, I know I can disable the paging/swap file, but what is the best way to deal with this ? I really don't want my computer to use the harddrive as memory since that's too slow. Perhaps full use of the 512 MB RAM is bad too.

Any suggestions ?

[Cudni]

The best course of action is to added another 512Mb ram.

[blacknight]

Two things to do:

- check up how many and which Serivces are setted in automatic: when you install Windows, it sets in automatic a lot of services that can disabled or putted in manual, so at the start up they don't start automatically using much RAM uselessly. You can easy find in the Web guides to services to disable.

- check up how applications start automatically without they need: i.e., Office, Acrobat Reader ( if you use it...), Nero, Java.. all applications that start up automatically - if you don't set them in manual - and eat RAM.

- naturally, as Cudni advise, add RAM.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "The best course of action is to added another 512Mb ram." }-

Thanks, but I won't invest any money. This computer is more than 7 years old, and 512 MB RAM should be more than enough for regular internet access.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: " check up how applications start automatically without they need: i.e., Office, Acrobat Reader ( if you use it...), Nero, Java.. all applications that start up automatically - if you don't set them in manual - and eat RAM.
" }-

My 'startup list' is as short as it could possibly be, aside from Avira processes and Windows services.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "This computer is more than 7 years old, and 512 MB RAM
should be more than enough for regular internet access." }-
-Why don't you buy a NEW Computer?

[wtsinnc]

-{ Quote: "I have seen the process for Microsoft updates (or Windows updates?) running frequently, consuming CPU resources. Also, svchost seems to take a lot of memory at times.
Any suggestions ?" }-

Hello Fly;

Question;
Why is the MS update process running at all if you are still running SP-2 ?

Any chance you could post screenshot(s) of Task manager when open ?
Perhaps someone here can identify a problem.

And you really should add RAM.
I'm running XP Pro and XP Home, both with SP-2 and went from 1gb of RAM to 2gb to 4gb and experienced an immediate boost in performance with each increase.
I also have disabled pagefile, indexing services, and Windows Messenger.

[wearetheborg]

-{ Quote: "Thanks, but I won't invest any money. This computer is more than 7 years old, and 512 MB RAM should be more than enough for regular internet access." }-

I'm curious, what are the specs of the computer?

And I also second adding 512MB (or 1GB) additonal ram; it should be quite inexpensive; and well worth it even for a 7 year old computer ($30 or so?)

[johnny_dacu]

What processes use a large amount of memory. check it from task manager (ctrl+alt+delete). Many programs are now written with feet. Memory usage is no more a concern for programmers.

[majoMo]

-{ Quote: "Many programs are now written with feet. Memory usage is no more a concern for programmers." }-
I agree. Since RAM usage isn't an issue in newest PC's, some programmers are now lazy guys. And it isn't a good think, unlike it can appear...

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "-Why don't you buy a NEW Computer?" }-

I did ! For the time being, I just use this one for regular internet access. As long as it works.
Simple web browsing, email should be OK.

I prefer to connect my new computer less frequently to the internet, a matter of privacy and security. I don't even have an AV on my new computer. The security setup is a work in progress.

For basic web access and email this old system should be sufficient.

[Aaron Here]

-{ Quote: "The best course of action is to added another 512Mb ram." }- -{ Quote: "Thanks, but I won't invest any money. This computer is more than 7 years old, and 512 MB RAM should be more than enough for regular internet access." }-
While I believe Cudni's advice is best, as long as you're opposed to spending a few bucks for more RAM (and since you seem to be using this PC mainly for surfing), I would simply suggest a fresh re-install of Windows.

Btw, do not disable the page-file, you need it!

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "
Question;
Why is the MS update process running at all if you are still running SP-2 ?
" }-

I don't know ! It's not running most of time time. I'm not sure if it's Microsoft update or Windows update. If I were to disable it, it would probably nag.

-{ Quote: "Any chance you could post screenshot(s) of Task manager when open ?
Perhaps someone here can identify a problem. " }-

Right now, nothing out of the ordinary.

-{ Quote: "
And you really should add RAM.
I'm running XP Pro and XP Home, both with SP-2 and went from 1gb of RAM to 2gb to 4gb and experienced an immediate boost in performance with each increase." }-

512 MB RAM with this AV and other suites have worked fine for years.
What's new ? Not sure. Officially, SP2 is no longer updated. I did get one update for MS-Word. I've been using a HOSTS file for a couple of months, without any problems. I've updated the hosts file a couple of times. Maybe CCleaner interferes with Avira ? Never caused a problem before.

These performance problems started at most a few weeks ago. Restoring a known clean image didn't fix this issue.

Note: I was just watching a video while suddenly my computer froze. Frozen screen, no task manager, but the audio continued to be played through the speakers ! I turned off the power. I have done that a couple of times since I've had these issues. I know you're not supposed to do that, but my patience is limited. And at least once I restored a known clean image after turning off the power, but these issues have persisted.

For all I know, it may be a hardware problem.

[Hiker]

-{ Quote: "What processes use a large amount of memory. check it from task manager (ctrl+alt+delete). Many programs are now written with feet. Memory usage is no more a concern for programmers." }-

Firefox alone is a third of his 512MB. He needs another stick.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "I'm curious, what are the specs of the computer?

And I also second adding 512MB (or 1GB) additonal ram; it should be quite inexpensive; and well worth it even for a 7 year old computer ($30 or so?)" }-

CPU: Athlon XP 2800 +, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200, plenty of free space on the harddisk. Custom built, 7 years old.

Extra RAM costs about 30 euros, but I'm not prepared to spend that. If this machine breaks down I'll simply discard it.

Besides, 512 MB RAM has been sufficient for years, and as I stated it's for regular internet access (browsing and email) only. I have MS-Word and a few other programs, but they are not in the startup list of the computer.
No new programs. No JAVA, .NET, Adobe download manager or similar stuff.

So I don't see why I'd suddenly need more RAM.

So what should I do ? Disable page/swap file ? Anything I could do to prevent the full 512 MB RAM being used ?

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Firefox alone is a third of his 512MB. He needs another stick." }-

I use IE 7, tightened security settings :)

Sometimes it consumes a lot of RAM, perhaps especially if I block cookies.
But rarely if ever over 100 MB.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "While I believe Cudni's advice is best, as long as you're opposed to spending a few bucks for more RAM (and since you seem to be using this PC mainly for surfing), I would simply suggest a fresh re-install of Windows.

Btw, do not disable the page-file, you need it!" }-

This is becoming a long thread :)

I restored a known clean image. With Avira and some data though. I prefer not to restore my oldest image containing only the OS, drivers and updates. Not for the time being, anyway.

Why do I need the page file ?
Page file/swap file, it has been a while since I paid any attention to those.
I mostly use Windows 7, but not on this computer.

Any crude way to keep my computer from using the harddisk as if it's RAM ?

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "So what should I do ? Disable page/swap file ? " }-Why do you keep saying that? DO NOT do that.

-{ Quote: "Anything I could do to prevent the full 512 MB RAM being used ?" }-And why on Earth would you want to do that?

In your situation, you need all available physical RAM, and you need a large pagefile-- at minimum a 'system managed' pagefile.

Btw-- your hard drive is a piece of hardware unto itself. It never serves as RAM.

[MerleOne]

I have basically the same issue with an old Dell computer running XP SP2 and just 256 MB RAM. Now, windows update background work and avira put it to a crawl when active. It takes up to 20mn after boot before it gets usable.

If I try to disable windows update (disabling the wupdate service), I get a warning from Windows Security Center with the little red shield in the tray.

I wish I could also do something to keep just a minimal windows so that it works as it was when unboxed, so I am also interested in the suggestions here. Thanks.

[RobZee]

-{ Quote: "CPU: Athlon XP 2800 +, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200, plenty of free space on the harddisk. Custom built, 7 years old.

So I don't see why I'd suddenly need more RAM.
" }-

Given these factors, I suggest you run some free online AV and malware scans to see if something got past Avira, etc. and invaded your computer. The sudden onset of the slowdown leads me to suspect that may be a primary cause of the problem.

For about 8 years, I ran a Dell desktop using XP3 and 512MB ram, 1.0 GB processor & it was quite adequate for browsing the 'net and normal use of other apps.

[andyman35]

To squeeze a bit more out of the system you may want to look at disabling some unnecessary services:

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/Archive_SP2/servicecfg.htm

[Fly]

(after tweaking a few services)

Aside from uninstalling Avira there is nothing I can do ?

Btw, on occasion I noticed IE 7 using more than 100 MB RAM. But that's the exception, not the norm.

I think this machine has two slots for RAM, each has a 256 MB stick.

Swapping a 256 MB RAM stick for a 512 MB RAM one may not do much.

And a 1024 MB RAM stick is just too expensive.

[J_L]

Try CleanMem, it's free and you have nothing to lose. Does its job and closes every 15 min via Task Scheduler w/o any system slowdown.

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "I think this machine has two slots for RAM, each has a 256 MB stick.

Swapping a 256 MB RAM stick for a 512 MB RAM one may not do much.

And a 1024 MB RAM stick is just too expensive." }-A couple of links merely for ballpark price comparison purposes:

512MB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611+600006059+600006085&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=147&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

1GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611+600006060+600006085&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=147&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

512MB in the $25 range, 1GB in the $40 range.

If you're buying two sticks, that's $50 vs. $80.
Assuming you're already willing to spend the $50 for two sticks of 512MB (that $50 being 'not too expensive'), that's $30 more for doubling that memory up to 2GB.

$30 still "too expensive"?

Not that I'm trying to prod you into doing anything you don't want to do or spending money you don't want to spend-- just offering a different spin on how you might want to consider it.

Btw-- having twin sticks will then utilize the 'double data rate' (DDR) feature, giving better performance.
DDR is something you won't get if one stick is 512MB and the other is 256MB-- though imo 768MB of RAM would still likely serve you better than 512MB, even at single rate.

And I'd still recommend you utilize a large pagefile, regardless.

[Fly]

ABee, thanks but I don't live in the USA.

I pay in euros.

And I wouldn't want to pay even 30 euros for 512 MB.

For basic internet access my setup should be sufficient.
I'll ditch Avira if that's necessary.

Maybe 30 euros isn't a lot, but I have to draw the line somewhere !

As I said, I'll use this computer for internet access till it breaks.

[wearetheborg]

-{ Quote: "
As I said, I'll use this computer for internet access till it breaks." }-

Install linux on it; linux flies on 512MB ram ;D

[Kerodo]

Don't know what you're doing there.. I ran Win2k and also XP on an older machine for years with only 512 and never had any problems.

[CloneRanger]

-{ Quote: "My computer uses too much RAM; how to fix this ?" }-

Try taking some out ;D

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "For basic internet access my setup should be sufficient. " }-
Yes, it should.

That's provided, of course, you don't do silly things like not use a pagefile, disable needed services, disable prefetching, indiscriminately remove items found by a Registry cleaner, or any of the myriad other ill-advised 'system optimization tweaks' easily picked up off the Internet.

[JuanP1000]

I use CleanMem (http://www.pcwintech.com/cleanmem). I have set it to run every 10 minutes and keeps my memory usage down ;)

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "

For basic internet access my setup should be sufficient.
I'll ditch Avira if that's necessary.

Maybe 30 euros isn't a lot, but I have to draw the line somewhere !

As I said, I'll use this computer for internet access till it breaks." }-

You know I had exactly the same problem with 2 machines: a netbook with 1GB ram (fairly new) and my very old laptop with 512 MB ram. Like you I thought 512 MB is enough for browsing (XP HOME SP3) but somehow lately it was always hovering around 500-600 making the machine unusable. What I did was to systematically uninstall anything that was not necessary (I suddenly realized how much bloat I had accumulated in 5+ years, including these useless Microsoft. NET Framework) .

What really made a difference (in my situation, I don't want to ruffle anybody's feathers!) was to disactivate Avira's guard, uninstall Sandboxie (it is very light with my Vista, but definitely was revving up the CPU with the old XP). I've also unchecked automatic updates as at start up it kept the machine going for ages with high memory usage. Last but not least purged the registry with jv16 power tools of zillions of useless entries.

It now uses 170 MB, constantly, 210 with Chrome on, and is almost as fast as my modern notebook. Security is in the hands of ShadowUser Pro + Avira on demand. I agree, why spend money on a machine that could be discarded at any moment.

[031]

-{ Quote: "Install linux on it; linux flies on 512MB ram ;D" }-
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I have ubuntu lucid 64bit and it rarely consumes more than 350 mb.
I think xubuntu (http://www.xubuntu.org/) would be perfect for you. Download the iso , burn it into a cd and then boot from it. See how it goes with your hardware.
good luck.

[wearetheborg]

-{ Quote: ":thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I have ubuntu lucid 64bit and it rarely consumes more than 350 mb.
I think xubuntu (http://www.xubuntu.org/) would be perfect for you. Download the iso , burn it into a cd and then boot from it. See how it goes with your hardware.
good luck." }-

Or maybe Peppermint OS:
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06224
;D ;D

[MrBrian]

-{ Quote: "I've also unchecked automatic updates as at start up it kept the machine going for ages with high memory usage." }-

I've read that this may be the big culprit lately.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "Install linux on it; linux flies on 512MB ram ;D" }-

I had myself Ubuntu on a fast core duo machine which had XP home first and then tried Ubuntu for a couple of weeks (no dual boot, one after the other). Ubuntu is fast but not faster than XP home, at least on that machine. This thread is not about which OS is faster, but why suddenly a machine with XP and 512 MB of RAM becomes sluggish to the point of being unusable.

Look at my screenshot, this is how XP is supposed to behave memory wise (my Vista64 is around 850 MB with Chrome/Wilders!).

[allizomeniz]

I don't claim to be an expert, but I was able to clear up the sluggishness of my mom's XP machine with SP3. She has 1024MB of RAM installed but it only seems to recognize about 900 for some reason.

First off, I'd enable the page file. You don't really need it if you have RAM to spare, but in your case it should help. There's nothing wrong with using the hard drive as virtual memory. That's the way Windows is set up and it can do some good.

You might want to look at Avast5 Free antivirus. RAM usage is relatively low and for a free product it's quite good. When I replaced Webroot Antivirus with Avast there was immediate improvement, especially with start up. I'm not sure about your SP2 though, I'd make sure it's compatible first, it should be though.

Uninstall all unnecessary programs and files. There are a lot of files you may not realize you can safely delete. A lot of .log files for example can be huge and are usually safe to delete (not anything with "setup" in the name though). You'll just have to look into it for your system but the idea is to get rid of as much as possible. Then install Defraggler disk defragger. It's not top of the line, but it's free and it'll do what you need, move all your data to the fast outer tracks of the hard drive. If you can lean down your system and get all your data to outer 3 or 4 tracks you'll see a big improvement. The Windows XP defragger might do the trick but I think Defraggler is better. If you have an installation disk that came with your system that has all the installed programs on it you're way ahead of the game. Just uninstall all the ones you rarely use and if you ever need one of them in the future you have it. Some systems have the program installers stored on the computer, you just have to pick the ones you want and reinstall. It'll be called Application Installer or some variation of that.

Keep an eye on what's updating in the background. Wherever possible set your preferences to notify you only and let you choose when to download. Even when a program checks for available updates it's using bandwidth and processing power so if you want just disable updates (except for your antivirus) and check yourself periodically. Set the antivirus to notify you only.

It sounds like you're already aware of services and start up programs. Go through them with a fine-toothed comb and make sure everything is as bare-bones as possible. You may have to do some online research. There are probably some things you thought were necessary but really aren't.

You can spend money on RAM but if you install it on a poorly maintained system it won't help much. :)

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "She has 1024MB of RAM installed but it only seems to recognize about 900 for some reason. " }-Because the video card uses 124MB of dedicated memory, most likely.

-{ Quote: "There's nothing wrong with using the hard drive as virtual memory. That's the way Windows is set up and it can do some good. " }-Not exactly accurate, I don't believe.
Windows will use available hard drive space for different and various paging operations-- writes, caching, and that sort of thing-- and the space it uses can be variable, not always constant.
The more 'elbow room' available for these operations, the 'faster' the operation is likely to be-- though we're generally talking milli and nanoseconds here.

Perhaps it's sometimes referred to as such, and it may be a matter of somewhat picking nits-- but to my knowledge the HD is only used for RAM (i.e., operations involving the creation and management of virtual memory), but the drive technically never serves as actual memory itself.

Now, having said that, I'll concede that I also don't have the technical expertise required to argue the point any more precisely.
And if I'm wrong in my notions, those who do have that technical expertise are welcome to correct me.

[HAN]

I just posted about this situation @ another forum. I believe the key offender for the big slow downs in smaller RAM XP machines is a recent change in RAM usage (just how recent I don't know) during Windows/Microsoft Updates.

To boil it down to the simplest answer, if you have an XP PC with less than 1 GB in RAM, you will likely have slow (really slow if 512 MB or less) boot times if WU/MU is set on automatic. Along with WU/MU, the boot up time frame typically includes AV updates, along with other stuff like Java updates and so forth. With all this stuff going on, it's easy to see why things are slow.

I have personally dealt with this situation multiple times lately. Within the last week, I have upgraded the memory in 7 XP laptops from 512 MB to 1 GB. In every case, boot times went from 12 to 15 minutes down to 3 to 5 minutes.

If you are not able or willing to increase RAM, the only recourse you have is to turn off auto WU/MU and only manually do them when you won't be using the computer for anything else. And give yourself plenty of time because it's going to take a while...

As for the page file/swap file, I would urge you to not disable it, no matter how much hard drive activity may be occurring. Windows compensates for changes in RAM usage/handling by using the swap file. If it's off and you have gobs of RAM, you're probably fine. But if RAM is barely sufficient, having no swap file (or too small of a swap file) can bring freeze-ups and even crashes.

**EDIT**
I mention XP specifically because most Vista or 7 PCs are newer and therefore have sufficient memory to deal with higher RAM usages. But if your PC has Vista/7 and you are stretching your RAM to it's limit, then you may have the same type of issue if booting is too slow.

[wearetheborg]

-{ Quote: "
In every case, boot times went from 12 to 15 minutes ." }-

:blink: :wacko: :wacko:

[Fly]

I just checked my system at startup.

Among other things, wuauclt.exe was consuming more than 100 MB RAM. I'm not sure about CPU usage.
That's Windows/Microsoft (?) update.

It's a fairly new issue and I've read that Microsoft is investigating this.

[luciddream]

-{ Quote: "Thanks, but I won't invest any money. This computer is more than 7 years old, and 512 MB RAM should be more than enough for regular internet access." }-

I ran a Dell Dimension 3000 with 512 MB (2X256) for years, just until recently, and it ran like a charm. Does your motherboard support dual channel? If it does, 2 sticks are better than 1. With limited resources it can make a difference. The only thing I changed was adding more ram (2X512). I was able to find 2 sticks of Kingston (matched) for $30 off EBay at my speed, so I jumped on it. I also said in the past I wouldn't pay to upgrade it because it was so old, but that $30 was well worth it. The difference is clearly noticeable.

Of course I also have my OS tweaked like a son-of-a-gun. I have only 20 processes running right now, for example. I have only 14 things listed as "Started" in my "services", and 3 things on automatic startup. Those are just the more important of many tweaks you can make to converse precious resources on a setup like yours. Even visual/display settings can make a dramatic difference (i.e. showing content while dragging & dropping) with only 512 MB of ram... I know that from experience.

So see if you can't find yourself a cheap, used set of sticks (see if your MB supports dual channel) off EBay too, and employ some of these tweaks (they're easy to find). Just do your research first so you don't break things. It took me some time & effort to find out exactly what some of these vague services/processes REALLY do, and if I really needed them or not. In almost every case I didn't, and it was just sucking juice needlessly.

After/if you add more ram adjust your pagefile allocation. Rule of thumb - Initial size should be roughly 1.5 times the amount of physical ram (768 MB for you right now). I set the maximum size to the same thing, personally I think it runs smoother that way. It will probably "recommend" something very close to 768, but not quite (usually a tad less). That's fine... go with that.

And disabling your pagefile will probably only make things worse. Yes, it's slower than physical memory, but it will only be utilized if you've used all that up. In that case it's better to have it there than not at all. And also, it should NEVER come to that. If you're pushing it to that limit it's time to either get more ram, and/or tweak things you don't need and take those resources back.

I also wouldn't recommend doing away with Avira, as the free edition is probably the lightest AV I've ever used. I can get Avast running even lighter, but it sacrifices most of it's functionality in the process. I would stick with it... just don't enable the "advanced process protection", and don't have the resident scanner scanning archives.

[HAN]

-{ Quote: "I just checked my system at startup.

Among other things, wuauclt.exe was consuming more than 100 MB RAM. I'm not sure about CPU usage.
That's Windows/Microsoft (?) update.

It's a fairly new issue and I've read that Microsoft is investigating this." }-

I have read this too. But IMO, I have doubts how well MS will investigate it. It's mostly affecting older XP machines and their focus is not on XP.

FWIW, in addition to wuauclt, there is also wuauserv, which runs under one of the svchost listings. Together I have seen them from 300 to almost 500 MB for short periods of time. Very high for an old machine to deal with!

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "I just checked my system at startup.

Among other things, wuauclt.exe was consuming more than 100 MB RAM. " }-Real simple solution: Turn it off.

Except in very rare 'out of band' instances, Microsoft issues updates on the second Tuesday of the month. Perhaps you already know that.

Enable auto updates every second Tuesday of the month, get your updates, then disable auto updates again until the next second Tuesday of the month.

That one's not rocket science.

[YeOldeStonecat]

-{ Quote: "Thanks, but I won't invest any money. This computer is more than 7 years old, and 512 MB RAM should be more than enough for regular internet access." }-

You cannot go by that logic. Yes when WinXP first came out, 512 megs of RAM was the average back then, and it was enough for XP and most applications at that time to run fine.

However, you have allllll these Microsoft updates...more complicated and more secure browsers (internet exploader 8 now, versus 6), applications are "heavier", and antivirus software is heavier. 512 megs is no longer adequate....running an updated XP on 512 megs is a painful experience, stop punishing yourself and slap in another stick (or 3 or a pair of 2 larger ones) in that computer to at least bring it to a gig of RAM. A few years ago I started installing base systems for people with 2 gigs of RAM, now all are 4 gigs..yes even with XP.

RAM is dirt cheap these days, and it's the most cost effective computer upgrade you can do.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "You cannot go by that logic. Yes when WinXP first came out, 512 megs of RAM was the average back then, and it was enough for XP and most applications at that time to run fine.

However, you have allllll these Microsoft updates...more complicated and more secure browsers (internet exploader 8 now, versus 6), applications are "heavier", and antivirus software is heavier. 512 megs is no longer adequate....running an updated XP on 512 megs is a painful experience, stop punishing yourself and slap in another stick (or 3 or a pair of 2 larger ones) in that computer to at least bring it to a gig of RAM. A few years ago I started installing base systems for people with 2 gigs of RAM, now all are 4 gigs..yes even with XP.

RAM is dirt cheap these days, and it's the most cost effective computer upgrade you can do." }-

I have a very simple browser ... IE 7.
No programs besides Avira's suite, Windows services/processes and a few necessary drivers at startup.

So aside from Avira and MS it's not heavier.

So I can go by that logic.

When I bought this computer it had 256 MB RAM !
The machine is obsolete and probably has only two slots for RAM. I once had issues with spf/sfp (?) and had to adjust something in my BIOS to 'automatic'.
I really don't want to bother with all this, and I'm paying in euros, not 30 USD.

The time to invest in this machine has passed.

512 MB RAM should be more than enough. If the AV is the problem, fine, I can remove it.

But MS shouldn't require me to invest in even more RAM.

I could turn off MS updates. Windows updates is of no use anyway, since I decided to stick with SP2.
But if I do that, how do I prevent my system from nagging about MS updates being turned off ?

[wearetheborg]

-{ Quote: "Real simple solution: Turn it off.

Except in very rare 'out of band' instances, Microsoft issues updates on the second Tuesday of the month. Perhaps you already know that.

Enable auto updates every second Tuesday of the month, get your updates, then disable auto updates again until the next second Tuesday of the month.

That one's not rocket science." }-

So normal updates are only once a month? Did not know that.
I had disables auto-update service once; without it I could not go to windows update and do a manual update --- it complained that auto-update must be turned on. I didnt know about this once a month feature, so I turned auto-update on (but I only do updates manually, not automatically)

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "So normal updates are only once a month?" }-
I'm not certain if non-security updates are on any sort of schedule or not.
But given that they're non-security updates, you should be able to live without them for a couple/three weeks until that second Tuesday of the month when you go get your security updates, no?

-{ Quote: "I had disables auto-update service once; without it I could not go to windows update and do a manual update --- it complained that auto-update must be turned on." }-Absolutely correct-- the auto updates service needs to be running when you visit the Microsoft Updates website.

-{ Quote: ". . if I do that, how do I prevent my system from nagging about MS updates being turned off ?" }-What nagging? Something from the Security Center, maybe?
If so, there should be a setting or box to uncheck about not notifying you of that.

Or you could disable the Security Center altogether.
I've never used it, and it serves no real purpose anyway if you're paying the slightest bit of attention to your machine.
I know if my firewall is enabled or not, I know if I have AV software installed or not and I know if it's enabled or not.
When auto updates is turned off, I also know that-- because I consciously and intentionally turned it off.
I don't feel I need the Security Center telling me things I already know.

I'm not specifically recommending that you turn it off-- that's up to you and depends on how you feel about it.
I'm just saying I never see any 'nags' about having auto updates disabled, and perhaps that's why.

[Fly]

It seems it's possible to disable automatic updates and stop the security center from nagging. Thanks.

[MerleOne]

-{ Quote: "It seems it's possible to disable automatic updates and stop the security center from nagging. Thanks." }-

I'd like to know how ? I had the same issue recently !

[majoMo]

Disable Automatic Windows Update (http://www.theeldergeek.com/disable_automatic_update.htm).

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "I'd like to know how ? I had the same issue recently !" }-

221650

http://www.theeldergeek.com/security_center.htm

And to Fly: Since you're using SP2, there are no longer security updates being issued for your machine by the Microsoft Corp.
No longer updates of any sort for that matter, I believe.

And though while perhaps something like drivers from the Microsoft Updates site may still be available for you there, it's better to update drivers from the manufacturer's own website, as Microsoft has been known to mistakenly offer inappropriate/incompatible/wrong drivers for machines.

So unless you want to upgrade to SP3, you no longer have any use for the Microsoft Updates site or the Automatic Updates service.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/jacks-blog-10017212/windows-xp-sp2-nears-end-of-life-10017718/

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "I just checked my system at startup.

Among other things, wuauclt.exe was consuming more than 100 MB RAM. I'm not sure about CPU usage.
That's Windows/Microsoft (?) update.

It's a fairly new issue and I've read that Microsoft is investigating this." }-
I just switched back to Windows Update because of the Microsoft Update problem, and my computers response time is much better.

[HAN]

-{ Quote: "I just switched back to Windows Update because of the Microsoft Update problem, and my computers response time is much better." }-
Interesting point. I never tried this because MS has disabled the old Office Update site. So, if you have any other MS sotware (especially Office), the only way you can keep it up to date is to still use Microsoft Updates.

[wearetheborg]

What is the difference between windows update and microsoft update? If I have MS Office(2007) do I need to pick a particular one? How do I pick one?

I usually do update by clicking the security icon --- it only updates Windows, not office.

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "Interesting point. I never tried this because MS has disabled the old Office Update site. So, if you have any other MS sotware (especially Office), the only way you can keep it up to date is to still use Microsoft Updates." }-
If you are concerned about any security Office updates, they tell me you can switch back long enough to get them and then switch back easy enough. Hopefully MS will fix the problem they caused with the August Microsoft (mentioned by Wearetheborg earlier) update soon.

[chew]

What a coincidence as I, too, was trying to fix this problem last night on my old Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop (10 yr old) which became very slow after I updated McAfee AV definition for whatever reason but it was alright day before. This laptop can accommodate a max 512MB RAM only so there is no more room for RAM expansion which is a bit sad as the laptop is still in very good condition. (I only use it as desktop ... :-[).

I have noticed for several months now that it takes ages (never count) to fully boot into Windows properly because it needs to start the application one by one. First the AV starts slowly then a warning about FW not on but after a few minutes it starts. The slowest to start for me is my SAS followed by Rainlendar. However my PowerShadow, SG, SpywareBlaster started with no problem. So I uninstalled SAS and Rainlendar but the system is still slow. Added to the headache now is my constant inability to get connected to the internet as the connection keeps dropping and I need to reactivate the LAN card all the time. Apart from that the laptop still work fine.

I am typing this now using my new PC (1.5 month old) but this system too is also not very stable as it keeps giving me Black Screen of Death (Win7x64, 4GB RAM, i5, Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2, SSD) and on several occasions (last night) I needed to boot into SafeMode several times before things went back to normal. It does not like cold start (more than 12 hr) for whatever reason.

Anyway, in few months time I might need to get something else as a back up.

:dry:

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "What a coincidence as I, too, was trying to fix this problem last night on my old Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop (10 yr old) which became very slow after I updated McAfee AV definition for whatever reason but it was alright day before. This laptop can accommodate a max 512MB RAM only so there is no more room for RAM expansion which is a bit sad as the laptop is still in very good condition. (I only use it as desktop ... :-[).

I have noticed for several months now that it takes ages (never count) to fully boot into Windows properly because it needs to start the application one by one. First the AV starts slowly then a warning about FW not on but after a few minutes it starts. The slowest to start for me is my SAS followed by Rainlendar. However my PowerShadow, SG, SpywareBlaster started with no problem. So I uninstalled SAS and Rainlendar but the system is still slow. Added to the headache now is my constant inability to get connected to the internet as the connection keeps dropping and I need to reactivate the LAN card all the time. Apart from that the laptop still work fine.

I am typing this now using my new PC (1.5 month old) but this system too is also not very stable as it keeps giving me Black Screen of Death (Win7x64, 4GB RAM, i5, Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2, SSD) and on several occasions (last night) I needed to boot into SafeMode several times before things went back to normal. It does not like cold start (more than 12 hr) for whatever reason.

Anyway, in few months time I might need to get something else as a back up.

:dry:" }-
If you download Autoruns from microsoft you can eliminate some of the items that automatically load at startup and possibly pick up some speed in your bootups. Here's the url: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "What is the difference between windows update and microsoft update? If I have MS Office(2007) do I need to pick a particular one? How do I pick one? " }-
http://windowstipoftheday.blogspot.com/2005/12/windows-update-vs-microsoft-update.html

[luciddream]

I feel it should also be mentioned that if you are going to disable Windows Updates (the service itself, not just untick the box in Control Panel)... when you re-enable it to check manually it must be set to "Automatic". Putting it on "Manual", then starting it won't suffice. The "Background Intelligent Transfer Service" must also be started (Manual is fine for this one). I have them both disabled, and start them once a month to look for updates. Cryptographic Services is the other one that's needed. In XP Home "Manual" works fine, it will run when it needs to, but in Pro it must be set to "Automatic" to work. I don't turn this off though.

And I agree about disabling the Security Center service. It's worthless, and a substantial resource suck to boot. It's been years since I've used it but I recall it giving me false information too... saying I had no AV/firewall installed because it couldn't detect a particular product. That could be dangerous if an end user were to install a 2'nd AV/firewall because they took it's word for it, or at least waste their time uninstalling/reinstalling again because they think it didn't install right. The service itself doesn't actually provide any "security", it just tells you what you should already know: "You have an AV installed, Congrats!"... or "Windows Firewall is turned on".

System Restore is another one that sucks a lot of juice, and probably won't work when you really need it to anyway. Having a good imaging/backup strategy in place is much better.

And if you aren't using the Windows Firewall and/or sharing a connection, then the "Windows Firewall/ICS" is just pointlessly sucking juice too.

Firefox might run even lighter for you than IE7. It did for me. When I started using FF I had been using IE7, and noticed an obvious difference. This can vary depending on ones particular setup though. I know someone that the opposite is true for... FF runs like molasses on their PC for whatever reason. And adding the AdBlock Plus add-on will certainly speed up your browsing (though this relates to connection speed, not so much RAM).

And I just noticed (Fly) that you're using the Avira suite. I don't know if that's resource intensive or not. I've only used the AV (free), and it was very light. It might benefit you to go that route too, then look for a light, stand-alone outbound FW to compliment it. I find that going that route is often lighter than using suites.

[MerleOne]

-{ Quote: "Disable Automatic Windows Update (http://www.theeldergeek.com/disable_automatic_update.htm)." }-

Thanks, I'll try it again. I think I did it so, but got the Security Center nag just after that. But it's worth trying it again.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "
And to Fly: Since you're using SP2, there are no longer security updates being issued for your machine by the Microsoft Corp.
No longer updates of any sort for that matter, I believe.

And though while perhaps something like drivers from the Microsoft Updates site may still be available for you there, it's better to update drivers from the manufacturer's own website, as Microsoft has been known to mistakenly offer inappropriate/incompatible/wrong drivers for machines.

So unless you want to upgrade to SP3, you no longer have any use for the Microsoft Updates site or the Automatic Updates service.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/jacks-blog-10017212/windows-xp-sp2-nears-end-of-life-10017718/" }-

Recently I received an update for MS-Word. For as far as I know I won't receive updates for the Windows OS, but other MS products are a different matter.

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "Recently I received an update for MS-Word. For as far as I know I won't receive updates for the Windows OS, but other MS products are a different matter." }-That actually makes kind of an interesting point, then:
Microsoft no longer supports XP SP2 in 'stand alone' fashion, but will provide new updates for Office being run on SP2-- if that's true.

But you say 'recently'. The final updates for SP2 were released a month and a half ago, so that could qualify as 'recently'.
Do you know when exactly that MS-Word update was released? Just asking as a point of curiosity.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Do you know when exactly that MS-Word update was released? Just asking as a point of curiosity." }-

Not exactly. But I received the update after the official end for support of SP2.

[MrBrian]

From Performance Issues on machines during and/or after installing Updates (Windows XP only) (http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/d57219af-9893-45c1-8b17-c5cbd472da53):
-{ Quote: "Microsoft has received customer reports of reduced performance while checking for updates on Windows XP systems with restricted hardware configurations (typically less than 1 GB of RAM). The Windows Update team has investigated this issue and determined that this was caused by a small number of updates offered through Microsoft Update that contained detection logic that increased CPU and memory use, resulting in reduced system performance. We have addressed the issue with the detection logic. Even with this resolution, the next immediate scan of a system will still show the performance issue, since the detection logic is stored locally. However, after the next immediate scan the cache will be cleared and system performance will return to normal.

Some customers had observed that by disabling the opt-in to Microsoft Update (MU), performance issues were resolved. Microsoft does not recommend that customers disable MU opt-in, as you are no longer able to receive essential security updates for Microsoft products such as Office, Visual Studio, or Silverlight. " }-