Old Windows XP box too old to browse the internet ?

Alternatively, you could use click-to-play, but I don't think there's ActiveX Filtering in Internet Explorer 8.

 

Since I'm not sure if I was clear, the CPU issues occur even when there is plenty of RAM available. (task manager)

For example, when I tried to visit that raymond.cc page I got a connection to Facebook (which I've blocked, perhaps only partially) in the HOSTS file.
There was some non-English reference to 'error on the page'.

Also, in the past I adjusted the security settings of IE 7. It has been 'updated' more than once.

Perhaps the cumulative effects have been too much ?

 

Does visiting the same page with Chrome give the same CPU usage?
I'd dump IE7 for current Chrome in a heartbeat.

 

I must had missed something, Oh well back on topic
I agree with ""luciddream""

 

Fly -

Another factor that may or may not be in your case is the following: What capacity is your hard drive versus how full is it? For Windows it is important to leave at least 25% of your total hard drive space free no matter what capacity it is and if you do not then even a well tweaked computer running windows only and even with 2GB of RAM will run very slowly.

Something else - what speed is your hard drive? 4200RPM? 5400RPM? 7200RPM? The faster rotational speeds will render a noticeably quicker seek and read time resulting in faster performance.

Lastly - have you ever used a defragmentation programme that also places various files at the optimal position on the hard drive? Programmes and files that are used very often belong on the outside tracks of the disc because the outside spins faster and will deliver much faster read and write times than if the same programme or file is near the inner tracks. Of course defragmentation alone will help noticeably if your files are fragmented but better to use a programme that will both defragment and optimize your programmes and files as per usage.

Best wishes

 

About the harddrive: Samsung SP0411N, 7200 RPM, 40 GB, at least 35 GB is free.

Just the standard WIN XP defrag 'program'. Currently the fragmentation is very low.

While I'm uncertain about the differences between Chrome/Chromium, I won't use anything that is even close to 'Google software'.

 

I had serious problems (computer not responding at all) with the latest versions of Flash on my quad-core, and I had to revert to an earlier version. Check to see if this is your problem. Also, be aware that a lot of ads are Flash based, so even if you think that a site doesn't have Flash on it, that doesn't mean that Flash isn't there...

 

I'm running an older XP unit similar in age, a P4-2.4GHZ. The main difference is that I have 1GB of RAM. Another family member has the same model PC but with 512MB RAM. Theirs is a lot slower on the web, especially if flash is used or multiple tabs are open. Every AV I've tried on their PC slows it substantially. On mine, an AV doesn't slow it as much but it still does slow it.

IMO, the current security suites are too heavy for old hardware. You'll get better performance if you use lightweight single purpose apps. Sadly, the lightest apps are not generally suitable for most users. Classic HIPS an rule based firewalls will overwhelm the average user. User friendly apps that self configure do so at the expense of performance.

Getting performance from old hardware will require a substantial investment in time on your part, time spent learning the details of your OS and your hardware. XP can be made much lighter by disabling unneeded services and by removing components that you don't need. This is not a task for the casual user as they are very interconnected. If you're willing to invest the time and able to learn the details of how an OS works, you can make old hardware fly. Don't make such a choice lightly and back up your original system before you start.

For the average user, Sandboxie is an effective security package. Very little can escape it on its own. The weakness is the user. It can't protect you from what you choose to let out of the sandbox. I use it primarily as an extra layer of isolation for the browser and for its ability to eliminate browser usage tracks by auto-deleting the sandbox each time. I've also had good results with the SeaMonkey browser. It's straight forward and seems light on resources compared to other browsers. Setting flash to "click to play" will save resources and make pages load faster. You can also use the FlashBlock extension. Many Firefox extensions work with SeaMonkey. I've been using it since it was called the Mozilla Suite on both my XP unit and my 98SE system. It's always worked best for me on older hardware.

No operating system that can connect to the internet is too old if the user knows how to secure and tune it. All of the can be made secure enough to withstand the malware you'll find on the web. If a talented attacker targets you specifically, all of them will eventually fail.

 

My notebook had 2 GB ram(2x 1GB), which I wanted to upgrade, but it only had 2 slots. So I bought 2x 2GB(not even more expensive) and gave my old 2 1GB sticks to my brother, he had an old notebook with Windows XP, single core Intel Celeron and only 512MB ram as well. He put in my old ram, and he said it was a huge night and day difference, much faster. Ram is really cheap these days(with 4 to 8 GB becoming standard for budget and medium systems), especially if you only need another 512MB or replace it with new 1GB if you don't have more free slots. The price difference with 2GB is probably near to nothing as well, so I really suggest you buy some ram.

 

My computer (Dell E510) is about 8 years old and outside of adding RAM and occasionally changing out optical drives has the same hardware configuration as when it was unboxed.
-Pentium 4 630 single core CPU
-ATI Radeon X300 Video card
-533 MHz RAM- increased from 1 Gig to 4 Gig.
-7200 rpm SATA 300 hdd.
-XP Pro and Home Editions (SP-2).

No problems surfing after switching from IE7 to FF with ADB+ and Flashblock.
SBIE.
MBAM Pro real time scanning active.
XP firewall.
Zemana Antilogger.

Others have properly advised to increase the RAM. It makes a big difference- particularly in stability.

-So-
I recommend you increase RAM to at least 2 GB and switch to FF.
It works for me and the system has remaied secure without a traditional AV.

 

Unfortunately, the only images I have for this computer have the current or much older Flash versions.

It seems that the HOSTS file blocks most ads.

 

noone_particular,

I agree with you about many points.

In the past I seriously tweaked this configuration. I can't say I remember what exactly I did ...

Very recent is the question if I want to stop a running script for performance reasons (non-English) in IE 7. My guess is that it has something to do with a recent update.

My main issue is IE 7 running at or near 100 % CPU even while there is plenty of RAM. And, sometimes there is an 'error on the page', or something like that.

Is it possible or even likely that the 'low' 512 MB RAM is the reason for the CPU spike for IE, even when the task manager shows that there is plenty of RAM available ? For example, I may have 300 MB RAM in use but still get that spike. It seems more frequent with certain websites.

Could/would a security suite cause that IE 7 CPU spike, even when it doesn't seem plausible because the suite seems mostly inactive ?

Currently I am running Eset Smart security. It seems to be very light.

It wouldn't surprise me if this issue has something to do with installing updates on IE 7 after customizing it years ago.

For some websites I only use Opera since IE 7 handles those so poorly.
I don't even dare to open a Yahoo webpage in IE 7 ...

Perhaps I should have stopped installing updates with a non-suite approach as once seemed the most prudent course of action.

 

ESET Smart Security uses somewhere around 100-150MB of RAM or more (Reference-https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2101720&postcount=5) all by itself and if it is doing a scan maybe more. If you add what the Operating System needs (now you have less than 320MB left for the OS) and any other processes or applications running then that would seem to be the problem of why it is running slowly. Not enough resources available to run any faster.

 

I can't comment specifically on IE7. Only one of my PCs still has Internet Explorer, and none of the have ever had IE7. You might check to see if there's a relationship between CPU usage and the amount of flash content on the page. Flash can be demanding on CPUs. You could also disable any resident guard your AV or security suite has running and see if the usage drops. Another option is viewing the page with another browser such as SeaMonkey. I doubt that there's any direct connection between your amount of RAM and CPU usage. Insufficient RAM more often results in larger amounts of hard drive activity from greater use of the swap file.

Security suites and AVs in general use a lot of memory and processing power due to the way they work. They check all the files you access and all the code you contact on web pages against a huge list of known malicious code. The only way that can be done quickly is for that list or database to be stored in memory. Comparing everything your PC contacts to that list consumes a lot of processing power.

 

Is anyone here still using XP 64-Bit?

 

One last thought - even though it seems now the problem of slow performance has been attributed to low RAM you can also make sure you have a goodly amount of page file memory allocated (as a poor substitute). Usually one allocates 1.5X the amount of RAM but in your case it would not be bad to make it 2X and set it manually with the same value for minimum and maximum. You can try this and also try setting things to allow the system to handle it as well and see if you notice if one is better than another.

If it seems that IE7 is not functioning as it should then you can try the Microsoft Fix it for IE.

 

At least in part, the IE 7 CPU spikes are related to javascript, other scripts.
Perhaps incorrectly coded websites.

There is the 'do you want to stop running the script because your computer may stop responding' (paraphrasing) question that is a recent thing.

Quite possibly my customization of IE 7 followed by updates is the culprit.

Many websites are fine, others are not.

 

Music to my ears, as I've been reading some of the alarmist comments on the internet about end of MS support for XP.

My system is quite old, 1.8GHz (but a lot of ram, sorry) and still performs well enough for me. I intend to continue beyond April 2014.

 

I was running XP on the internet quite happily with an antique Celeron 2200 and until near the end, only 256 megs of RAM, before the system finally died last December (power supply, plus whatever that fried in the process). I did upgrade it to a full gig and found that things went quite a bit faster simply because most browsers cache to memory, if available, rather than to disk.

 

Don't worry, if you know how to find things on the internet there will be plenty of support after the sky is falling day of April 14

and for the ones that don't like my opinion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQ6eHeBrhM

 

Chromium based alternatives are Comodo Dragon Browser or Opera 15.
http://www.comodo.com/home/browsers-toolbars/browser.php
http://www.opera.com/
Opera 15 is the fastest on my box but seems not really finished:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=349780
Some privacy advice on setting up browsers:
http://www.techsupportalert.com/con...wser-against-malware-and-privacy-concerns.htm

 

There are several threads on the future of XP over on msfn which will be the place to watch for any future unofficial upgrades.

One of the less lively, but interesting to me, is this:http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/

Here the OP looks at a recent MS update, which on the face of it seems critical; however, on closer inspection it turns out that any system running just some basic security would have been safe anyway.

Thinking about it, I suppose what will eventually really render moribund any OS for internet use is the lack of a modern browser, which may be the situation approaching with windows 2000. Official support for that OS ended in July 2010, which gives an indication of what we we can look forward to.

 

All that's required in that attack is a viewer going to a hacked website, and an attacker gets instant control of the system kernel.

All of the mitigation techniques in those comments are useless. All an attacker would require is loading text on a page.

 

In addition to my 1-year old Win7 laptop I also have a 9-year old WinXP desktop (2.8GH P4 with 1GB RAM and a 7200 RPM HDD) that runs just about as good as my Win7 laptop (except when multi-tasking).

I'm surfing the net I use Shadow Defender (as well Avast AV Free on both PCs) in order to prevent malware infection. Great security combo imho, which removes any concern (on my part) about MS soon discontinuing XP support.

Wendi