9
Contributors
35
Replies
36
Views
9 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Darvus
0

your computer memory could be low when your r using internet. try opening afew sites at a time.

0

tell us the amout of memory you have, and the CPU speed. you might have to open the case and check the fan on the CPU

0

This ONLY happens when you're browsing the web? Please elaborate on the problem. Does the system actually stop responding at all (as in, even mouse cursor won't move), or are the pages just timing out? Please be a little more specific.

Assuming it's completely freezing up, it does sound heat related. Although somewhat less likely, it might also be a power supply problem. I've seen that happen before.

As already requested by others, please post your system stats. Also, please include your average running numbers for installed memory (task manager, Performance tab: PF Usage and , if you don't know how much RAM you have, the Total under "Physical Memory").

0

it only happens when im browsing. the system does not stop responding. the mouse cursor can move but with an hour glass.
my system stats are: cpu usage 100%, PF usage is 386MB. Intel(R) celeron CPU 2.53ghz, 480 mb of RAM.

0

Yeah, as jbennet said...IE7, or rather Windows, for that matter, doesn't like running a lot of stuff with less than 512MB installed. Now, technically you DO have that much, but 480MB is an odd number, which means you have onboard video. Either you have a non-gaming desktop or a laptop. Either way, I'd suggest a memory upgrade first.

Also, do you run multiple windows of IE7, or are you using tabs?

As a suggestion, after a fresh reboot and without opening IE7, open the Internet Options window (on desktop or Start menu right-click IE7 icon or open it from the Control Panel). Empty Temporary Internet Files and Cookies. Might empty history as well to be safe. Once finished, click on "Settings". You may get a message about there having been too much space used or somesuch. Just click OK. When the window comes up, if the number for the Temp. Int. Files is bigger than 250MB, I'd drop it back. I generally use 128MB, but I've seen as little as 50MB work just fine.

Next, click View Objects. Anything that says "Damaged", get rid of. Just right-click it and Remove. You might get minor warnings about it not completely getting rid of it, but just click OK. Also, if you have a LOT of them, look through them. You should be able to open them up and see what website it came from towards the bottom. If the website isn't familiar to you, or the control seems suspicious, just get rid of it. These aren't mandatory files and can be removed without crashing the system. Worst case, they just ask to reinstall themselves when you re-visit the website.

Once that's all set, make sure you hit Apply, then OK. (OK applies anyway, but why chance it?) Do this until all the config windows are closed.

Reboot just to give it a fresh start, and try again.

I'd still upgrade the memory, regardless, but the cleanup should at least help. Let me know how it works.

0

confusertech, (he) already mentioned having installed AVG 7.5 in (his) initial post. Although, that does bring up an interesting point:

wazy, check your Add/Remove Programs list and make sure you only have ONE Antivirus and ONE Firewall installed. Also, which AVG product are you referring to, the free edition, or the full Internet Security suite? Free only has the AV, but the full one has a firewall as well. If you do have any other antivirus or firewalls installed, those can DEFINITELY cause an issue. Antivirus programs are known for fighting one another and locking up systems.

DEFINITELY check that out!!!!!

0

my laptop has 384mb ram.

it runs well with IE6 and the old windoes media player and msn messenger etc... but IE7 and WPM11 kill it.

0

confusertech, (he) already mentioned having installed AVG 7.5 in (his) initial post. Although, that does bring up an interesting point:

wazy, check your Add/Remove Programs list and make sure you only have ONE Antivirus and ONE Firewall installed. Also, which AVG product are you referring to, the free edition, or the full Internet Security suite? Free only has the AV, but the full one has a firewall as well. If you do have any other antivirus or firewalls installed, those can DEFINITELY cause an issue. Antivirus programs are known for fighting one another and locking up systems.

DEFINITELY check that out!!!!!

I don't use the AVG Security Suite with firewall. I use the free version of Zone Alarm and turn off the Windows Firewall. Some people find Zone Alarm confusing and can actually accidentally disallow a site that should be allowed.

0

Honestly, that's true of ANY decent firewall. My advice is to generally keep an eye on the notifications. If you are ever not sure about allowing something, deny it, but make sure you don't "remember this action". That way, in case it blocked something you needed, it'll just ask you again instead of permanently blocking. Then, you can say allow and "remember". Also, any decent firewall will prompt you about the Windows firewall and disable it for you when you install it. I think Comodo still has trouble turning it off, but it's easy enough to go in and do it manually, so no huge loss there.

I've used Zone Alarm, Norton, McAfee, AVG, Trend Micro, Panda, etc. and I've yet to find one I like better than Comodo. What's nice here is that when you install, you can decide whether to use the default advanced configuration (REALLY strict with lots of notifications), or basic install which works just like every other firewall on the market. What can I say...I'm all about quality and FREE STUFF. :p If I find a better one, I'll be sure to post it here. I'm always on the lookout.

On the other hand, the Comodo antivirus is a bit lackluster and has caused some problems. It's not bad, but it needs a LOT of work before it'll compete on the same level as their firewall. I'm currently checking out the AntiVir product suggested earlier in the thread. Just installed it as a test on a new client's system (custom build...will go to them when I'm sure it's secure). If it's good, I'll leave it there and put it on my desktop and laptop as well. So far, so good.

0

i use a h/w firewall and block/unblock individual ports as needed

That's too much work for most people (like me). I prefer a good software firewall behind a router. The firewall does all the standard monitoring and just asks me specifically when something comes up. I've got too many other things to do than reconfigure a hardware firewall every time I want to play a game or download something.

Well, short of disconnecting your internet access, your solution is definitely the safest, though, I'll give you that!

0

......I've used Zone Alarm, Norton, McAfee, AVG, Trend Micro, Panda, etc. and I've yet to find one I like better than Comodo. ..... What can I say...I'm all about quality and FREE STUFF. :p If I find a better one, I'll be sure to post it here. I'm always on the lookout.

On the other hand, the Comodo antivirus is a bit lackluster and has caused some problems....QUOTE]
You can't beat internal consistencey when giving advice!

0

If "browsing" is the only difficulty, I would try other browsers.

Firefox has a portable version, so it wouldn't even alter your system.
Opera has that AND a "one use" true executable that doesn't even write to your profile folder.
I believe that 1by1 or 1on1 is also zero footprint. And all would identify IE as the problem, if it is. Then you have 2 choices; more memory or switch browsers. Security tweaks won't help much and are more likely to hurt performance.
Then consider the size of your swapfile; though old hardware is another potential obstacle that "adjustments" will not fix.
Again, just my recommendation, but I would do this before tinkering with Security settings and tools.

0

......I've used Zone Alarm, Norton, McAfee, AVG, Trend Micro, Panda, etc. and I've yet to find one I like better than Comodo. ..... What can I say...I'm all about quality and FREE STUFF. :p If I find a better one, I'll be sure to post it here. I'm always on the lookout.

On the other hand, the Comodo antivirus is a bit lackluster and has caused some problems....QUOTE]
You can't beat internal consistencey when giving advice!

I apologize for the confusion...I should have been more specific. I was referring specifically to the Comodo FIREWALL in regards to my initial statement. The antivirus is a wholly different application as they don't have an all-in-one security suite. The antivirus is also still in beta, while the firewall is in release status.

Thanks for calling me on that...I'm sure others were also confused.

0

Thanks for calling me on that...I'm sure others were also confused.

He he. I'm sure nobody was confused as reading stuff thoroughly isn't everyone's strong point! Nor mine, come to that but since the guy with the original problem didn't seem to be bothering, a bit of self indulgent amusement came into my mischievous mind.

It amazes me, though what people use. Some poor sods actually use Norton! Can you imagine that? The most hijackable and resource hungry of all the AV class software so far as I can see.

I use McAfee for its all embracing protection (except that I trust none of them to prevent a Trojan) - they can't prevent the newest trojan until next time. Having 2 or 4 CPUs eases the load and indeed I hardly notice McAfee except when it's running a scan.

Lavasoft's AdAware suite looks after the spyware side.

I do a weekly trojan scan with SpyBot (updated weekly) - but that's just a ritual since a trojan would make itself known pretty quickly.

Anyway, Darvus, keep up the good work.

0

Security tweaks won't help much and are more likely to hurt performance.

I wouldn't call making sure you only have ONE IS suite installed a "tweak". Antivirus and firewall programs are NOTORIOUS for causing problems when double-stacked. I actually had a client's server-based network come to a crashing halt because the Symantec Corporate on the server was fighting with the McAfee they'd installed on their workstations. That was NOT fun. And that was just 2 different ones on the same NETWORK, let alone the same system.

And before you ask, they did this before I was called in. :p

Also keep in mind that bad security settings can block or allow things that shouldn't be. Properly configured security is both very valid and very important.

NOW...although changing browsers to something NOT IE is definitely in one's best interests for SEVERAL reasons, it does not solve the underlying problem. I think consensus is that upgrading your memory is a big step. I run 2GB myself and it's cheap enough there's little reason not to have at least 1GB anymore. This solves a LOT of common issues with Windows just by default.

At this point, I'd be looking at your installed plugins for IE. Either go to "Tools" -> "Manage Plug-ins" from within IE, or the "Manage Plug-ins" button on the Programs tab in Internet Options. Any listing that seems like just random letters and numbers or has a corporation name misspelled (saw one labeled as being from "Kodack" on a client's system recently) are red flags. I wouldn't try to get rid of them manually...if your anti-spyware didn't catch it, it may on the next update. Just disable those entries and try again. Worst case, nothing changes or you disable something you wanted. Easy enough to reverse.

The size of your swap file, as bobwahler mentioned, really shouldn't be a big issue unless you are low on memory and/or hard drive space. He's not wrong, I just think it's the less likely of causes. Then again, this is Windows we're talking about...

Please let us know how it's coming along!

(btw...sorry about the earlier thread hijack...that wasn't intentional!)

0

yeah, 2gb is good (over 2gb is pointless)

You're always banging on about > 2GB being pointless.

It isn't pointless.

Although the /3GB issue can bear on this, anything you can save in avoiding the overheads of paging is potentially worthwhile.

0

The combined sum of space that windows x32 bit edition can use for running programs is 2gb.

90% of applications cant use over 2gb. Only a small number (10% or so) can use more if you use the /3gb switch AND they are compiled with support for it.

All ram over 2gb is assigned to the OS instead of programs, who uses a very small amount anyway.

The only time the /3gb switch or over 2gb of ram is useful is if you are running Exchange or SQL server

0

Look, more than 2GB of memory is pointless like a quad-core processor is pointless. There are so few things out there designed to utilize them, that the money for a home desktop featuring either (or both) is a waste. Unless, of course, you just absolutely MUST HAVE the latest and greatest on the market. If that's the case, you're already used to spending FAR more than necessary to do what you need in other aspects of your life.

So, I guess one could say that there is a point to having all that stuff right now...it makes you poorer. :p

Now, if I were running a server...

0

i agree that more than 2 cores and 2gb on a desktop is pointless.

my server has dual xenons and 4gb ram. It runs windows server 2003 x64 and handles everything for my home lan, exchange, iis, sql, backups, dns, active directory, dhcp whatever happily. The old server had quad pentium IIIs and 2gb and ran win2k. I saw a 200% performance enhancement in general speed but some things remained the same.

0

Well folks - let's turn to the Quad processor debate.

If like me you run an application that will use the available processors (and I run a calculation that lasts several hours), then having two cores allows you to do things but the application I mentioned gets degraded but continues.

It follows therefore that if you have four processors, then the application will be less degraded if you try to run something else.

What you great guys are saying is that the so called average person is browsing, hosting (perhaps), writing, messing around with photos and doesn't need more than 2 CPUs. Prolly true. But jbennet is basing his assessment not only on that profile but also on the difference between 4 x Pentium II and "dual Xenons". That's like the difference between the 80486 and the Pentium.

I have to say that on my 2GB XPS1710 T7200 Dual Core CPU, XP 32 Pro, it strains on RAM when I have a full stack of the usual software loaded (including Visio). When I put 4GB in (which I borrowed from a friend before he used it), the difference in paging was visible and the benefit obvious.

You can't argue with that.

0

But jbennet is basing his assessment not only on that profile but also on the difference between 4 x Pentium II and "dual Xenons". That's like the difference between the 80486 and the Pentium.

Actually the p3 era ones are superior to the p4 era xeons. Intel reduced the cache from 1/2mb to 512k/1mb and put in very buggy hyperthreading. The p4 architechture is fundementally flawed hence the current Core architechture being based on the pentium M, which in turn is based on the prneium 3 (they are far more efficient, intel scrwed up the p4 era by playing the clock speed game)

anyway....

Okay i found two old rackies that arent in use.

Both run win2k advanced server (supports up to 8 cpus)

Both are the same model (old compaq proliants) except they have different optical drives (shouldnt matter) and one has dual pIIs and the other has quad pentium IIs. They are the same CPU models.

I have just run a complex SQL query. It took 24.3 seconds on the dual and 19.9 seconds on the quad.

I ran it three more times for comparison

dual = 26.1, 22.4, 23.4
quad = 19.5, 20.1, 20.3

quad was only marginally faster, nowhere near double the speed.

0

@ wazy did your get your issue resolve?, Jbennet and suspishio are turning this in a very interesting debate over momory and processor. I am learing a few things though, but here is my peice, 3G of memory on a home PC IS pointless, no application you are going to run will every use the threshold (basically 80-85% of memory installed) as for a Quad core processor, that does make sense if you are running mory hogging application. giving the application better processing time and less stress on the memory, but you MUST be runnif a BIG FSB (front Side Bus) both for the memory and the processor to see the difference.

0

@jbennet
It's nearly 2008 and any argument based on Pentium II experiments is entirely irrelevant to what the majority of users are now working with.

My Core 2 Duo @ 2GHz vs the Quaddie at 2.4GHz are in linear processing relationship. A 20 hour calculation on the Duo takes 8½ hours on the Quaddie. Likewise for my 5 hour calculations - same proportion.

On a SQL Query, one would need to take data drive activity into account especially for complex queries; memory strategies are important factors in SQL queries and that aspect hasn't been covered in the performance comparison.

I could guarantee to be able to set up a comparative test in my above described systems that would have a sufficient degree of limiting resource to yield only a small improvement on the Quaddie.

No doubt your dual Xenons are wonderful and do everything you want, but they are hardly relevant to 99% (guess?) of the people coming onto this part of the forums.

Of course your extensive knowledge is entirely relevant provided that it is applied and applicable to today's systems.

0

64K is all the memory that anyone will EVER require.
Nothing that "is", is pointless. But vanilla IS the safest bet for "most".

My take:
*Is it o.k. to over-clock? - I need to know if you are playing games or maintaining a company server.
*Is memory > 2 gig pointless? Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
*Should I do anything other than click "o.k." to all dialogues boxes? Do you understand what you are being asked and the implications, dangers, impact, affect of your choice?

Absolutes do not exist. If they did, everyone would own a Mac. Everything else begins with "in THIS case,".

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.