Guest JohnD Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy?
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory JohnD wrote: > System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of > 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this sound > right? Why the discrepancy? > What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
Guest Daave Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:7DC95AD6-2EC3-4C24-BFB0-D8F51643FC4E@microsoft.com... > System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory > of > 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this > sound > right? Why the discrepancy? All this means is you are currently using 532.02 MB of RAM.
Guest db.·.. > Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory the helpful response would be for the o.p. to add up the consumption used by the processes running in memory. but what would a troll like you know, except being a smart-as* -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > JohnD wrote: >> System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. >> Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? >> > > > What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." > > > -- > > Bruce Chambers > > Help us help you: > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 > > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin > > Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell > > The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. > ~ Denis Diderot
Guest JohnD Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Thank you, Bruce. I can understand the concept that if the computer is powered on it must be running some stuff and thus using some memory. It just seemed to me that for a computer that is ostensibly at rest - not running any applications that I have started - to be using a half gig of memory, seemed to me to be excessive. But perhaps it's not. "Bruce Chambers" wrote: > JohnD wrote: > > System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of > > 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this sound > > right? Why the discrepancy? > > > > > What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of > its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." > > > -- > > Bruce Chambers > > Help us help you: > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 > > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin > > Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell > > The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has > killed a great many philosophers. > ~ Denis Diderot >
Guest JohnD Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. "db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: > the helpful response > would be for the o.p. > to add up the consumption > used by the processes > running in memory. > > but what would a troll > like you know, except > being a smart-as* > > -- > > db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> > > "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > JohnD wrote: > >> System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. > >> Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? > >> > > > > > > What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." > > > > > > -- > > > > Bruce Chambers > > > > Help us help you: > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 > > > > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin > > > > Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell > > > > The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. > > ~ Denis Diderot > >
Guest JohnD Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Thanks for your reply, Daave. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. "Daave" wrote: > "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:7DC95AD6-2EC3-4C24-BFB0-D8F51643FC4E@microsoft.com... > > System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory > > of > > 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this > > sound > > right? Why the discrepancy? > > All this means is you are currently using 532.02 MB of RAM. > > >
Guest Daave Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Open up Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del). Although you may not have any applications running in the Applications tab, click on the Processes tab. Do you see any programs using memory now? :-) XP itself requires memory. Then all those other processes require memory, too. Memory tends to be reserved so that a program will pick up again at the drop of a hat. "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:E1FD7A68-4493-4390-AFD8-07EB6FC81023@microsoft.com... > Thank you, Bruce. I can understand the concept that if the computer > is > powered on it must be running some stuff and thus using some memory. > It just > seemed to me that for a computer that is ostensibly at rest - not > running any > applications that I have started - to be using a half gig of memory, > seemed > to me to be excessive. But perhaps it's not. > > "Bruce Chambers" wrote: > >> JohnD wrote: >> > System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical >> > memory of >> > 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this >> > sound >> > right? Why the discrepancy? >> > >> >> >> What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of >> its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." >> >> >> -- >> >> Bruce Chambers >> >> Help us help you: >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 >> >> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary >> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin >> >> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand >> Russell >> >> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has >> killed a great many philosophers. >> ~ Denis Diderot >>
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Re: Physical Memory JohnD wrote: > Thank you, Bruce. I can understand the concept that if the computer is > powered on it must be running some stuff and thus using some memory. It just > seemed to me that for a computer that is ostensibly at rest - not running any > applications that I have started - to be using a half gig of memory, seemed > to me to be excessive. But perhaps it's not. > No, it's not excessive. By design, Windows uses as much of the physical memory as it can to provide optimum performance. If and when memory is needed for use by an application, Windows will release the necessary amount. Remember: Unused RAM is wasted RAM. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
Guest db.·.. > Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory oh, pleaze... what a crock. by your estimate, every one with 512 megs or less couldn't run windows. -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:%23C3UhxHEJHA.4488@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > JohnD wrote: >> Thank you, Bruce. I can understand the concept that if the computer is powered on it must be running some stuff and thus using >> some memory. It just seemed to me that for a computer that is ostensibly at rest - not running any applications that I have >> started - to be using a half gig of memory, seemed to me to be excessive. But perhaps it's not. >> > > > No, it's not excessive. By design, Windows uses as much of the physical memory as it can to provide optimum performance. If and > when memory is needed for use by an application, Windows will release the necessary amount. Remember: Unused RAM is wasted RAM. > > > -- > > Bruce Chambers > > Help us help you: > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 > > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin > > Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell > > The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. > ~ Denis Diderot
Guest db.·.. > Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory yeah, i read his response. he has an answer for everything but doesn't provide any with value. that's why he likes to spew on my postings. ------------------- my suggestion is to figure out what is using your memory so that you can be exactly sure. one method is to unload unused processes, like with this little utility: http://www.amsn.ro/ ------------------ afterwards, the amount of the processes that are left in memory, plus the amount of video should add up nicely. also, there is a utility at microsoft.com called "process explorer" that can provide additional details. -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:7FD0CE4E-F73B-45C2-B61F-B706A7A76CC9@microsoft.com... > Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. > > "db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: > >> the helpful response >> would be for the o.p. >> to add up the consumption >> used by the processes >> running in memory. >> >> but what would a troll >> like you know, except >> being a smart-as* >> >> -- >> >> db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> >> >> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> > JohnD wrote: >> >> System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 >> >> MB. >> >> Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? >> >> >> > >> > >> > What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Bruce Chambers >> > >> > Help us help you: >> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> > >> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 >> > >> > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin >> > Franklin >> > >> > Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell >> > >> > The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. >> > ~ Denis Diderot >> >>
Guest John John (MVP) Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Did you read the Privacy Policy of that crap that you recommend and do you know which country it comes from? Apparently, from some of your posts in other groups, that is a very important thing for you, especially the country of origin. You now seem to have two sets of standards to fit whichever ill suggestion you want to make, will you give consistence to your "suspectware" and spyware determination methods and use the same standard for that useless crap that you are now peddling? John db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote: > yeah, i read his response. > > he has an answer for > everything but doesn't > provide any with value. > > that's why he likes to > spew on my postings. > ------------------- > > my suggestion is to figure > out what is using your memory > so that you can be exactly > sure. > > one method is to unload > unused processes, like > with this little utility: > > http://www.amsn.ro/ > > ------------------ > > afterwards, the amount of > the processes that are left > in memory, plus the amount > of video should add up nicely. > > also, there is a utility at > microsoft.com called > "process explorer" that > can provide additional > details. >
Guest John John (MVP) Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Don't listen to that db character and don't use that crap that he recommends. Memory optimizers/defragers are nothing more than snake oil, they provide absolutely no useful benefit to the memory management of your Windows installation, quite to the contrary they create havoc and force disk paging in order to create an illusion that they have freed memory! These optimizers work by making demands on the Windows Memory Manager for a rapidly and steeply increasing amount of memory to the point where the Windows Memory Manager pushes all the pageable code and data to the pagefile to satisfy the demand. Once the code and data for all the other applications (the Working Sets) has been paged out the snake oil program then tells the Windows Memory Manager that it no longer needs the memory that it asked for and it releases it, this creates an illusion that memory has appeared out of nowheres. The only problem with that is that all the other applications and pageable system processes are now in the pagefile and that anything that you do that needs the paged out code and data takes an eternity to run because it has to get it from the pagefile, in many instances some applications will simply crash! Things like using your web browser's "Back" button to go to a previous page or reopening a Word document that you had open only 30 seconds ago will now take forever! Even certain Windows functions will lag and be sluggish. The funny thing about all of this nonsense is that the snake oil memory optimizer cannot do anything on its own, like all other applications and processes it cannot manage memory at all, the Windows Memory Manager does *absolutely* not permit this, all that the rogue application can do is ask the Windows Memory Manager for RAM and then close the process demanding the RAM or have the process "unallocate" the RAM. Yet even more of a silly thing is that if you open an application, like lets say Word, it will ask for a certain amount of RAM and the Windows Memory Manager will comply, just as it did for the snake oil, and if needed it will page out code and data just as it did for the snake oil. Once your Word program is up and running if you want to open documents the same thing happens all over again. The difference is that the Windows Memory Manager will do this in a measured orderly manner as demanded by the properly designed application instead of in a completely reckless manner as demanded from a rogue snake oil program! John JohnD wrote: > Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. > > "db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: > > >>the helpful response >>would be for the o.p. >>to add up the consumption >>used by the processes >>running in memory. >> >>but what would a troll >>like you know, except >>being a smart-as* >> >>-- >> >>db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> >> >>"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >>>JohnD wrote: >>> >>>>System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. >>>>Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? >>>> >>> >>> >>>What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Bruce Chambers >>> >>>Help us help you: >>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >>> >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 >>> >>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin >>> >>>Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell >>> >>>The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. >>>~ Denis Diderot >> >>
Guest Jim Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:2DCFB3D2-9ED6-490F-B8F1-F5D1B0336E25@microsoft.com... > Thanks for your reply, Daave. Perhaps you might read my response to > Bruce. > > "Daave" wrote: > >> "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:7DC95AD6-2EC3-4C24-BFB0-D8F51643FC4E@microsoft.com... >> > System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory >> > of >> > 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this >> > sound >> > right? Why the discrepancy? >> >> All this means is you are currently using 532.02 MB of RAM. >> >> >> I read your response to Bruce, and you are wrong. The processes that have allocated RAM are memory resident because they must be ready to take action when needed. They do so because otherwise entirely too much time would be spent in loading and unloading processes. Jim
Guest JohnD Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Yes, you are right. There are zillions of processes running. And this leads to the question, "What are all these processes?" I seem to have heard that processes get installed on your computer without your knowledge - from the Internet, I guess - and they are serving their own purposes and not yours. Is there any way to tell which are the necessary ones and get rid of the rest? Like I look at my startup file from time to time and disable things I don't recognize or do recognize but don't think I need. Next time I look, half of them are back as new entries! Plus a bunch of new ones. "Daave" wrote: > Open up Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del). Although you may not have any > applications running in the Applications tab, click on the Processes > tab. Do you see any programs using memory now? :-) > > XP itself requires memory. Then all those other processes require > memory, too. Memory tends to be reserved so that a program will pick up > again at the drop of a hat. > > > "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:E1FD7A68-4493-4390-AFD8-07EB6FC81023@microsoft.com... > > Thank you, Bruce. I can understand the concept that if the computer > > is > > powered on it must be running some stuff and thus using some memory. > > It just > > seemed to me that for a computer that is ostensibly at rest - not > > running any > > applications that I have started - to be using a half gig of memory, > > seemed > > to me to be excessive. But perhaps it's not. > > > > "Bruce Chambers" wrote: > > > >> JohnD wrote: > >> > System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical > >> > memory of > >> > 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. Does this > >> > sound > >> > right? Why the discrepancy? > >> > > >> > >> > >> What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of > >> its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Bruce Chambers > >> > >> Help us help you: > >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > >> > >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 > >> > >> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > >> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin > >> > >> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand > >> Russell > >> > >> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has > >> killed a great many philosophers. > >> ~ Denis Diderot > >> > > >
Guest JohnD Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Not to walk over Daave, but in his reply to me he mentioned that there would be processes running in the background. I have replied to him that there are zillions of them. It seems to me that your explanation to me must apply to these processes, because after all they are also programs. So the question that comes to my mind is whether these processes are all necesesary. Is it possible that some might be associated with applications I no longer have? Or that they have been installed without my knowledge off the Internet? Is there a way I can find out and get rid of the unnecessary ones? I thhought db was suggesting ways I could do this, but apparently what he was suggesting was going to do something else. Certainly my computer has become much slower than it used to be. I have a 3.0 gig Pentium 4 processor and apparently a half gig of available memory, but it takes forever to load Microsoft Word, say, or AOL. "John John (MVP)" wrote: > Don't listen to that db character and don't use that crap that he > recommends. Memory optimizers/defragers are nothing more than snake > oil, they provide absolutely no useful benefit to the memory management > of your Windows installation, quite to the contrary they create havoc > and force disk paging in order to create an illusion that they have > freed memory! > > These optimizers work by making demands on the Windows Memory Manager > for a rapidly and steeply increasing amount of memory to the point where > the Windows Memory Manager pushes all the pageable code and data to the > pagefile to satisfy the demand. Once the code and data for all the > other applications (the Working Sets) has been paged out the snake oil > program then tells the Windows Memory Manager that it no longer needs > the memory that it asked for and it releases it, this creates an > illusion that memory has appeared out of nowheres. > > The only problem with that is that all the other applications and > pageable system processes are now in the pagefile and that anything that > you do that needs the paged out code and data takes an eternity to run > because it has to get it from the pagefile, in many instances some > applications will simply crash! Things like using your web browser's > "Back" button to go to a previous page or reopening a Word document that > you had open only 30 seconds ago will now take forever! Even certain > Windows functions will lag and be sluggish. > > The funny thing about all of this nonsense is that the snake oil memory > optimizer cannot do anything on its own, like all other applications and > processes it cannot manage memory at all, the Windows Memory Manager > does *absolutely* not permit this, all that the rogue application can do > is ask the Windows Memory Manager for RAM and then close the process > demanding the RAM or have the process "unallocate" the RAM. Yet even > more of a silly thing is that if you open an application, like lets say > Word, it will ask for a certain amount of RAM and the Windows Memory > Manager will comply, just as it did for the snake oil, and if needed it > will page out code and data just as it did for the snake oil. Once your > Word program is up and running if you want to open documents the same > thing happens all over again. The difference is that the Windows Memory > Manager will do this in a measured orderly manner as demanded by the > properly designed application instead of in a completely reckless manner > as demanded from a rogue snake oil program! > > John > > JohnD wrote: > > > Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. > > > > "db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: > > > > > >>the helpful response > >>would be for the o.p. > >>to add up the consumption > >>used by the processes > >>running in memory. > >> > >>but what would a troll > >>like you know, except > >>being a smart-as* > >> > >>-- > >> > >>db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> > >> > >>"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> > >>>JohnD wrote: > >>> > >>>>System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. > >>>>Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>> > >>>Bruce Chambers > >>> > >>>Help us help you: > >>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > >>> > >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 > >>> > >>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin > >>> > >>>Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell > >>> > >>>The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. > >>>~ Denis Diderot > >> > >> >
Guest Daave Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:8AE96129-B628-42A1-BDBA-D601D29355F7@microsoft.com... > Yes, you are right. There are zillions of processes running. And > this leads > to the question, "What are all these processes?" I seem to have heard > that > processes get installed on your computer without your knowledge - from > the > Internet, I guess - and they are serving their own purposes and not > yours. > Is there any way to tell which are the necessary ones and get rid of > the rest? > > Like I look at my startup file from time to time and disable things I > don't > recognize or do recognize but don't think I need. Next time I look, > half of > them are back as new entries! Plus a bunch of new ones. These sites should have your answers: http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php#THE_PROGRAMS http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/startups/ http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm
Guest Daave Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:97694035-7DF8-4051-A39C-25FA4CD8F157@microsoft.com... > Certainly my computer has become much slower than it used to be. I > have a > 3.0 gig Pentium 4 processor and apparently a half gig of available > memory, > but it takes forever to load Microsoft Word, say, or AOL. Here are the most common causes for PC slowness: 1. Malicious software (malware) 2. Certain programs that are designed to combat malware (e.g., Norton and McAfee). Ironically, they can slow things down because they simply use way too many resources. Sometime they cause conflicts with other programs. And their default mode is to scan your entire hard drive each time you boot up. 3. Too many of *certain types* of programs always running in the background -- with or without your knowledge. Use these sites to determine what these programs are and to learn how to configure them not to always run at startup: http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php#THE_PROGRAMS http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/startups/ http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm Sometimes it is recommended to use msconfig to configure the programs to not run at startup. A better, more thorough program is Autoruns: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx 4. Not enough RAM, which causes the PC to overly rely on the pagefile. A quick way to determine if this is happening is to open Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del) and click the Performance tab. Then note the three values under Commit Charge (K): in the lower left-hand corner: Total, Limit, and Peak. The Total figure represents the amount of memory you are using at that very moment. The Peak figure represents the highest amount of memory you used since last bootup. If both these figures are below the value of Physical Memory (K) Total, then you probably have plenty of RAM. Otherwise, you may want to explore this further by running Page File Monitor for Windows XP: http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm 5. You might also want to check that your hard drive's access mode didn't change from DMA to PIO: http://www.technize.com/2007/08/02/is-your-hard-disk-cddvd-drives-too-slow-while-copying/ and http://users.bigpond.net.au/ninjaduck/itserviceduck/udma_fix/
Guest John John (MVP) Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Let's have a look at these zillions of processes. At a Command Prompt issue the following commands, pressing enter after each: net start >C:\Startlist.txt tasklist /svc >>C:\Startlist.txt Note the single redirector ">" in the first command and the double one ">>" in the second command. After you run the commands find and paste the contents of the Startlist.txt file to your next post so we can have a quick look at your running processes. Windows XP Home doesn't include the Tasklist.exe utility, I can't figure out why Microsoft excludes this utility from the Home Edition, but you can download a copy of it here: http://www.computerhope.com/download/winxp.htm In addition to the sites that Daave gave you you might also find the following to be useful: Services Guide for Windows XP http://www.theeldergeek.com/services_guide.htm Windows XP x86 (32-bit) Service Pack 3 Service Configurations http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm John JohnD wrote: > Not to walk over Daave, but in his reply to me he mentioned that there would > be processes running in the background. I have replied to him that there are > zillions of them. It seems to me that your explanation to me must apply to > these processes, because after all they are also programs. > > So the question that comes to my mind is whether these processes are all > necesesary. Is it possible that some might be associated with applications I > no longer have? Or that they have been installed without my knowledge off the > Internet? Is there a way I can find out and get rid of the unnecessary ones? > > I thhought db was suggesting ways I could do this, but apparently what he > was suggesting was going to do something else. > > Certainly my computer has become much slower than it used to be. I have a > 3.0 gig Pentium 4 processor and apparently a half gig of available memory, > but it takes forever to load Microsoft Word, say, or AOL. > > "John John (MVP)" wrote: > > >>Don't listen to that db character and don't use that crap that he >>recommends. Memory optimizers/defragers are nothing more than snake >>oil, they provide absolutely no useful benefit to the memory management >>of your Windows installation, quite to the contrary they create havoc >>and force disk paging in order to create an illusion that they have >>freed memory! >> >>These optimizers work by making demands on the Windows Memory Manager >>for a rapidly and steeply increasing amount of memory to the point where >>the Windows Memory Manager pushes all the pageable code and data to the >>pagefile to satisfy the demand. Once the code and data for all the >>other applications (the Working Sets) has been paged out the snake oil >>program then tells the Windows Memory Manager that it no longer needs >>the memory that it asked for and it releases it, this creates an >>illusion that memory has appeared out of nowheres. >> >>The only problem with that is that all the other applications and >>pageable system processes are now in the pagefile and that anything that >>you do that needs the paged out code and data takes an eternity to run >>because it has to get it from the pagefile, in many instances some >>applications will simply crash! Things like using your web browser's >>"Back" button to go to a previous page or reopening a Word document that >>you had open only 30 seconds ago will now take forever! Even certain >>Windows functions will lag and be sluggish. >> >>The funny thing about all of this nonsense is that the snake oil memory >>optimizer cannot do anything on its own, like all other applications and >>processes it cannot manage memory at all, the Windows Memory Manager >>does *absolutely* not permit this, all that the rogue application can do >>is ask the Windows Memory Manager for RAM and then close the process >>demanding the RAM or have the process "unallocate" the RAM. Yet even >>more of a silly thing is that if you open an application, like lets say >>Word, it will ask for a certain amount of RAM and the Windows Memory >>Manager will comply, just as it did for the snake oil, and if needed it >>will page out code and data just as it did for the snake oil. Once your >>Word program is up and running if you want to open documents the same >>thing happens all over again. The difference is that the Windows Memory >>Manager will do this in a measured orderly manner as demanded by the >>properly designed application instead of in a completely reckless manner >>as demanded from a rogue snake oil program! >> >>John >> >>JohnD wrote: >> >> >>>Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. >>> >>>"db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>the helpful response >>>>would be for the o.p. >>>>to add up the consumption >>>>used by the processes >>>>running in memory. >>>> >>>>but what would a troll >>>>like you know, except >>>>being a smart-as* >>>> >>>>-- >>>> >>>>db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> >>>> >>>>"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>> >>>>>JohnD wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. >>>>>>Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>> >>>>>Bruce Chambers >>>>> >>>>>Help us help you: >>>>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >>>>> >>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 >>>>> >>>>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin >>>>> >>>>>Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell >>>>> >>>>>The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. >>>>>~ Denis Diderot >>>> >>>>
Guest db.·.. > Posted September 7, 2008 Posted September 7, 2008 Re: Physical Memory people always have an opinion, but never provide any solutions. there is nothing wrong with utilizing that utility i mentioned to you. when there can be no logical rationalization, then they will always use references like snake oil, great plague, etc.- anything to manipulate people. so his rationalization of the utility is fictional. because the results it produces is verifiable by windows. ------------- to answer your question about which processes are necessary, the utility i mentioned will simply unload any orphaned processes, leaving only those that are actually being used by the system. if you want to eliminate some of the running processes in normal mode, you can click on start>run> msconfig. in msconfig you can disable all your startups listed in the startup tab, and you can disable all the non microsoft services listed under the services tab and checking the box "hide microsoft services" -------------- another way to identify the extra processes that windows does not need is to boot into safemode and compare those processes with the ones that run in normal mode. -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:97694035-7DF8-4051-A39C-25FA4CD8F157@microsoft.com... > Not to walk over Daave, but in his reply to me he mentioned that there would > be processes running in the background. I have replied to him that there are > zillions of them. It seems to me that your explanation to me must apply to > these processes, because after all they are also programs. > > So the question that comes to my mind is whether these processes are all > necesesary. Is it possible that some might be associated with applications I > no longer have? Or that they have been installed without my knowledge off the > Internet? Is there a way I can find out and get rid of the unnecessary ones? > > I thhought db was suggesting ways I could do this, but apparently what he > was suggesting was going to do something else. > > Certainly my computer has become much slower than it used to be. I have a > 3.0 gig Pentium 4 processor and apparently a half gig of available memory, > but it takes forever to load Microsoft Word, say, or AOL. > > "John John (MVP)" wrote: > >> Don't listen to that db character and don't use that crap that he >> recommends. Memory optimizers/defragers are nothing more than snake >> oil, they provide absolutely no useful benefit to the memory management >> of your Windows installation, quite to the contrary they create havoc >> and force disk paging in order to create an illusion that they have >> freed memory! >> >> These optimizers work by making demands on the Windows Memory Manager >> for a rapidly and steeply increasing amount of memory to the point where >> the Windows Memory Manager pushes all the pageable code and data to the >> pagefile to satisfy the demand. Once the code and data for all the >> other applications (the Working Sets) has been paged out the snake oil >> program then tells the Windows Memory Manager that it no longer needs >> the memory that it asked for and it releases it, this creates an >> illusion that memory has appeared out of nowheres. >> >> The only problem with that is that all the other applications and >> pageable system processes are now in the pagefile and that anything that >> you do that needs the paged out code and data takes an eternity to run >> because it has to get it from the pagefile, in many instances some >> applications will simply crash! Things like using your web browser's >> "Back" button to go to a previous page or reopening a Word document that >> you had open only 30 seconds ago will now take forever! Even certain >> Windows functions will lag and be sluggish. >> >> The funny thing about all of this nonsense is that the snake oil memory >> optimizer cannot do anything on its own, like all other applications and >> processes it cannot manage memory at all, the Windows Memory Manager >> does *absolutely* not permit this, all that the rogue application can do >> is ask the Windows Memory Manager for RAM and then close the process >> demanding the RAM or have the process "unallocate" the RAM. Yet even >> more of a silly thing is that if you open an application, like lets say >> Word, it will ask for a certain amount of RAM and the Windows Memory >> Manager will comply, just as it did for the snake oil, and if needed it >> will page out code and data just as it did for the snake oil. Once your >> Word program is up and running if you want to open documents the same >> thing happens all over again. The difference is that the Windows Memory >> Manager will do this in a measured orderly manner as demanded by the >> properly designed application instead of in a completely reckless manner >> as demanded from a rogue snake oil program! >> >> John >> >> JohnD wrote: >> >> > Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. >> > >> > "db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: >> > >> > >> >>the helpful response >> >>would be for the o.p. >> >>to add up the consumption >> >>used by the processes >> >>running in memory. >> >> >> >>but what would a troll >> >>like you know, except >> >>being a smart-as* >> >> >> >>-- >> >> >> >>db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> >> >> >> >>"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> >> >>>JohnD wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 >> >>>>MB. >> >>>>Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not >> >>>"available." >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>-- >> >>> >> >>>Bruce Chambers >> >>> >> >>>Help us help you: >> >>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> >>> >> >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 >> >>> >> >>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin >> >>>Franklin >> >>> >> >>>Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell >> >>> >> >>>The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. >> >>>~ Denis Diderot >> >> >> >> >>
Guest John John (MVP) Posted September 8, 2008 Posted September 8, 2008 Re: Physical Memory db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote: > the utility i mentioned will > simply unload any orphaned > processes, leaving only > those that are actually being > used by the system. Yet more absolute fudd and another desperate attempt to clutch at straws in an attempt to promote your useless junk! Orphaned child processes only occur when services or processes are terminated abnormally, this is an uncommon occurrence, your crap utility doesn't know if the orphaned child process is in use or not and it can't do anything more than what can already be done using "End Process" in the Task Manager or the Tskill and Taskkill commands, your snake oil program is utterly useless! John
Guest JohnD Posted September 8, 2008 Posted September 8, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Here's the list. Actually, looking at the items, I suppose they basically look reasonable. By the way, I have XP Pro, so I guess I have Tasklist.exe. What would I do with it? These Windows services are started: Apple Mobile Device Application Layer Gateway Service Ati HotKey Poller Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler Automatic Updates Background Intelligent Transfer Service Bonjour Service COM+ Event System Computer Browser Cryptographic Services DCOM Server Process Launcher DHCP Client Distributed Link Tracking Client DNS Client Error Reporting Service Event Log Fast User Switching Compatibility Help and Support HTTP SSL iPod Service IPSEC Services Lavasoft Ad-Aware Service LiveUpdate Notice Logical Disk Manager Network Connections Network Location Awareness (NLA) Plug and Play Print Spooler Protected Storage Remote Access Connection Manager Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Remote Registry Secondary Logon Security Accounts Manager Server Shell Hardware Detection SoundMAX Agent Service SSDP Discovery Service Symantec Core LC Symantec Event Manager Symantec Lic NetConnect service Symantec Settings Manager System Event Notification System Restore Service Task Scheduler TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper Telephony Terminal Services Themes Universal Plug and Play Device Host WebClient Windows Audio Windows Firewall/Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) Windows Image Acquisition (WIA) Windows Management Instrumentation Windows Media Player Network Sharing Service Windows Time Wireless Zero Configuration Workstation The command completed successfully. Image Name PID Services ========================= ====== ============================================= System Idle Process 0 N/A System 4 N/A smss.exe 920 N/A csrss.exe 976 N/A winlogon.exe 1004 N/A services.exe 1048 Eventlog, PlugPlay lsass.exe 1060 PolicyAgent, ProtectedStorage, SamSs ati2evxx.exe 1244 Ati HotKey Poller svchost.exe 1260 DcomLaunch, TermService svchost.exe 1340 RpcSs svchost.exe 1464 AudioSrv, BITS, Browser, CryptSvc, Dhcp, dmserver, ERSvc, EventSystem, FastUserSwitchingCompatibility, helpsvc, lanmanserver, lanmanworkstation, Netman, Nla, RasMan, Schedule, seclogon, SENS, SharedAccess, ShellHWDetection, srservice, TapiSrv, Themes, TrkWks, W32Time, winmgmt, wuauserv, WZCSVC svchost.exe 1608 Dnscache svchost.exe 1668 LmHosts, RemoteRegistry, SSDPSRV, upnphost, WebClient CCSVCHST.EXE 1716 ccEvtMgr, ccSetMgr, CLTNetCnService, LiveUpdate Notice aawservice.exe 368 aawservice ati2evxx.exe 1444 N/A explorer.exe 1600 N/A spoolsv.exe 180 Spooler AppleMobileDeviceService. 1396 Apple Mobile Device AluSchedulerSvc.exe 1872 Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler mDNSResponder.exe 508 Bonjour Service svchost.exe 788 HTTPFilter SMAgent.exe 1816 SoundMAX Agent Service (default) SMax4PNP.exe 880 N/A SMax4.exe 948 N/A jusched.exe 1200 N/A svchost.exe 324 stisvc CLI.exe 2156 N/A wmpnetwk.exe 2160 WMPNetworkSvc CCSVCHST.EXE 2360 N/A hpgs2wnd.exe 2620 N/A iTunesHelper.exe 2752 N/A GoogleToolbarNotifier.exe 2812 N/A hpgs2wnf.exe 2828 N/A ctfmon.exe 2868 N/A msmsgs.exe 3316 N/A wmpnscfg.exe 3648 N/A Hotsync.exe 3956 N/A iPodService.exe 1800 iPod Service alg.exe 2740 ALG symlcsvc.exe 4088 Symantec Core LC CLI.exe 1484 N/A CLI.exe 3360 N/A rundll32.exe 3376 N/A aolsoftware.exe 1704 N/A AOLSP Scheduler.exe 1972 N/A aolsoftware.exe 2964 N/A AOLacsd.exe 2312 N/A waol.exe 184 N/A shellmon.exe 2184 N/A cmd.exe 2516 N/A tasklist.exe 2552 N/A wmiprvse.exe 2944 N/A "John John (MVP)" wrote: > Let's have a look at these zillions of processes. At a Command Prompt > issue the following commands, pressing enter after each: > > net start >C:\Startlist.txt > tasklist /svc >>C:\Startlist.txt > > Note the single redirector ">" in the first command and the double one > ">>" in the second command. After you run the commands find and paste > the contents of the Startlist.txt file to your next post so we can have > a quick look at your running processes. > > Windows XP Home doesn't include the Tasklist.exe utility, I can't figure > out why Microsoft excludes this utility from the Home Edition, but you > can download a copy of it here: > http://www.computerhope.com/download/winxp.htm > > In addition to the sites that Daave gave you you might also find the > following to be useful: > > Services Guide for Windows XP > http://www.theeldergeek.com/services_guide.htm > > Windows XP x86 (32-bit) Service Pack 3 Service Configurations > http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm > > John > > JohnD wrote: > > > Not to walk over Daave, but in his reply to me he mentioned that there would > > be processes running in the background. I have replied to him that there are > > zillions of them. It seems to me that your explanation to me must apply to > > these processes, because after all they are also programs. > > > > So the question that comes to my mind is whether these processes are all > > necesesary. Is it possible that some might be associated with applications I > > no longer have? Or that they have been installed without my knowledge off the > > Internet? Is there a way I can find out and get rid of the unnecessary ones? > > > > I thhought db was suggesting ways I could do this, but apparently what he > > was suggesting was going to do something else. > > > > Certainly my computer has become much slower than it used to be. I have a > > 3.0 gig Pentium 4 processor and apparently a half gig of available memory, > > but it takes forever to load Microsoft Word, say, or AOL. > > > > "John John (MVP)" wrote: > > > > > >>Don't listen to that db character and don't use that crap that he > >>recommends. Memory optimizers/defragers are nothing more than snake > >>oil, they provide absolutely no useful benefit to the memory management > >>of your Windows installation, quite to the contrary they create havoc > >>and force disk paging in order to create an illusion that they have > >>freed memory! > >> > >>These optimizers work by making demands on the Windows Memory Manager > >>for a rapidly and steeply increasing amount of memory to the point where > >>the Windows Memory Manager pushes all the pageable code and data to the > >>pagefile to satisfy the demand. Once the code and data for all the > >>other applications (the Working Sets) has been paged out the snake oil > >>program then tells the Windows Memory Manager that it no longer needs > >>the memory that it asked for and it releases it, this creates an > >>illusion that memory has appeared out of nowheres. > >> > >>The only problem with that is that all the other applications and > >>pageable system processes are now in the pagefile and that anything that > >>you do that needs the paged out code and data takes an eternity to run > >>because it has to get it from the pagefile, in many instances some > >>applications will simply crash! Things like using your web browser's > >>"Back" button to go to a previous page or reopening a Word document that > >>you had open only 30 seconds ago will now take forever! Even certain > >>Windows functions will lag and be sluggish. > >> > >>The funny thing about all of this nonsense is that the snake oil memory > >>optimizer cannot do anything on its own, like all other applications and > >>processes it cannot manage memory at all, the Windows Memory Manager > >>does *absolutely* not permit this, all that the rogue application can do > >>is ask the Windows Memory Manager for RAM and then close the process > >>demanding the RAM or have the process "unallocate" the RAM. Yet even > >>more of a silly thing is that if you open an application, like lets say > >>Word, it will ask for a certain amount of RAM and the Windows Memory > >>Manager will comply, just as it did for the snake oil, and if needed it > >>will page out code and data just as it did for the snake oil. Once your > >>Word program is up and running if you want to open documents the same > >>thing happens all over again. The difference is that the Windows Memory > >>Manager will do this in a measured orderly manner as demanded by the > >>properly designed application instead of in a completely reckless manner > >>as demanded from a rogue snake oil program! > >> > >>John > >> > >>JohnD wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. > >>> > >>>"db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>the helpful response > >>>>would be for the o.p. > >>>>to add up the consumption > >>>>used by the processes > >>>>running in memory. > >>>> > >>>>but what would a troll > >>>>like you know, except > >>>>being a smart-as* > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>> > >>>>db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> > >>>> > >>>>"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>JohnD wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. > >>>>>>Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>-- > >>>>> > >>>>>Bruce Chambers > >>>>> > >>>>>Help us help you: > >>>>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > >>>>> > >>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 > >>>>> > >>>>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin > >>>>> > >>>>>Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell > >>>>> > >>>>>The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. > >>>>>~ Denis Diderot > >>>> > >>>> >
Guest Daave Posted September 8, 2008 Posted September 8, 2008 Re: Physical Memory "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:uF%23vX5TEJHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Let's have a look at these zillions of processes. At a Command Prompt > issue the following commands, pressing enter after each: > > net start >C:\Startlist.txt > tasklist /svc >>C:\Startlist.txt Tasklist only comes with XP Pro, not XP Home. But this should even the score: http://www.computerhope.com/download/winxp.htm
Guest Daave Posted September 8, 2008 Posted September 8, 2008 Re: Physical Memory "Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message news:eWm7yuUEJHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message > news:uF%23vX5TEJHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Let's have a look at these zillions of processes. At a Command >> Prompt issue the following commands, pressing enter after each: >> >> net start >C:\Startlist.txt >> tasklist /svc >>C:\Startlist.txt > > Tasklist only comes with XP Pro, not XP Home. But this should even the > score: > > http://www.computerhope.com/download/winxp.htm LOL! I need to get my vision checked!
Guest John John (MVP) Posted September 8, 2008 Posted September 8, 2008 Re: Physical Memory Well, the reason I wanted you to post the list was to see if any virus or spyware would have shown as being present, at a quick look I don't see anything there that looks like malware so that would seem to be eliminated as a cause of your slowness problems. One big hog that I see there is Symantec, you may want to reconsider your use of this AV program, there are much lighter AV programs available, Avast for one is much less demanding than Symantec. Other than that you will just have to go thru the list and consult the web sites that we pointed you to earlier and decide for yourself what it is that you really need running, if you see things in there that you only use once in a blue moon then you should remove them from the startup location. To disable the unneeded items you can go in the programs that you want to remove from the startup and see if they have an option to turn off the boot time autostart, the well written and graceful programs always give an option to turn off the start at boot. For the not so well behaved programs you can use utilities like Autoruns that Daave suggested, or the built-in Windows Msconfig utility. I also like this little utility, http://codestuff.tripod.com/ it is small and easy to use, it has a very nice GUI, plus it will keep a list of what you disabled so it is easy to later undo changes if you want to re-enable them. Keep in mind that almost all of the utilities that you remove from the list will still work just fine when or if you start them manually. As a first candidate for removal from your startup list I nominate ati2evxx.exe, look here for it and see if you really need this running: http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist_a.htm As for the services just use the Windows Services Management Console to change the startup type of the unwanted or unneeded services or look in the software that owns the service to see if it can be disabled. You can print the output list from the Net Start command and use it as a record keeping aid to keep track of the changes that you make with the services. Is your computer on a home network or is it a stand alone? Are you the only user or do other users also use it? John JohnD wrote: > Here's the list. Actually, looking at the items, I suppose they basically > look reasonable. By the way, I have XP Pro, so I guess I have Tasklist.exe. > What would I do with it? > > These Windows services are started: > > Apple Mobile Device > Application Layer Gateway Service > Ati HotKey Poller > Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler > Automatic Updates > Background Intelligent Transfer Service > Bonjour Service > COM+ Event System > Computer Browser > Cryptographic Services > DCOM Server Process Launcher > DHCP Client > Distributed Link Tracking Client > DNS Client > Error Reporting Service > Event Log > Fast User Switching Compatibility > Help and Support > HTTP SSL > iPod Service > IPSEC Services > Lavasoft Ad-Aware Service > LiveUpdate Notice > Logical Disk Manager > Network Connections > Network Location Awareness (NLA) > Plug and Play > Print Spooler > Protected Storage > Remote Access Connection Manager > Remote Procedure Call (RPC) > Remote Registry > Secondary Logon > Security Accounts Manager > Server > Shell Hardware Detection > SoundMAX Agent Service > SSDP Discovery Service > Symantec Core LC > Symantec Event Manager > Symantec Lic NetConnect service > Symantec Settings Manager > System Event Notification > System Restore Service > Task Scheduler > TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper > Telephony > Terminal Services > Themes > Universal Plug and Play Device Host > WebClient > Windows Audio > Windows Firewall/Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) > Windows Image Acquisition (WIA) > Windows Management Instrumentation > Windows Media Player Network Sharing Service > Windows Time > Wireless Zero Configuration > Workstation > > The command completed successfully. > > > Image Name PID Services > ========================= ====== ============================================= > System Idle Process 0 N/A > System 4 N/A > smss.exe 920 N/A > csrss.exe 976 N/A > winlogon.exe 1004 N/A > services.exe 1048 Eventlog, PlugPlay > lsass.exe 1060 PolicyAgent, ProtectedStorage, SamSs > ati2evxx.exe 1244 Ati HotKey Poller > svchost.exe 1260 DcomLaunch, TermService > svchost.exe 1340 RpcSs > svchost.exe 1464 AudioSrv, BITS, Browser, CryptSvc, Dhcp, > dmserver, ERSvc, EventSystem, > FastUserSwitchingCompatibility, helpsvc, > lanmanserver, lanmanworkstation, Netman, > Nla, RasMan, Schedule, seclogon, SENS, > SharedAccess, ShellHWDetection, srservice, > TapiSrv, Themes, TrkWks, W32Time, winmgmt, > wuauserv, WZCSVC > svchost.exe 1608 Dnscache > svchost.exe 1668 LmHosts, RemoteRegistry, SSDPSRV, upnphost, > WebClient > CCSVCHST.EXE 1716 ccEvtMgr, ccSetMgr, CLTNetCnService, > LiveUpdate Notice > aawservice.exe 368 aawservice > ati2evxx.exe 1444 N/A > explorer.exe 1600 N/A > spoolsv.exe 180 Spooler > AppleMobileDeviceService. 1396 Apple Mobile Device > AluSchedulerSvc.exe 1872 Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler > mDNSResponder.exe 508 Bonjour Service > svchost.exe 788 HTTPFilter > SMAgent.exe 1816 SoundMAX Agent Service (default) > SMax4PNP.exe 880 N/A > SMax4.exe 948 N/A > jusched.exe 1200 N/A > svchost.exe 324 stisvc > CLI.exe 2156 N/A > wmpnetwk.exe 2160 WMPNetworkSvc > CCSVCHST.EXE 2360 N/A > hpgs2wnd.exe 2620 N/A > iTunesHelper.exe 2752 N/A > GoogleToolbarNotifier.exe 2812 N/A > hpgs2wnf.exe 2828 N/A > ctfmon.exe 2868 N/A > msmsgs.exe 3316 N/A > wmpnscfg.exe 3648 N/A > Hotsync.exe 3956 N/A > iPodService.exe 1800 iPod Service > alg.exe 2740 ALG > symlcsvc.exe 4088 Symantec Core LC > CLI.exe 1484 N/A > CLI.exe 3360 N/A > rundll32.exe 3376 N/A > aolsoftware.exe 1704 N/A > AOLSP Scheduler.exe 1972 N/A > aolsoftware.exe 2964 N/A > AOLacsd.exe 2312 N/A > waol.exe 184 N/A > shellmon.exe 2184 N/A > cmd.exe 2516 N/A > tasklist.exe 2552 N/A > wmiprvse.exe 2944 N/A > > > "John John (MVP)" wrote: > > >>Let's have a look at these zillions of processes. At a Command Prompt >>issue the following commands, pressing enter after each: >> >>net start >C:\Startlist.txt >>tasklist /svc >>C:\Startlist.txt >> >>Note the single redirector ">" in the first command and the double one >>">>" in the second command. After you run the commands find and paste >>the contents of the Startlist.txt file to your next post so we can have >>a quick look at your running processes. >> >>Windows XP Home doesn't include the Tasklist.exe utility, I can't figure >>out why Microsoft excludes this utility from the Home Edition, but you >>can download a copy of it here: >>http://www.computerhope.com/download/winxp.htm >> >>In addition to the sites that Daave gave you you might also find the >>following to be useful: >> >>Services Guide for Windows XP >>http://www.theeldergeek.com/services_guide.htm >> >>Windows XP x86 (32-bit) Service Pack 3 Service Configurations >>http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm >> >>John >> >>JohnD wrote: >> >> >>>Not to walk over Daave, but in his reply to me he mentioned that there would >>>be processes running in the background. I have replied to him that there are >>>zillions of them. It seems to me that your explanation to me must apply to >>>these processes, because after all they are also programs. >>> >>>So the question that comes to my mind is whether these processes are all >>>necesesary. Is it possible that some might be associated with applications I >>>no longer have? Or that they have been installed without my knowledge off the >>>Internet? Is there a way I can find out and get rid of the unnecessary ones? >>> >>>I thhought db was suggesting ways I could do this, but apparently what he >>>was suggesting was going to do something else. >>> >>>Certainly my computer has become much slower than it used to be. I have a >>>3.0 gig Pentium 4 processor and apparently a half gig of available memory, >>>but it takes forever to load Microsoft Word, say, or AOL. >>> >>>"John John (MVP)" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Don't listen to that db character and don't use that crap that he >>>>recommends. Memory optimizers/defragers are nothing more than snake >>>>oil, they provide absolutely no useful benefit to the memory management >>>>of your Windows installation, quite to the contrary they create havoc >>>>and force disk paging in order to create an illusion that they have >>>>freed memory! >>>> >>>>These optimizers work by making demands on the Windows Memory Manager >>>>for a rapidly and steeply increasing amount of memory to the point where >>>>the Windows Memory Manager pushes all the pageable code and data to the >>>>pagefile to satisfy the demand. Once the code and data for all the >>>>other applications (the Working Sets) has been paged out the snake oil >>>>program then tells the Windows Memory Manager that it no longer needs >>>>the memory that it asked for and it releases it, this creates an >>>>illusion that memory has appeared out of nowheres. >>>> >>>>The only problem with that is that all the other applications and >>>>pageable system processes are now in the pagefile and that anything that >>>>you do that needs the paged out code and data takes an eternity to run >>>>because it has to get it from the pagefile, in many instances some >>>>applications will simply crash! Things like using your web browser's >>>>"Back" button to go to a previous page or reopening a Word document that >>>>you had open only 30 seconds ago will now take forever! Even certain >>>>Windows functions will lag and be sluggish. >>>> >>>>The funny thing about all of this nonsense is that the snake oil memory >>>>optimizer cannot do anything on its own, like all other applications and >>>>processes it cannot manage memory at all, the Windows Memory Manager >>>>does *absolutely* not permit this, all that the rogue application can do >>>>is ask the Windows Memory Manager for RAM and then close the process >>>>demanding the RAM or have the process "unallocate" the RAM. Yet even >>>>more of a silly thing is that if you open an application, like lets say >>>>Word, it will ask for a certain amount of RAM and the Windows Memory >>>>Manager will comply, just as it did for the snake oil, and if needed it >>>>will page out code and data just as it did for the snake oil. Once your >>>>Word program is up and running if you want to open documents the same >>>>thing happens all over again. The difference is that the Windows Memory >>>>Manager will do this in a measured orderly manner as demanded by the >>>>properly designed application instead of in a completely reckless manner >>>>as demanded from a rogue snake oil program! >>>> >>>>John >>>> >>>>JohnD wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Thanks for your response. Perhaps you might read my response to Bruce. >>>>> >>>>>"db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>the helpful response >>>>>>would be for the o.p. >>>>>>to add up the consumption >>>>>>used by the processes >>>>>>running in memory. >>>>>> >>>>>>but what would a troll >>>>>>like you know, except >>>>>>being a smart-as* >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>> >>>>>>db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> >>>>>> >>>>>>"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:eFCY$eFEJHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>JohnD wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>System information on my XP PC tells me I have total physical memory of 1,024.00 MB, and Available physical memory of 491.98 MB. >>>>>>>>Does this sound right? Why the discrepancy? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What discrepancy? Naturally, if your computer is powered on, some of its memory will be in use, and therefore not "available." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Bruce Chambers >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Help us help you: >>>>>>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. >>>>>>>~ Denis Diderot >>>>>> >>>>>>
Recommended Posts