Windows XP Updates and Performance

[imported_scoobydoo]

I went to 'fix' a relative's computer the other day, I say 'fix' very loosely as there was little wrong with it.

Anyway, the main issue is that it's an oldish machine (Intel Pentium 4 using PC133 SDRAM), but from what saw, it was using Windows XP Home Edition that probably came installed on the computer from new (maybe from 2001). I noticed that it had SP2 post installed, along with hundreds of updates (automatic from windows update).

The computer was running painfully slow and I was wondering if the effect of having had so many updates added onto the system over the years would've affected performance that much? (Enabling 'view system/hidden files' showed hundreds of windows update patch folders in the main Windows directory)

The system specs weren't up to much:

Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz
256Mb PC133 SDRAM
40Gb or 60Gb hard drive (can't remember which) (only 10Gb used)
GeForce2 MX graphics card

I went through most things and there are only around 35 processes running on startup, no viruses/spyware that I could see. I know it is a bit RAM-starved, but there's still about 70Mb free after initial bootup. I optimised the system by disabling unnecessary services, etc.

When running in safe mode, the machine did feel a lot more snappy. There is actually nothing wrong with the machine - everything is running as it should be, but is just slow and laggy when doing things. I'm pretty convinced that it's just the effect of having had so many patches which has caused this. Short of doing a full reinstall (with slipstreamed and integrated updates), is there any way of speeding up the system?

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: scoobydoo
I went to 'fix' a relative's computer the other day, I say 'fix' very loosely as there was little wrong with it.

Anyway, the main issue is that it's an oldish machine (Intel Pentium 4 using PC133 SDRAM), but from what saw, it was using Windows XP Home Edition that probably came installed on the computer from new (maybe from 2001). I noticed that it had SP2 post installed, along with hundreds of updates (automatic from windows update).

The computer was running painfully slow and I was wondering if the effect of having had so many updates added onto the system over the years would've affected performance that much? (Enabling 'view system/hidden files' showed hundreds of windows update patch folders in the main Windows directory)

The system specs weren't up to much:

Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz
256Mb PC133 SDRAM
40Gb or 60Gb hard drive (can't remember which) (only 10Gb used)
GeForce2 MX graphics card

I went through most things and there are only around 35 processes running on startup, no viruses/spyware that I could see. I know it is a bit RAM-starved, but there's still about 70Mb free after initial bootup. I optimised the system by disabling unnecessary services, etc.

When running in safe mode, the machine did feel a lot more snappy. There is actually nothing wrong with the machine - everything is running as it should be, but is just slow and laggy when doing things. I'm pretty convinced that it's just the effect of having had so many patches which has caused this. Short of doing a full reinstall (with slipstreamed and integrated updates), is there any way of speeding up the system?

I would keep the services installed as per Microsoft's spec. Anything not used is paged out and doesn't impact performance anyway on a modern VM-backed OS, and if something is needed and not enabled, getting a non-PC-literate relative going can be painful.

I would buy $20 worth of RAM (oopps... PC133 - maybe a little more $) and take it to 512M or more.

Patching won't hurt speed. The DLLs get replaced - it's the same ones, whether via patch or via integrated install, so no differences there. It's not as if something happens at every bootup to repatch or something like that.

You might defrag. I'm not a big proponent, but every once in a while it can be helpful.

Sysinternals has process explorers and process monitors to let you take a deeper look at what the computer is doing. Depending on your interest level you might want to take a look at that, but to me the easiest thing is to throw more RAM at it.

 

[corkyg]

Short answer - the system is RAM starved.

XP RAM

 

[imported_scoobydoo]

Originally posted by: dclive

Originally posted by: scoobydoo
I went to 'fix' a relative's computer the other day, I say 'fix' very loosely as there was little wrong with it.

Anyway, the main issue is that it's an oldish machine (Intel Pentium 4 using PC133 SDRAM), but from what saw, it was using Windows XP Home Edition that probably came installed on the computer from new (maybe from 2001). I noticed that it had SP2 post installed, along with hundreds of updates (automatic from windows update).

The computer was running painfully slow and I was wondering if the effect of having had so many updates added onto the system over the years would've affected performance that much? (Enabling 'view system/hidden files' showed hundreds of windows update patch folders in the main Windows directory)

The system specs weren't up to much:

Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz
256Mb PC133 SDRAM
40Gb or 60Gb hard drive (can't remember which) (only 10Gb used)
GeForce2 MX graphics card

I went through most things and there are only around 35 processes running on startup, no viruses/spyware that I could see. I know it is a bit RAM-starved, but there's still about 70Mb free after initial bootup. I optimised the system by disabling unnecessary services, etc.

When running in safe mode, the machine did feel a lot more snappy. There is actually nothing wrong with the machine - everything is running as it should be, but is just slow and laggy when doing things. I'm pretty convinced that it's just the effect of having had so many patches which has caused this. Short of doing a full reinstall (with slipstreamed and integrated updates), is there any way of speeding up the system?

I would keep the services installed as per Microsoft's spec. Anything not used is paged out and doesn't impact performance anyway on a modern VM-backed OS, and if something is needed and not enabled, getting a non-PC-literate relative going can be painful.

I would buy $20 worth of RAM (oopps... PC133 - maybe a little more $) and take it to 512M or more.

Patching won't hurt speed. The DLLs get replaced - it's the same ones, whether via patch or via integrated install, so no differences there. It's not as if something happens at every bootup to repatch or something like that.

You might defrag. I'm not a big proponent, but every once in a while it can be helpful.

Sysinternals has process explorers and process monitors to let you take a deeper look at what the computer is doing. Depending on your interest level you might want to take a look at that, but to me the easiest thing is to throw more RAM at it.

It's just a few services that I know definitely aren't needed. (e.g. DNS client, distributed link, etc.)

I'm planning on adding another 256Mb of RAM, which is actually quite pricey as compared to prices of DDR2. However, I just have a nagging feeling that it won't help that much seeing as there's 70Mb free already on bootup and it's still lagging pretty badly.

As for defragging, there's 9Gb used up out of 40Gb, and defragging hasn't made much of a difference to the speed of the computer.

I think I'll be prodding around a little with autoruns and process explorer if adding the RAM doesn't make much of a difference.

I'm still not entirely convinced about the patching, but what you're saying makes sense in that the files are replaced. However, it's just that every time I've seen a machine that's had lots of patches made to it over time, it's just seemed slower. Maybe it's always been the excess junk on the machine or my imagination.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: scoobydoo
It's just a few services that I know definitely aren't needed. (e.g. DNS client, distributed link, etc.)

Nooooo. You want DNS Client (for faster lookups - try to ignore the SimpleDNS marketing info and the fact they tell you to disable it - that's just b/c their product doesn't need it; general users should use it) - http://www.simpledns.com/kb.aspx?kbid=1089.

DLTC - et this to automatic. You're not in a domain so you can probably get away without it, but why? XP is a modern VM-backed system; if it isn't required it gets paged out, so don't worry about it.

I'm planning on adding another 256Mb of RAM, which is actually quite pricey as compared to prices of DDR2.

Edit: Found it!

256MB RAM at NewEgg - $23 + $6 s/h = $29 for 256MB (whew!)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820146303

However, I just have a nagging feeling that it won't help that much seeing as there's 70Mb free already on bootup and it's still lagging pretty badly.

512MB+ of RAM will make a significant difference. It will also impact the things that must be paged out (ie page out less) making the system feel more responsive. That '70MB Free' isn't an absolute.

As for defragging, there's 9Gb used up out of 40Gb, and defragging hasn't made much of a difference to the speed of the computer.

I think I'll be prodding around a little with autoruns and process explorer if adding the RAM doesn't make much of a difference.

It should be a nice speedup.

I'm still not entirely convinced about the patching, but what you're saying makes sense in that the files are replaced. However, it's just that every time I've seen a machine that's had lots of patches made to it over time, it's just seemed slower. Maybe it's always been the excess junk on the machine or my imagination.

I suspect if you were to take two machines, one brand new and just-patched with all the patches, and one brand new with nLite-integrated patches, and compare them, they'd be a lot more similar. I suspect you're seeing an old machine that, coincidentally, has lots of patches, so hence feels slower.

 

[Modelworks]

I would say the best thing for that pc is a format and clean install.
Its probably got lots of little things wrong or taking up resources,not just one big thing.

To give you an idea on how well xp can run if its not bogged down with garbage.
The pc I am typing this on right now is:
Old Compaq, not even sure model.
P3-1GHz cpu
384MB ram
20GB hard drive
Integrated graphics
Xp Pro sp2

I've been meaning to retire it, but it just works so I have left it alone.
Its great for web, email, or word. And its also so quiet when on that I can't even tell when I push the power button if its even turned on.