Groups

    How to speed up my computer

    As Title Says

    Thanks in advance

    32 Comments

    What is the make/model/specifications?
    Edited by: "SUMMONER" 6th Nov 2010

    defrag normally does the trick with my HP lappy, but delete are the rubbish you dont use first.

    Original Poster

    It's called the packard bell imedia D3610 I think

    What operating system? How old?

    Original Poster

    It runs windows xp (very old) bought for £900 7 years ago
    Edited by: "farhadmaster" 6th Nov 2010

    Banned

    Get rid of all the malware that's prob on there then a defrag

    quickest way is to buy some ram if you want a big difference

    Original Poster

    sorry I don't understand these computery words oO

    welcome back lol

    Original Poster

    dh058977

    welcome back lol

    Haha thanks

    run Ccleaner first... will defo help
    Ccleaner Download Link
    Edited by: "DAMNOME" 6th Nov 2010

    Original Poster

    Thanks guys

    Banned

    Disk Defragmentor

    Fresh install would be my choice, plus get it up to 1gb of Ram at least, 2 would be better.

    Right click on my computer, then go down to properties. Will tell you how much RAM you have

    Yes RAM will improve the speed of your computer and I would recommend doing a fresh install of Windows maybe even consider moving up to Windows 7 if you PC can handle it. A quick google search can also produce miracles, just search for something like "speeding up windows xp" or "tips for speeding up windows".
    A couple I know are: system clean up and disk defragmentor. I'm not certain if xp has system clean up but I know Vista and 7 do and I'm sure XP has a defragmentor. And try to make sure you keep quite a bit of free disk space especially on the C drive, your computer will run a lot slower if you've only got 512MB spare

    Edit: And by keep quite a bit of free space that includes making sure you get rid of all the programs you don't need, after years and years of use I imagine some extra add-ons will have been installed that you don't use oh and if you're internet browsing is slow and you're using Internet Explorer, please please install either Google Chrome or Firefox. Chrome is the fastest browser out at the moment, things like loading a webpage after you've clicked it will be notically different (as in faster) than if you're using Internet Explorer


    Edited by: "SecondNature08" 6th Nov 2010

    i would just buy a new laptop, anything that is 7 years old is classed as obsolete.
    Edited by: "Teqnophile" 6th Nov 2010

    As has been said reinstall windows (but save all your drivers first as finding them may be difficult) and run cCleaner often to keep your system clear of junk.

    As for people saying spending money. If its a 7 year old PC it is likely to be a willamette based pentium 4. It's just not worth spending money on, might be time to buy a new one even an atom based pc will be twice as powerful. Also the running costs of a newer pc while not high will be considerably less. You don't have to spend loads you can get a basic pc with windows 7 from about £250.

    ^This is true, rather than spending loads of money upgrading your RAM and other system parts it may just be cheaper (and easier) to just buy a brand new computer. Presumably you already have a moniter, keyboard and mouse so you'd only need to purchase a new tower.

    dcx_badass

    Not really, depends how much you have, if you have 4GB and buy more in … Not really, depends how much you have, if you have 4GB and buy more in most cases you will see no difference at all.Anyway OP, I'd do a clean install of Windows if it's been a while since you last did it.



    If you are running vista 32 bit then windows can only use 4GB ram anyway, so extra ram after that is of no use whatsoever (using vista 32bit as an example because i presume that is probably the most common operating system used on home computers)

    What operating system are you using OP?

    Teqnophile

    i would just buy a new laptop, anything that is 7 years old is classed as … i would just buy a new laptop, anything that is 7 years old is classed as obsolete.



    What processors were around back in them days?

    jonny619447

    If you are running vista 32 bit then windows can only use 4GB ram anyway, … If you are running vista 32 bit then windows can only use 4GB ram anyway, so extra ram after that is of no use whatsoever (using vista 32bit as an example because i presume that is probably the most common operating system used on home computers)What operating system are you using OP?


    farhadmaster

    It runs windows xp (very old) bought for £900 7 years ago

    I would back up all your important information pictures, files, whatever you want to keep. just chuck it onto a disc or usb stick and reinstall a fresh copy of windows get rid of file fragments and the like that may be clogging up your file system

    You could run the free version of Advanced System Care, it should help

    iobit.com/adv…tml

    Vista the most commonly used OS? I would put it third at best

    Hmmm as far as I was aware XP is the most popular windows platform, I may be wrong however, off to do some research#

    Edit: Well there you go, ITRON is the most popular OS in the world and I've never even heard of it and it turns out XP is the most popular windows platform according to wikipedia

    Edited by: "SecondNature08" 6th Nov 2010

    If you know somebody who understands services, you can ask them to disable some of the startup services. For example, in Windows XP, the Uninterruptible Power Supply Service is redundant if you are not using a UPS so this can be disabled rather than allow it to run in the background and using up valuable CPU cycles. Another example is Wireless Zero Configuration can be disabled if you are not using a wireless network. There are others which can be disabled and if you know somebody who is familiar with them you can ask them to switch them off for you.

    Similarly, startup tasks (found in MsConfig and NOT in the startup folder) can also run in the background unnecessarily. For example, if you have installed Nero but do not use Nero Back Up, you can disable Nero Back it Up start up task so that it does not run in the background.

    If you have a separate drive, placing the swap file on a different drive to the one used for data helps with load balancing. This means that if both drive data and swap file are being accessed, then one drive can access the data while the other can independently access the swap file. Using the same drive for both data and swap file means that the drive heads are constantly moving backwards and forwards accessing both types of data. This is why others have suggested disc defragmentation as this also reduces the amount of drive head movement. This may sound Greek to you but if you do have a separate drive that can be mounted in your machine it is worth asking someone to set that drive to handle the swap file.

    Incidentally, there is a Microsoft article that mentions placing a swap file on a separate partition of the same hard drive as your data and OS can also improve performance, although not to the extent of placing the swap file on a separate hard drive. I cannot see how this is possible but I don't have access to Microsoft's Windows source code. The documentation states that this applies to XP though so I am unsure if later OS's can benefit from this.

    The other comments regarding the possibility of RAM upgrades are also valid and this is probably the most effective option in terms of price to performance gained. I appreciate that your machine is very old in which case, a RAM upgrade may not be so cost effective (older types of RAM can be expensive).

    Edited by: "ElliottC" 7th Nov 2010

    Put some wheels on it should make it go much faster

    ElliottC

    If you know somebody who understands services, you can ask them to … If you know somebody who understands services, you can ask them to disable some of the startup services. For example, in Windows XP, the Uninterruptible Power Supply Service is redundant if you are not using a UPS so this can be disabled rather than allow it to run in the background and using up valuable CPU cycles. Another example is Wireless Zero Configuration can be disabled if you are not using a wireless network. There are others which can be disabled and if you know somebody who is familiar with them you can ask them to switch them off for you.Similarly, startup tasks (found in MsConfig and NOT in the startup folder) can also run in the background unnecessarily. For example, if you have installed Nero but do not use Nero Back Up, you can disable Nero Back it Up start up task so that it does not run in the background.If you have a separate drive, placing the swap file on a different drive to the one used for data helps with load balancing. This means that if both drive data and swap file are being accessed, then one drive can access the data while the other can independently access the swap file. Using the same drive for both data and swap file means that the drive heads are constantly moving backwards and forwards accessing both types of data. This is why others have suggested disc defragmentation as this also reduces the amount of drive head movement. This may sound Greek to you but if you do have a separate drive that can be mounted in your machine it is worth asking someone to set that drive to handle the swap file. Incidentally, there is a Microsoft article that mentions placing a swap file on a separate partition of the same hard drive as your data and OS can also improve performance, although not to the extent of placing the swap file on a separate hard drive. I cannot see how this is possible but I don't have access to Microsoft's Windows source code. The documentation states that this applies to XP though so I am unsure if later OS's can benefit from this.The other comments regarding the possibility of RAM upgrades are also valid and this is probably the most effective option in terms of price to performance gained. I appreciate that your machine is very old in which case, a RAM upgrade may not be so cost effective (older types of RAM can be expensive).



    While optimising your system processors and start ups is a good idea (and creating a streamlined version of xp using nlite could be another good option) putting the swap file on another disk while having a small gain on SATA based systems it most often has a detrimental performance effect on PATA (IDE) drives likely to be being used by the OP.

    As you mention DDR can now be expensive so the other possible option to free up system ram is to buy a cheap second hand graphics card, whilst it will free up system ram and be an improvement on the onboard GPU (if thats what they are using).

    GAVINLEWISHUKD

    While optimising your system processors and start ups is a good idea (and … While optimising your system processors and start ups is a good idea (and creating a streamlined version of xp using nlite could be another good option) putting the swap file on another disk while having a small gain on SATA based systems it most often has a detrimental performance effect on PATA (IDE) drives likely to be being used by the OP.As you mention DDR can now be expensive so the other possible option to free up system ram is to buy a cheap second hand graphics card, whilst it will free up system ram and be an improvement on the onboard GPU (if thats what they are using).



    RE:PATA hard drives - Master/slave settings does not reduce performance of data on a second PATA hard drive (which incidentally, is not synonymous with IDE), if that is your reasoning for lesser performance using swap files on a second PATA hard drive. Each PATA drive contains its own IDE controller to allow independent operation from one another so the term/master slave shouldn't be taken too literally. They are amongst a few computing words that are poorly defined.



    Edited by: "ElliottC" 7th Nov 2010

    ElliottC

    RE:PATA hard drives - Master/slave settings does not reduce performance … RE:PATA hard drives - Master/slave settings does not reduce performance of data on a second PATA hard drive (which incidentally, is not synonymous with IDE), if that is your reasoning for lesser performance using swap files on a second PATA hard drive. Each PATA drive contains its own IDE controller to allow independent operation from one another so the term/master slave shouldn't be taken too literally. They are amongst a few computing words that are poorly defined.



    I didn't explain that well. The problem is not caused directly with the drives themselves but with the way the OS works (in the case at the time xp pro sp2) if this was improved with sp3 I dont know but very much doubt it. I didn't get any better results with either pair of drives I tested (think they were a pair of Maxtors and Deskstars (IBM's). Did try again with a pair of seagate 7200.10 drives and did get a positive result, but then upgraded to RAID so never continued with it.

    The most worrying thing is I think it's all still in the loft!

    So you are correct in that it should not make any difference in reality due to the software it indeed does.

    Original Poster

    Thanks again guys!! Windows xp

    GAVINLEWISHUKD

    I didn't explain that well. The problem is not caused directly with the … I didn't explain that well. The problem is not caused directly with the drives themselves but with the way the OS works (in the case at the time xp pro sp2) if this was improved with sp3 I dont know but very much doubt it. I didn't get any better results with either pair of drives I tested (think they were a pair of Maxtors and Deskstars (IBM's). Did try again with a pair of seagate 7200.10 drives and did get a positive result, but then upgraded to RAID so never continued with it.The most worrying thing is I think it's all still in the loft! So you are correct in that it should not make any difference in reality due to the software it indeed does.



    That is strange because the Microsoft documentation I referred to earlier makes a specific mention of Windows XP being optimised to handle swap files stored on a separate partition and in particular, a separate partition on a separate drive. There is also no reference to using PATA or SATA drives for this purpose. Microsoft documentation is usually very specific and very well-defined (so it's difficult to misinterpret the information like one would do when reading a tabloid newspaper!).

    This is the knowledge base article I was referring to:

    support.microsoft.com/def…482
    A very important point mentioned in the article is that having a partition solely for a swap file means that the swap file is never fragmented. Since hard disc access is multiple times slower than CPU cycles, using this method achieves better results than optimising system services and start up programs, so long as the swap file is being brought into service. As you mentioned, trying to eke out as much RAM as possible would be better in order to reduce the amount of swap file access.
    Edited by: "ElliottC" 7th Nov 2010
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Sad news about Barcelona2398
      2. How dangerous is Donald trump?2296
      3. Any PS4 News Here29213613
      4. What do you feel like whinging about today?1917257

      See more discussions