Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Installation problem or something else ?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 jose_007

jose_007

  • Members
  • 160 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:07 PM

Posted 15 July 2012 - 01:08 PM

I have p4 processor,2.5ghz,256 mb ram ,xp sp2 pc . Not much work is done on it and doesnt have many softwares installed.But still it is very very slow.
I have reinstalled xp 3-4 times but to no avail.
I have enabled all properties for maximum performance(classic view and all)

Kindly guide me if there is any problem with my installation procedure ? or do i seriously need an upgrade ??
As I said it is not used much,but whatever light work it is used for ,it can't handle it .


Thanks
jose

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,285 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:01:07 PM

Posted 15 July 2012 - 01:25 PM

Please follow the instructions at
Publish a Snapshot using Speccy - http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic323892.html/page__p__1797792#entry1797792 .

Louis

#3 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,630 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:02:07 PM

Posted 15 July 2012 - 01:26 PM

You are not going to get great performance with 256 Mb ram, though it shouldn't be horrible either. Make sure you install all appropriate drivers after installing Windows, starting with the Chipset driver and don't have too many apps loading with the OS.

#4 jose_007

jose_007
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 160 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:07 PM

Posted 15 July 2012 - 01:43 PM

@Allan
as i said not much programs is done on it..so 256 mb should be fine...I even use older versions of all programs to keep load on system minimum.
And yes I have installed all the drivers.

#5 S3cS3arch3r

S3cS3arch3r

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:EU
  • Local time:08:07 PM

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:28 PM

Just spend a few bucks on 1 or 2 GB of RAM, there quite cheap at the moment.

#6 Artrooks

Artrooks

  • Members
  • 1,463 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Local time:02:07 PM

Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:07 PM

Hi,

The others have made good suggestions.

I have reinstalled xp 3-4 times but to no avail.


By doing so, you have probably ruled out software and malware as the cause of the slowness. That leaves hardware. A failing hard drive can cause your symptoms.

You could give this a try:

  • First, if you haven't recently, do some house cleaning; carefully give the inside of the case a good cleaning to remove any built up dust.
  • Second, run the manufacturer's hard drive diagnostic software; DOS version if possible, linked from here.
  • Make sure that all important data on the hard drive has been backed up before running this test.
  • Run both short and long tests. They should both "Pass."
  • A "Fail" in either test would indicate a failing hard drive.

Regards,
Brooks



 


#7 S3cS3arch3r

S3cS3arch3r

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:EU
  • Local time:08:07 PM

Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:32 PM

I'm not sure if you're comfortable doing so, but there is also a way to considerably compact the XP installation itself by using nLite
This will require a bit / lot of Googling, reading and maybe even experimenting, but if done correctly it can considerably speed XP up.

I forgot to mention that in my former post, but it would be wisest to follow up on Artrooks advice to rule out any hardware issues first, IMHO.

\0/
-Sec


EDIT: XP SP2? Please use MS or Windows update to get SP3..

Edited by S3cS3arch3r, 18 July 2012 - 06:51 AM.


#8 caperjac

caperjac

  • Members
  • 1,649 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NS. CAN
  • Local time:03:07 PM

Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:48 AM

even adding another stick of 256 ram will make a big difference ,try it and you will be amazed .did it just recently in a Lawyers office to a couple of old Dell he didn't want to replace ,and the staff was elated

My answers are my opinion only,usually


#9 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,630 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:02:07 PM

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:46 AM

I'm not sure if you're comfortable doing so, but there is also a way to considerably compact the XP installation itself by using nLite
This will require a bit / lot of Googling, reading and maybe even experimenting, but if done correctly it can considerably speed XP up.



I'm not a fan of messing with Windows Installations. Just install it completely. There's little if anything to be gained by modifying the installation other than saving disk space.

#10 jose_007

jose_007
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 160 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:07 PM

Posted 20 July 2012 - 02:42 PM

Thanks everyone for taking out time and replying...

@ Artrooks
Trying what you said..will reply soon

@ S3cS3arch3r
I tried sp3 a couple of times...It led to frequent crashing..Thats why I stuck with sp2

@ Allan and S3cS3arch3r
Can you give pros and cons of nLite ???

Edited by jose_007, 20 July 2012 - 02:43 PM.


#11 caperjac

caperjac

  • Members
  • 1,649 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NS. CAN
  • Local time:03:07 PM

Posted 21 July 2012 - 05:15 AM

add at least another 512 of ram ,and install windows from a disk with sp3 in and you will be far better off than you are now , my opinion !

My answers are my opinion only,usually


#12 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,630 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:02:07 PM

Posted 21 July 2012 - 05:32 AM

I have no problem with nlite, only what it may be used for. Windows was intended to be installed as provided by MS. I've seen to many "minimum installations" cause problems down the road.

#13 S3cS3arch3r

S3cS3arch3r

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:EU
  • Local time:08:07 PM

Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:24 AM

@Jose_007:


Before I start praising smal, unattended installations, I need to agree with Allan, novice users could really mess up their OS.
First, see http://www.nliteos.com/ and http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/ for more, detailed information.
Also, you will need a set of legal installation discs and the according key.

Pro's:
  • For me personally, it was the only way to install a RAID driver, as I have no floppy station and some limitations in the chipset.
  • Installation is UN-ATTENDED (!!!), no more waiting, typing 2 things, waiting, typing another thing, waiting, etc.
  • A lot of KB's, including SP3 can be added before installation, saving time with MS update afterwards.
  • Hardware drivers and even software can be pre-installed.
  • Important files can be copied into an $OEM% folder, automatically copying these after installation to your HDD.
  • In short, everybody that re-installs XP or Vista often, for whatever reason, will save a lot of time and hassle.
  • Dangerous / System-hogging services can be removed from installation completely.
  • Registry tweaks can be made beforehand.
  • Can be used (is especially made) for multiple installations in schools or businesses for example.
  • Future re-installs will be a breeze.
Building a successful un-attended installation will teach you A LOT about the basic inner workings of XP, my own installation went from 3 original XP-pro SP2 (800+ MB) discs to a new XP SP3, including about 100 other KB's in 568 MB with full compatibility.



Con's:
  • Takes a lot of time and effort to investigate everything properly.
  • MS can no longer provide (personalized) support.
  • Future peripherals need to be installed now, otherwise they won't work.
  • Easy to make a mistake, hard to diagnose.
  • I had to find it all out for myself, I know no-one that could help me in person with it.
  • I don't *think* installing critical components later is an option, I never tried it though. The original discs are still recognized as the source though.
  • The 'last session' option has glitches sometimes, which requires you to look over all settings again and again.


Detailed enough for you? If you have specific questions, do not hesitate to ask..
Whatever way, it would be wise to try to incorporate SP3 in your system. Also, when low on resources, try to keep away from the .net frameworks unless you really need them.

-Sec

Edited by S3cS3arch3r, 23 July 2012 - 03:24 AM.


#14 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,630 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:02:07 PM

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:51 AM

@Jose_007:


Before I start praising smal, unattended installations, I need to agree with Allan, novice users could really mess up their OS.
First, see http://www.nliteos.com/ and http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/ for more, detailed information.
Also, you will need a set of legal installation discs and the according key.

Pro's:

  • For me personally, it was the only way to install a RAID driver, as I have no floppy station and some limitations in the chipset.
  • Installation is UN-ATTENDED (!!!), no more waiting, typing 2 things, waiting, typing another thing, waiting, etc.
  • A lot of KB's, including SP3 can be added before installation, saving time with MS update afterwards.
  • Hardware drivers and even software can be pre-installed.
  • Important files can be copied into an $OEM% folder, automatically copying these after installation to your HDD.
  • In short, everybody that re-installs XP or Vista often, for whatever reason, will save a lot of time and hassle.
  • Dangerous / System-hogging services can be removed from installation completely.
  • Registry tweaks can be made beforehand.
  • Can be used (is especially made) for multiple installations in schools or businesses for example.
  • Future re-installs will be a breeze.
Building a successful un-attended installation will teach you A LOT about the basic inner workings of XP, my own installation went from 3 original XP-pro SP2 (800+ MB) discs to a new XP SP3, including about 100 other KB's in 568 MB with full compatibility.



Con's:
  • Takes a lot of time and effort to investigate everything properly.
  • MS can no longer provide (personalized) support.
  • Future peripherals need to be installed now, otherwise they won't work.
  • Easy to make a mistake, hard to diagnose.
  • I had to find it all out for myself, I know no-one that could help me in person with it.
  • I don't *think* installing critical components later is an option, I never tried it though. The original discs are still recognized as the source though.
  • The 'last session' option has glitches sometimes, which requires you to look over all settings again and again.


Detailed enough for you? If you have specific questions, do not hesitate to ask..
Whatever way, it would be wise to try to incorporate SP3 in your system. Also, when low on resources, try to keep away from the .net frameworks unless you really need them.

-Sec

Off topic. Nobody is questioning the benefits of a slipstreamed disc for the reasons you outline, but that is completely different from the minimal installation question raised by the OP. I know a lot of folks are proponents of such installations - I, for one, am not.

#15 S3cS3arch3r

S3cS3arch3r

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:EU
  • Local time:08:07 PM

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:09 PM

Thanks everyone for taking out time and replying...

...

@ Allan and S3cS3arch3r
Can you give pros and cons of nLite ???

I think this would be the OP posting...


Off topic. Nobody is questioning the benefits of a slipstreamed disc for the reasons you outline, but that is completely different from the minimal installation question raised by the OP. I know a lot of folks are proponents of such installations - I, for one, am not.

Excuse me, did I miss something here? If so, what?


-Sec




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users