House Call 2012: Fixing a sluggish PC

Topic

New Reply

	TOP STORY House Call 2012: Fixing a sluggish PC
	By Fred Langa It was a typical winter day in Seattle — gray, rainy, and raw — when I visited Windows Secrets reader Gary Nobel. Gary’s system would occasionally slow “to a crawl.” I was there to find out why.

---

The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/top-story/house-call-2012-fixing-a-sluggish-pc/ (paid content, opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

[/tr][/tbl]

Reply | Quote

Replies

Dear Fred (all),

First of all, you got a nice story about restoring a personal computer. However, i recommend to be careful with the program ccleaner. Although it works great, it is still dangerous (not quite the right word for it).

A few weeks ago, I used ccleaner on my windows 7 Ultimate computer to clean the registry. After a reboot (next morning) my computer was telling me that windows was not legal. To repair this problem i had to reinstall windows (normally ccleaner works great so I had some confidence in the program) because i had not used the backup option ccleaner provides.

So, I recommend to use the backup function ccleaner provides, it save a lot of trouble. Or check the list ccleaner provides after a scan of the registery. Check out if there are some system values you don’t want to be removed (normally these are obselete keys because uninstalled software didn’t remove them).

This is the ending of my warning and i will watch out for the next issue of your (windows secret) newsletter.

Kind Regards,

The Ancient One

Reply | Quote

A couple of extra points I share with people in similar situations Before doing any sort major work, do a full image copy backup. That applies to CCleaner too. I use it regularly, and have been luck so far to not have any problems attributable to it. But I don’t let it “clean” everything. I’m selective. On the question of the swap file, I do 2 more things. After defining a size for the swap file, if as in this case there is “lots of room” on the HD, I set the max and min swap file size to the same size.

Then I defrag the swap file (and whole HD). Letting windows manage the swap file size is guaranteed to fragment both the swap file and data files. Since the swap file already represents slow access memory, why make it worse letting the swap file fragment.

Reply | Quote

I agree, CCleaner’s registry scans can be too aggressive. I’ve made the switch to Temp File Cleaner http://addpcs.com/software/tfc, and I’ll never go back. It is much faster, always finds more junk, and has never caused me issues.

Reply | Quote

I agree, CCleaner’s registry scans can be too aggressive. I’ve made the switch to Temp File Cleaner http://addpcs.com/software/tfc, and I’ll never go back. It is much faster, always finds more junk, and has never caused me issues.

I’ve used CCleaner for years, and have never had one bit of trouble with it of any kind. The user has many options as to how it will work, so I cannot understand why you consider it “too aggressive” ??

Reply | Quote

A few weeks ago, I used ccleaner on my windows 7 Ultimate computer to clean the registry. After a reboot (next morning) my computer was telling me that windows was not legal. To repair this problem i had to reinstall windows (normally ccleaner works great so I had some confidence in the program) because i had not used the backup option ccleaner provides.

Just out of curiosity, was there a reason you didn’t first attempt a system restore before doing the reinstall? This seems to me to be the very kind of issue that System Restore is designed to address.

Reply | Quote

Just out of curiosity, was there a reason you didn’t first attempt a system restore before doing the reinstall? This seems to me to be the very kind of issue that System Restore is designed to address.

“Not legal” means Windows became de-activated. This cannot be cured with system Restore. Microsoft can sometimes help with this issue, but it is usually more convenient just to reinstall Windows or roll back to a “genuine” system image backup.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Any housekeeping/cleaning done in Windows should always be accompanied by at minimum, a backup of the Registry, or at least that portion of the Registry that is affected by the housekeeping. CCleaner’s backup feature has worked well the few times I have used CCleaner to remove some orphaned keys from my Windows machines’ Registries. And I rarely do any registry cleaning.

Reply | Quote

Excuse me for pointing this out, but is it not correct that the default settings for “Automatically manage paging file size for all drives” is default anyway??
If this tick is not there by default, then maybe they were corrected through Microsoft updates, so would it not make sense to make double sure that ALL Microsoft updates were in place before making any tweeks? Just a thought…….Thank you.:o

Tim………

Reply | Quote

I use FileHippo.Com Update Checker;
It seems more comprehensive than Secunia, although I still use both;
Just don’t use Adobe Betas;
You can’t fully uninstall them !

Reply | Quote

I use FileHippo.Com Update Checker;
It seems more comprehensive than Secunia, although I still use both;

The problem with FileHippo is they only check for updates for software that THEY OFFER, which isn’t very much.

Suggest using Sumo, which supports a lot more software. But pay attention during the install so as to uncheck the garbage toolbars and junk they want to install along with the program.

Reply | Quote

The problem with FileHippo is they only check for updates for software that THEY OFFER, which isn’t very much.

Suggest using Sumo, which supports a lot more software. But pay attention during the install so as to uncheck the garbage toolbars and junk they want to install along with the program.

Specifically, download the “No RK” version of SUMo (KC Softwares), and still beware of pre- and post-install adware piggybacks. SUMo is one of the worst offenders I use when it comes to unwanted co-installs. But it is true, SUMo is one of the most comprehensive updates checkers out there, and one of the most accurate. I prefer to uncheck the Allow Betas option.

Secunia PSI 2 is for security related updates only, hence the difference between Secunia and most general updates checkers. And most if not all updates checkers will try to install adware at some point. I will not comment here on Secunia PSI 3, as it is not as of this writing the currently offered version.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Yes i like the “FileHippo.com Update Checker”, but of course this checks for updates for software you have installed, this does not include Microsoft Updates.

Reply | Quote

Maybe it’s early and my brain isn’t at the desktop yet, but I’m I reading this right?

”3GB pagefile (150 percent of the amount of RAM in Gary’s 2GB system)”

Reply | Quote

Excuse me for pointing this out, but is it not correct that the default settings for “Automatically manage paging file size for all drives” is default anyway??

The article did explain that the default had been changed to a fixed size by the PC manufacturer.

Maybe it’s early and my brain isn’t at the desktop yet, but I’m I reading this right?

”3GB pagefile (150 percent of the amount of RAM in Gary’s 2GB system)”

You haven’t explained what you think may be wrong with that statement.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Cleanups work. Regular use of cleanup techniques, as discussed, will help keep your system junk-free and running lean.

This does not follow from the problem described and the steps discussed. If an increase in system speed was notable after the cleanup of files as first described, then this statement might have some validity, but it seems that the adjustment of the page file may have had far more to do with fixing the problem than deleting extraneous files. Yes, there are good reasons for limiting the size of the IE cache and the recycling bin and so on. But it is specious and misleading to suggest that “[r]emoving junk files reduces the operating system’s overall file-management burden and can improve performance” to a significant degree.

Reply | Quote

Fred, although you mentioned uninstalling unnecessary software you didn’t say anything about examining the list of auto-starting applications. As you know that list can get quite long and eat up ram that could be better used by other applications. Also, the user said “I have to reboot every few days”. That suggests he is using sleep/hibernation instead of shutting down at the end of the day. In my experience performance degrades over time using suspend modes and rebooting is the fix for that. I find that using sleep or hibernation during the day for quick access and then a full Shutdown at the end of the day is optimal.

Reply | Quote

Fred, although you mentioned uninstalling unnecessary software you didn’t say anything about examining the list of auto-starting applications. As you know that list can get quite long and eat up ram that could be better used by other applications.

I too was sort of dumbfounded by this as well. One of the first places I look at, is the Start Up programs. Most of which IMHO don’t need to be started when you start the computer. If there is something in there that I am not sure about, I look it up using Pacman’s Portal. If they have it as a user decide, I will read it and make a decision. This has always served me well.

Reply | Quote

Maybe it’s early and my brain isn’t at the desktop yet, but I’m I reading this right?

”3GB pagefile (150 percent of the amount of RAM in Gary’s 2GB system)”

Yes your right your brain isn’t at desktop yet. 3GB is 150% of 2GB so article is right.

Reply | Quote

Hmmm. Two things caught my eye in your article. First, that the maximum pagefile size you mentioned was not what I remember reading (perhaps incorrectly written. Or remembered) back some time ago. That source identified the maximum pagefile size as no more than 1.5 times the amount of available memory – i.e. that Windows would never use more than that. I have routinely set my pagefile size to that ever since, when I set up a new computer. Perhaps that rule applied only to an older version of Windows? 98? XP?

Second, letting Windows manage pagefile size. That means that the pagefile can grow and shrink as necessary in response to need. But doesn’t that also mean that the pagefile is then subject to fragmentation? And that as the disk fills up, to migration to the slower, inner tracks? While this might be a minor issue, given the way a pagefile is used by the OS, we who obsess about contiguous files, outer disk edge speed advantages, and seek proximity get feverish at the thought of the precious pagefile operating suboptimally. Perhaps I should switch to decaf . . .

Reply | Quote

Ron007, that is good advice and I do that sometimes.

I also use PageDefragfrom Windows Sysinternals, which defragments the pagefile, registry and other files.

Its URL is http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.

Great Article,
Randy

Reply | Quote

I was a bit surprised that the pagefile size was an issue. Unlike RAM, there is no fallback if the pagefile is full and the OS needs space – it just crashes or starts killing stuff. So the only effect I can think of is that by changing the pagefile size you either moved it to a faster part of the disk or reduced fragmentation.

I’m curious as to what you think the improvement came from.

Reply | Quote

rjstegbauer, Thats a great idea to use System Internals Page Defrag, but if memory serves me right, this will not of course work on 64 bit Windows. I have been meaning to ask if there was an alternative software.:)

The Ancient One, I am amazed to learn that Ccleaner has given you this bad experience with your copy of Windows, i must say i have never had this issue. There is software from Microsoft called “VistaSlick” that can put this back for you without re-installing Windows.

The idea of making an image of a 2TB C: does not thrill me.:mellow:

Reply | Quote

Un-check most of the start up items & non Microsoft services running.These are not necessary and can slow the computer to a crawl. The only start up program normally needed is antivirus ..one only of course.To access type msconfig into the default search dialog box

The only non Windows services normally required are pertaining to itunes & occasionally some printers{experiment required} Check/tick the MS services box to hide these ..best to leave them run.

Disable or reschedule daily auto scans and daily defrags ..not necessary and they slow the computer down a lot.Once a week is enough.

Look at what scheduled programs are running ..most can be disabled as they slow the computer down.{Google if unsure how to disable}

Browsers with multiple tool bars running ..disable them.Disable multiple search engines ..use only Google.

Advise customer that auto updates can slow the computer ..I use ‘advise updates available but do not download or install’ setting.I download updates at quiet times when computer is not being used. Same for defrag & virus scans.

Disable remote assistance …can be enable only when required .

Jp

Reply | Quote

The idea of making an image of a 2TB C: does not thrill me.:mellow:

You mean, you have 2TB full of the Operating System plus Programs and Program Data? I have never heard of more than 80GB in non-business Windows installations, if most personal user data is separated out onto a second partition.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I can’t even state how much I disagree with the pagefile size recommendations. The more ram, the less the pagefile needs to be, not more. I have 12 gigs of ram on my Windows 7 x64 system. All the stuff I do doesn’t put a dent in it, let alone use any pagefile. I’d like to see this proven by some sort of monitoring program for systems with large amount of ram to see what pagefile usage there actually is.

Reply | Quote

Mike89,

You are correct, as long as all the running processes don’t require more than 12 GBytes of physical memory.

However, I could easily use much more memory by simply running a few virtual machines at the same time (or Firefox

This MS page describes the Virtual and Physical memory limits for Windows 7.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx

Here’s a summary for Windows 7 Ultimate:[INDENT]Physical Memory 32-bit OS 4 GB, 64-bit OS 192 GB
Virtual Memory 32-bit process 4 GB, 64-bit process 7 TB (Yes, terabytes)[/INDENT]

The pagefile is used to make the huge *virtual* memory look like there is *physical* memory available for the entire *virtual* address space. Obviously, this is clearly not practical for the entire *virtual* address space, since that would require 10s of terabyte disks. Luckily, most processes don’t require that much virtual memory, so the page file can be about the same size as the physical memory.

My system has 4 GBytes of physical memory and a 3.5 GByte system managed page file. There are times when my memory requirements exceed 4 GBytes and *then* my system starts to run much slower. Systems run better with more memory because memory is much much faster than disks.

This is a poor explaination, but I hope it helps. In other words, consider yourself lucky that you have 12 GBytes of memory and not 2.

Thanks,
Randy

Reply | Quote

I liked your article but it was directed at windows 7 & 8. What do I do with a REALLY slow windows xp?

Reply | Quote

I liked your article but it was directed at windows 7 & 8. What do I do with a REALLY slow windows xp?

Much the same: clean out the dross, check for errors/problems and fix them, defrag and tune up – test for an hour or so, check the logs for problems again, research and fix, …

Sometimes XP can be sped up simply by checking this page: http://winhlp.com/node/10, it really depends on what the problems are.

Reply | Quote

I liked your article but it was directed at windows 7 & 8. What do I do with a REALLY slow windows xp?

Pretty much the same things. Windows slowdowns haven’t changed much since the NT series first came out (Windows 2000, Windows XP, Vista, Win 7, Win 8). The only big changes are related to the additional 64-bit areas to check vs. only the 32-bit areas.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I love your articles. There’s always a take-away. I maintain about 40 computers in our company and often run into slow down problems. Something that has helped me restore speed in most cases involves Temporary Internet Files that don’t get cleared out with the standard Delete process under Tools > Internet Options. Usually there are thousands of files in this hidden and protected operating system file folder. The standard process doesn’t clear most of them out. When I manually delete them through Microsoft Explore the computer usually speeds up significantly. My Google searches don’t reveal this exact issue or the risks I’m taking by simple deleting all the files in this folder. Also, I no longer see the Content.IE5 folder under Temporary Internet Files in Microsoft Explore on most computers even though I see it when I go the DOS command prompt route. So my questions are: (1) Why doesn’t Microsoft’s recommended deletion process for clearing out Temporary Internet Files do the full job, (2) can I be doing damage by simply manually deleting all these files through Microsoft Explore and (3) why can’t I see the Content.IE5 folder when I unhide protected operating system files through Explore > Tools > Folder Options > View?

Reply | Quote

I can’t even state how much I disagree with the pagefile size recommendations. The more ram, the less the pagefile needs to be, not more. I have 12 gigs of ram on my Windows 7 x64 system. All the stuff I do doesn’t put a dent in it, let alone use any pagefile. I’d like to see this proven by some sort of monitoring program for systems with large amount of ram to see what pagefile usage there actually is.

For performance reasons (and because my desktop has an extra HDD in it), I created a 20GB partition at the beginning of a non-system HDD (i.e., on the outer tracks–this minimizes access times to the pagefile); this partition is used for nothing except the pagefile (which does not have to be located on the same drive as Windows). I have also enabled the HDD Monitor desktop gadget, which allows me to view disk activity to each virtual drive, including my pagefile-only drive (it’s open on a second monitor, where it’s always visible).

My system is running Windows 7 Pro x64 with 6GB of RAM–not quite up to your 12GB, but still rarely more than 70% used by open processes. While it’s true that much of the time I’m seeing no activity with the pagefile, it still surprises me how running some applications or doing certain tasks cause Windows to hit the pagefile frequently, even with ample RAM remaining (which I monitor with the Core Temp desktop gadget, BTW). Apparently the XP-era (and previous) understanding that Windows uses the pagefile only when RAM is full isn’t quite accurate. Consequently, I suspect that we all do need to be concerned about pagefile performance (unless it’s located on an SSD, which would remove the performance-related uncertainties).

As an aside: I let Windows fully manage the pagefile; since it’s in its own 20GB partition, there’s no risk of fragmentation, or of being too small.

Reply | Quote

For the umpteenth time in decades, UniBlue has somehow found its way into my fourth or fifth computer and is offering to do miraculous things for me if I will but send them a few quid and “Register.”

There are currently about two hundred dread and serious looking threats staring me in the face on the UniBlue “SpeedUpMy PC” Free Scan report.

Yes, I am sure there is garbage and unused trash sitting in there, and my Registry is probably not as pristine as it was a couple of years ago when I bought this Dell 545 with Win-7 Home in it. And, although it still performs satisfactorily, it is a bit slower than it I recall it was when it first booted up a few years ago.

But… as a matter of principle, I hesitate to do business with unsolicited high-pressured bully salespeople who use in-my-face and persistently threatening sales techniques, try to sneak in a lot of other unsolicited junk under the door, and who will not pull their foot out of my door when I ask them to.

So…. I would like to know…

1. Is UniBlue a value for what they ask for it? Will it do the job?

2. Is it, or can it be, harmful?

3. What is the consensus among the informed users? Burn or buy?

Earlaiman, who thanks one and all for any responses.

earlaiman@gmail.com

Reply | Quote

I use Ccleaner with very little problems. I also use NCleaner as a secondary and use the tweak function to speed up XP Machines.

The thing I CAN’T believe no one has mentioned is making sure all of your drivers are up to date! I go to http://www.touslesdrivers.com with Chrome (cuz it will translate the french site) go to “My Drivers” and download the detection addin. Getting back out of chrome, I go to Program files and to ma-config.com and start the detection. This will tell you all your hardware and also allow you to download WHQL drivers to get you up to date. It is even useful sometimes at identifying hardware that you can’t find default drivers for.

And it is Free!

AC

Reply | Quote

A friend was complaining about his computer slowing down whether surfing the net, playing his favorite game or online trading. Using Task Manager I found that Kaspersky (the full suite) running up CPU cycles while appearing to be doing nothing. We paused Kasperky and the computer was faster. Checking their web site, they recommended downloading the latest version and then reinstalling. He had initially installed the suite over two years ago and had been faithfully updating so he did what Kaspersky recommended — downloaded the latest — uninstalled the current installation –and reinstalled from scratch — and the computer once again performed normally.
Updating software is necessary but sometimes a clean installation is necessary.

Reply | Quote

Similar: PC takes forever to boot and is sluggish when running. In this case I first use the manufactures short test for the hard drive before diving into a cleaning process. Just my 2 cents.

Reply | Quote

Interesting article. I look forward to more real-world trouble-shooting experiences.

Some years ago, I’m sure I read more than one report that Windows tended to overuse the swap file, swapping things out of memory long before it was necessary, and hence slowing applications even when only a couple of windows were open. My strategy to overcome this was to keep the swap file smaller than recommended. I also used a permanent swap file for the reasons stated by others (eg: defragment once and it never fragments again). On my Windows 7 x64 system with 8GB RAM, I’ve turned off all swapping and had no problems at all. My reasoning is based on the assumption that Windows swaps too early.

So what I’m wondering is, just how good is Windows’ swapping algorithm these days? Does it still swap too early, or only when necessary? And why is Microsoft recommending such large swap files, when swapping has such a huge effect on performance?

For Timbo: A system image is much easier to do when C: is reserved for software, and your data and downloads are on a separate drive. Luckily SSDs make this more likely. Even without an SSD, keeping data off the system drive greatly reduces fragmentation, I believe. But the biggest reason to do this is in case you accidentally delete files. An undelete utility like Recuva can work far more effectively if TEMP files and similar aren’t being written to the same drive, potentially overwriting the files you’re trying to recover. (I will say that moving C:Users to D:Users is a pain, mainly because the junctions need to be reconstructed manually. Probably easier to only move the main user’s key data directories.)

(Note: I believe putting a swap file on an SSD is a bad idea, as it gets accessed so often, the SSD memory cells wear out much more quickly than from other kinds of usage.)

Reply | Quote

One other thing to try when diagnosing a system is to check the System Event log. My Mum was complaining about a very slow system, so I upgraded the motherboard, RAM and video. But a few weeks later, everything slowed down again. Checking the Event log (eventually), I noticed a number of disk error events. Turns out, her hard drive was on its last legs, and the system was being slowed by multiple attempts to reread data from bad sectors. Luckily caught it in time to rescue most of the data.

Reply | Quote

@Fred (and everyone else):

In Fred’s 2005 article (referenced in the current article), he recommended a browser cache size of about 10MB.

I’m wondering if, in the day and age of increasingly-complex web sites (compared to 2005), whether that’s still enough space.

Thoughts?

Reply | Quote

“Rebooting solves the problem, but I have to reboot every few days.”

I don’t understand why so many people seem to run Windows 24/7. I shut down almost every night (unless I’m doing a cloud or an image backup – and even then I set Acronis to shut down the system when complete). I save a lot of energy and avoid all kinds of problems with Windows and applications.

Reply | Quote

Perhaps this was addressed in a previous post, but if not… Does it make sense to use a small solid state drive for the page file? A 32GB drive runs less than $40 and would provide much faster page swaps than a hard drive. Just a thought.

Reply | Quote

Perhaps this was addressed in a previous post, but if not… Does it make sense to use a small solid state drive for the page file? A 32GB drive runs less than $40 and would provide much faster page swaps than a hard drive. Just a thought.

It would make far more sense to get a larger SSD and allow the PF to remain on it, equally, it would make more sense to increase the amount of total system RAM.

Although the PF may still be required by the operating system, it will always pale in comparison to adequate amount of memory and a fast SSD.

Reply | Quote

@Fred (and everyone else):In Fred’s 2005 article (referenced in the current article), he recommended a browser cache size of about 10MB.I’m wondering if, in the day and age of increasingly-complex web sites (compared to 2005), whether that’s still enough space.Thoughts?

In most instances, no. 10 MB’s is not nearly enough cache space. The minimum should be at least 50MB, even that may not be enough. It will also be dependent on your Internet usage and connection speed as well.

Reply | Quote

I liked the article. it was clear and concise. I am sure that there are almost as many cleanup routines as there are computer guys willing to do them. I tend to stay away from registry cleaners unless everything else has failed. I was also surprised by the page file info. I have always set it to 1.5 times RAM. I will keep that in mind. Thanks for the great article.

Reply | Quote

The one big piece of diagnostic info I always try to get from my customers is: Where are you seeing the slowness? Is it slow to boot? Slow to open programs? Or, is it slow on the Inernet? Or possibly all the above?
If it’s the Internet, then most slowness issues can be resolved by removing most, if not all, toolbars and extensions.
I like IE9’s feature of alerting us to items like these that are slowing it down but not everyone uses 9, nor pays attention to the warnings or, in some cases, I’ve seen the notification threshold set to high values.
In some cases just disabling Toolbars and ext doesn’t do the trick. When this happens resetting IE almost always does the trick.
Finally, I don’t remember Fred mentioning a Malware scan. I have often seen hundreds of items for mywebsearch come up in a Malwarebytes scan and once removed, speeded things up a lot. These things aren’t always apparent by just looking so a scan is essential.

Reply | Quote

Fred did perform a malware scan.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Fred did perform a malware scan.

He didn’t mention having done so.

Bruce

Reply | Quote

He didn’t mention having done so.

Bruce

I thought he did mention something about that. In any event, this is one thing folks in a similar situation should do.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

UniBlue is a complete scam as well as SpeedUpMyPC and all the other simliar names that keep popping up on TV with the guise of making a computer run faster. They all install fake software that displays phoney malware etc and then want you to pay them to get rid of it (when it was never there to begin with). If I was you dude, I’d find a way fast to get rid of that crap.

Reply | Quote

That’s about what I had figgered….

Many thanks, Mike.

UniBlue…. gone forever!

Earlaiman

Reply | Quote