Win98 bogs down and hangs

Topic

New Reply

First of all, I just found out about this forum today, and I’ve already found a couple of useful tips that will hopefully solve some of my pet Win98 peeves. Thanks!
Now maybe someone can help me solve a couple others. I have a PIII with 64MB of RAM. When I leave the computer on overnight it bogs down horribly when I get in to work in the morning. When I click on Start, for example, it takes 3-5 seconds for the menu to pop up. When I checked out the System Monitor utility this morning, I saw the processor usage pegged at 100% even though nothing was running at the time (there were no background tasks running that I was aware of). If I restart the computer it works just fine. My other problem involves persistent hang-ups (averages about once per day). If I have several apps open it will sometimes freeze up but I can still move the cursor around. It usually happens when I use the Windows logo key to launch Explorer. The computer doesn’t respond to anything, including Ctrl-Alt-Del. I have to do a “hard” shutdown to restart the computer. My theory is that I need more RAM, but as I need corporate IT approval (very slow!) to modify my computer, I would appreciate any tips (on both problems) in the meantime.

Reply | Quote

Replies

This does not sound directly related to
a windows issue, it sounds more like
a network problem, as in your resources being
grabbed, by a virus or trapdoor or a hacker, or even
by the system.

Win 98 does not exhibit this routinely, in my experience.

Reply | Quote

64MB should be fine for Win98SE.

A few general suggestions:
1)Cleanup your hard drive. Delete tmp files, empty browser caches, etc. Defragment drive after cleanup.
2)Use a permanent swap file with Min and Max set to 3 times real memory (3*64=204).
3)Use Norton Speed Disk if available to optimize the swap file.
4)Monitor low system resources with the Windowsrsrcmtr utility. Start closing down applications when resources are low. I have this in my startup group.

A lot of problems are caused by dirty systems or left over dirty files. Keeping clean is easy and worthwhile.

Reply | Quote

Hi Ian

Just for my own clarification you say:
“Defragment drive after cleanup.
2)Use a permanent swap file with Min and Max set to 3 times real memory (3*64=204).
3)Use Norton Speed Disk if available to optimize the swap file.”

Are you saying to run both Defrag and Speed Disk, or is if an either/or option?

If both, what is the benefit? (I had understood that they did essential the same, just that Speed Disk did more and did it better.)

Reply | Quote

I use Speed Disk by preference. It is faster than defrag and it can optimize the swap file.

The initial defrag is just to make sure the permanent swap file can be created successfully. You may have problems creating it on a heavily fragmented drive. If you have SpeedDisk use it for both defrags.

Reply | Quote

As long as the swap file is defragged there is only
a small difference in whether it is optimized.

Optimizing moves it to the “front” of the
drive that it is on.

Speedisk changes the stored order of files and
directories attempting to get files that are accessed
the most near the “front” and close together for
quicker access.

Reply | Quote

Ian/Jim

Thank you both, just wanted to be certain I wasn’t missing something basic.

Reply | Quote

In reference to ileacy’s post:

_____________________________________________________________________________

2)Use a permanent swap file with Min and Max set to 3 times real memory (3*64=204).
_____________________________________________________________________________

(1) Do you mean to set BOTH the Min and Max to the same value?
_____________________________
….. three times the real memory….=204.
_____________________________

(2) How do you actually set the swap file size, and does setting it like this make it permanent?

(3) Last, I now have 312 mb memory, so according to this formula, I should set my swap file to 936kb?

The reason I ask about this is because I added some extra memory (256kb) since the price is (was) down considerably, and noticed immediately that when I click on the “C” drive in an “Open” box to find a file, it now takes 5-7 seconds for the list to open. The machine is faster in about every other way, just this one thing is slower now. I don’t recall changing any swap file settings, and mabe I was supposed to change this with the extra memory.

PS….I went into the startup folder in dos (f8 at restart) and stopped McAfee from starting automatically, and just manually use it with downloaded files. This alone made this machine four times faster than it was.

Thanks for any advice.

Reply | Quote

128Mb RAM would speed things up enormously, even if 64Mb is adequate. It is v. cheap at the moment.
From your description it sounds as though some of your vital functions are going into hibernation. Disable ‘power down’ options, both from BIOS and within Windows. You can then leave your machine on overnight, but I recommend switching off the monitor display. Not so much a problem these days, but I’ve seen monitors with text permanently burned into their phosphor. Screen savers prevent this, but are sometimes a source of problems themselves.
Also set IE connections to ‘Never dial…’
Leaving the machine on all the time reduces the electronic stress on delicate components, but you may have to replace your cooling fan(s) more frequently…

Reply | Quote

I agree, memory will help you substantially. 128 is the norm, 256 will make your system run like new. Perhaps your IT has taken the stance that more mhz means better? No good IT org would allow 64megs on thier machines… unless all you’re doing is word processing…

There was a heated discussion on leaving on or turning off over on the Hardware board, here.

While I do agree that turning off your monitor while not in use is a good idea, it’ll effect your power bill more than it will effect your monitor.

In the old days, monitor burn in occured quite frequently, with the newer monitor technology, (over the past 5-8 years) this is no longer a problem. (This also depends on the quality of the monitor, but it’s safe to assume that anything made in the past 3 years won’t have this problem.) That said, screen savers are really a novelty now, not at all required, but a definite break from the real world at times.. I havn’t seen a monitor with Windows 98 burned into the screen, ever.

Hope that helps!

Reply | Quote

We have two monitors at work with OS/2 burned into them. 17 inch monitors at that! What a waste!

Reply | Quote

Your problem sounds just like mine.

Boot computer, run it for a couple of hours then it hangs. Mouse still runs around but can’t do anything else.

Try running “Resource Monitor”, I did and found I was running out of system resources.

After three months of frustration I finally deduced that McAfee VirusScan (both v4.0.3 and v5.21 using the latest DAT files at all times) was gobbling up my User and System Resources.

Since I uninstalled McAfee VirusScan the problem has been completely cleared. I’m still trying to resolve the issue with McAfee/Network Soultions but not much success so far

Incidentally I’m running a Toshiba Tecra 720CDT with 148MB RAM, windows 98SE and helps of other software.

Trevor

Reply | Quote

I sure am coming in late on this thread but we recently ran into the same problem on a brand new Dell Optiplex 1.8mhz 512meg memory PC running Win 98se. The system monitor tells the same story, pegged at anywhere from 80 to 100 %. Some things we tried were clearing out the systray. We had Macafee but uninstalled it. It was hooked up to a network but no other computers on the network exhibit the same symptoms. I checked a number of other 98se machines at another installation and found that many of them routinely show 2%. 10%, 40% or other levels pegged on the sysmon. I’d sure love to hear how everyone else’s sysmon experience has been! We even tried killing everything (one at a time) in the cntrl-alt-dlt active tasks list. Deleting had no effect until we killed Windows, of course! With next to nothing running, the monitor was still pegged. Dell couldn’t help (they replaced the mother board, CPU, memory, hard drive, and formatted and reinstalled the OS. By the way, we saw this even when we disconnected from the network. Other PCs show what I’d expect from sysmon, rise and fall with usage and drop to zero if you sit still and watch, even if other windows are open. HELP!! any Pentium bugs that might explain it? Does Sysmon run differently on different CPU’s?
I’m anxious for any thoughts you might have on this.

Reply | Quote

You might check out this comprehensive list of startup applications: run msconfig and compare what you have running with what is essential, according to the list. http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_pages/startup_full.htm%5B/url%5D. Getting rid of Macafee was a good idea–it’s nothing but trouble.

Reply | Quote

DenGar,
Thanks for the great site! It does help to know what can be eliminated. Unfortunately, this is just a general way to speed up any system (still good advice though!) My concern is more about the lack of usefulness of the System Monitor tool. I think I’ll post a new thread on just that subject.
Thanks

Reply | Quote

Well I guess no one is interested but I did find out a few things that are really a problem. There are two programs that Dell is no longer using because of problems they are causing. One is a Yamaha program and the other is a Dell open management program. We have also been able to narrow down the primary initiator of the problem as being related to the Roxio Cd Creator software. Dell is doing more research.

Reply | Quote