# Regaining speed on a slow computer



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

I thought this would be a good discussion. Since everyone here obviously uses computers, it shouldn't be too techy. If anything, this thread may save you a lot of grief.

In addition to sharing my experience from last week, I'm looking for any advice or personal experiences you might have.

The subject is slow computers and how to solve the problem.

I've done "restorations" many times in the past for friends, family, and clients. Usually it's a fairly simple process...time consuming, but simple. If you have a good backup system, restoring a slow computer to its current state minus the slowness is mostly a lot of babysitting as you run several routines.

Last week, after several attempts to track down the source of slowness on my main computer failed, I opted to take drastic measures and do a restoration. I anticipated a day or two. Well, it took four, and the fifth day was the one spent doing what I expected to be doing the second day.

BEWARE: Microsoft made some recent "improvements" to their Automatic Updates that make restoration a frustrating process. It took a great deal of trial and error to get the Service Packs to properly installl, and the manual options to bypass that frustration are either difficult or impossible to find.

So rather than go into all the detail about what went wrong, I'd like to take this discussion into what I think is an important step to avoid that situation. I've known about something called "disk imaging software" for a long time, but since I restore my own computer so rarely, I never bothered with it. I'm now rethinking that. If you don't have "image files" of your computer, you could be facing an expensive and frustrating event in your future.

So for those who don't know what disk imaging is, when your computer is in ideal working condition with all the Service Packs, updates, software, and settings the way you need it, the software takes a "snapshot" of your computer. This snapshot can be used to quickly restore the computer to that exact configuration. From there, your backups can be used to add all the newer files that are not contained in the snapshot.

Obviously, the trick in restoring a computer is to get only what's "safe" from backups to avoid migrating "bugs" into your restoration.

So while this post will outline the importance of creating an image file (if you try to rely on Microsoft Update to help you restore your computer you will be sorry), one thing I'm not sure about is which one to use. Norton Ghost is probably the best known and most used, but I've read reviews stating it's convoluted.

Does anyone here have personal experience they'd like to share? Have you actually had to use an image file to restore a computer (or had a tech do it for you)? Which software were you using if you've had this experience?


----------



## neolitic (Apr 20, 2006)

A word in your shell-like ear........
Ubuntu.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

If you ain't too tech savy then a program like http://www.tune-up.com/products/tuneup-utilities/ will be a great help to you. There are many free programs about that can do what this does but it's laid out in a very simple UI. Give the demo a try and i think you will be pretty impressed. it's very rare you will have to do a clean install unless you have messed with something you shouldn't have. 

You should always do a image backup of an data on your system just in case you ever have a HD failure or data loss. Then if you do ever have to do a system restore it will take less than 30 mins for the system to be back up and running to what it was like before your problems. Norton Ghost is a simple solution for this if you decide to do a restore disk. It's the one i use.


----------



## gideond (May 17, 2007)

Norton Ghost is a mediocre product now days. Not the worst by far but certainly not the best. Acronis is another popular product but one I recommend avoiding now. After version 10 it really started going downhill. I personally use Paragon now. It has a free and a paid version to choose from depending on what you need. Macrium Reflect is another free option that does a good job backing up but it's boot CD can be problematic. Clonezilla is a free Linux based imaging solution but it is a bit too slow for me. Other good paid software includes Image for Windows and Shadow Protect. 

As far as full restorations go I usually slipstream the latest service packs before installation if its and XP machine. Vista changed things a bit and it's very difficult to slipstream a service pack into it, but there are ways to do it. You can also find places to download the pre-slipstreamed image if you are willing to do look for it.


----------



## chris n (Oct 14, 2003)

Acronis true image home 2009, never had a problem with back ups monthly( when I remember):laughing:


----------



## gideond (May 17, 2007)

Acronis did a great job backing up. The problems come when you actually need to restore from the backup. I was oblivious to the issues later version have until I actually needed to recover a computer. Endless Google searches left me reinstalling anyway and with a clear understanding of why I didn't want to use Acronis anymore.


----------



## karunnt (Aug 27, 2008)

Back up all your data files on an external drive periodically and the really important stuff on to DVD.

The applications you may as well reinstall but the data can never be recovered if you put your faith on some backup software that fails.

There are also online backup systems carbonite but they generally store your data not your applications.


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

gideond said:


> Acronis did a great job backing up. The problems come when you actually need to restore from the backup. I was oblivious to the issues later version have until I actually needed to recover a computer. Endless Google searches left me reinstalling anyway and with a clear understanding of why I didn't want to use Acronis anymore.


That's exactly along the lines of what I'm looking to learn. Being trained as a tech guy, I'm fully aware that the probelms don't always show up until you need the backups. That's not the time you want to find out you have a problem.

Thank you for sharing that, it's exactly the reason I asked about experience in the restoration process and not in the backup process. The annals of IT techs are littered with good back plans gone wrong when the backups they thought they had couldn't be restored.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

neolitic said:


> A word in your shell-like ear........
> Ubuntu.


I will share some good stuff later tonight when I have more time, but honestly, having worked in tech., the best way to run Windows is virtualized on Linux.

I am getting ready to switch another small company over to Linux Mint (an Ubuntu derivative) running XP on Virtualbox for ACT! and QuickBooks.

Virtualbox has snapshotting, that works, built in. Once you are working in Linux and XP simultaneously you may start to realize what sane (the Linux half) computing is like, ask the Mac-heads to describe it to you.

The crazy part is, your computer *shouldn't* get slower as the months go by. That is just another defect along with viruses/trojans/spyware the Windows users think applies to all computers.

It doesn't, +100 to what Neo posted. You have no idea how peaceful and predictable computing can be till you get off Windows. :thumbsup:


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Ok so im noticeing some bad info about OS's again. Viruses, malware and worms are on every OS ever made! Yes even Linux. You should not be running any system without some kind of anti virus. Every Linux user I know uses some form of AV. Mainly because of having to deal with cross contamination from windows systems. The threat is still there and no system is 100% safe. I have never had a virus or malware issue in all the years I have been building and using pc's because of using AV software. yes people have problems but it's because of user error and not the OS.


----------



## bert0168 (Jan 28, 2008)

neolitic said:


> A word in your shell-like ear........
> Ubuntu.


I checked out the Ubuntu site and it looks interesting. I'm willing to give it a try but what is the learning curve changing over as a windows user?

Do I need to get rid of windows completely?

What about e-mail (currently on outlook)?

I think I switched to FF from IE from a post here and am glad to see FF is included.

An inquiring mind wants to know........


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

BCConstruction said:


> Ok so im noticeing some bad info about OS's again. *1)Viruses, malware and worms are on every OS ever made!* Yes even Linux. You should not be running any system without some kind of anti virus. *2)Every Linux user I know uses some form of AV. Mainly because of having to deal with cross contamination from windows systems. The threat is still there and no system is 100% safe.* I have never had a virus or malware issue in all the years I have been building and using pc's because of using AV software. *3)yes people have problems but it's because of user error and not the OS.*


1) Correct and still misleading. Linux and OSX over their entire history have viruses numbering in the hundreds, viruses which aren't able to credibly survive and spread in the real world (what's called "in the wild"). Windows has viruses numbering in the high hundreds of thousands, and every time you hear a virus story in the news it is, in fact, a Windows virus. Every time.

2)This is a confused statement. Are you saying Linux users that you know run AV software to clean Windows viruses they come in contact with, to help keep other Windows boxes from becoming infected? Because you can't infect a Linux or OSX box with a Windows virus. Linux and OSX users *don't* run AV software to safeguard *their own system*, because *they don't need to*.

3)People have problems with Windows because Windows is a poorly architected, buggy OS.

I'm getting a little tired of your disinformation about Windows. You want to use it? That's your choice. You want to defend it, use facts. Defend it's strengths but stop trying to pretend it's weakness's are shared by other systems.

When I tell folks about Linux I am straight with them about the shortage of popular commercial, consumer & small business software.

When you tell people Windows is as secure as Linux or OSX you are giving them wrong information, Google as I said before, proves that case in about 60 seconds.

You could correct yourself, I have tried to correct you, at this point I have to assume you either lack the ability to do even basic research, or want to mislead folks.

You want to challenge what I say then stop screwing around and start providing links, 'cause I can, a never ending stream of them.

If you can't back up your statements with third party corroboration then go to school or pipe down.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

moorewarner said:


> 1) Correct and still misleading. Linux and OSX over their entire history have viruses numbering in the hundreds, viruses which aren't able to credibly survive and spread in the real world (what's called "in the wild"). Windows has viruses numbering in the high hundreds of thousands, and every time you hear a virus story in the news it is, in fact, a Windows virus. Every time.
> 
> 2)This is a confused statement. Are you saying Linux users that you know run AV software to clean Windows viruses they come in contact with, to help keep other Windows boxes from becoming infected? Because you can't infect a Linux or OSX box with a Windows virus. Linux and OSX users *don't* run AV software to safeguard *their own system*, because *they don't need to*.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying windows is better or worse. What I'm saying is people need to stop saying windows is worse because of viruses. Practice what you preach and check google for information on Linux and available viruses and the many available anti viruses. If there was truly nothing to worry about like you say then why so many antivirus programs for such a sercure system! :blink:Like I say if viruses are the only thing people can ever bash windows for then it's a simple fix. Run free anti virus. I know many people who have run windows without ever having anti virus. Mainly because they know what they should be downloading and what they shouldn't. I do the same and have never had one infection on my system but still take the precaution of anti virus. But as I say again and again viruses on any system are a moot point because you have an option of anti virus.


----------



## katoman (Apr 26, 2009)

In regards to Anti-virus defense, I was using Norton and about 4yrs ago got infected with I don't know what, but EVERYTHING was lost. Took my computer into a restoration specialist, and he said everything was gone, including Norton.

I've been using Trend Micro for the last 4ys with absolutely no complaints.

Norton can keep it.


----------



## neolitic (Apr 20, 2006)

BCConstruction said:


> I'm not saying windows is better or worse. What I'm saying is people need to stop saying windows is worse because of viruses. Practice what you preach and check google for information on Linux and available viruses and the many available anti viruses. If there was truly nothing to worry about like you say then why so many antivirus programs for such a sercure system! :blink:Like I say if viruses are the only thing people can ever bash windows for then it's a simple fix. Run free anti virus. I know many people who have run windows without ever having anti virus. Mainly because they know what they should be downloading and what they shouldn't. I do the same and have never had one infection on my system but still take the precaution of anti virus. But as I say again and again viruses on any system are a moot point because you have an option of anti virus.


What I'm saying is, besides 
all of the other crap I no longer 
have to endure from XP, this computer
runs waaaaay faster than it ever did.
I also have more applications installed.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

katoman said:


> In regards to Anti-virus defense, I was using Norton and about 4yrs ago got infected with I don't know what, but EVERYTHING was lost. Took my computer into a restoration specialist, and he said everything was gone, including Norton.
> 
> I've been using Trend Micro for the last 4ys with absolutely no complaints.
> 
> Norton can keep it.


Correct. Norton is the biggest pos anti virus. I have been using avast for the last 3-4 years and I think AVS before that and Panda before that. All of which worked extremely compared to the paid versions from larger companies.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

neolitic said:


> What I'm saying is, besides
> all of the other crap I no longer
> have to endure from XP, this computer
> runs waaaaay faster than it ever did.
> I also have more applications installed.


Systems being slow have never been a problem I have come across because I have always run hardware way more powerful than min requirements. Intact running any system close to min requirements is a bad idea. To often do I here people complain their 10 year old pentium is having problems running XP or vista. Vista's whole reason for bad reviews was because of it being installed on hardware to a low spec. Ask anyone who had a good pc what they thought of vista and you will here nothing but great reviews. Much better than XP in my eyes. Not 1 BSOD in almost 4 years of using it. 

I'm sure anything running under Linux is faster without doubt. But I have never found a need to run Linux on anything but a PS3


----------



## Martin Co (Sep 8, 2008)

Just to add another thumbs up for Ubuntu Linux! Once you realize how many options you have with open source, you'll ask yourself why you ever bothered with the headache that Windows gives you!!!

Try it for yourself, remember it's FREE! http://www.ubuntu.com/ burn a copy of Ubuntu/Linux and run it from a live cd to try it out without having to install NADA. If you don't like it, throw the disk in the trash! But chances are you'll love it.

Not only does Ubuntu make installing a breeze, but you can do a simple dual boot installation on your HD.. So you're basically running two OS on the same HD..

If you have certain windows programs you need to run in linux, install a plugin called "wine" and run your windows programs through that....

Either way, Linux kicks arse!!!


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

bert0168 said:


> I checked out the Ubuntu site and it looks interesting. I'm willing to give it a try but what is the learning curve changing over as a windows user?


Studies done at business' that have changed over found that there was little difficulty for new users. The main challenge is simply to keep an open mind and realize that Linux is a different "system" like OSX. You cant expect Linux to be Windows any more than you would expect OSX to be.



> Do I need to get rid of windows completely?


Not at all, exactly the opposite. When I set up a new Windows user on Linux I do two things.

1) Install Linux alongside Windows on the hard drive. Then when you boot up your computer you get a menu that lets you choose whether to boot into Linux or your previous Windows install.

2) If the computer has good enough hardware, 1.8 gz processor, 2-3 Gigs of RAM, 100 Gig hard drive or better, I set them up with XP running in Virtualbox as well. This is like having XP running as an application on Linux so you access and use both at the same time.

So you would have two ways to windows, one being your existing set up.



> What about e-mail (currently on outlook)?


Outlook is really used two different ways, either as a email client or as a email+groupware client. If you are using it as an email client then most folks use Mozilla Thunderbird or Evolution. If you are using Outlooks groupware features then you would use Evolution. you would also use Evolution if you were connecting to an Exchange server generally only comes into play for business's (Evolution + Exchange "connector"). I assume you are just talking about email from your ISP?

http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/

Thunderbird also has a calendaring extension that can sync with Google calendars called Lightning.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/2313/

As well as many more extensions (by the way outlook is the second most prolific vector of viruses for Windows (or maybe they are reversed)).

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/

You can download and try Thunderbird on Windows and see if you like it.

Evolution doesn't have a stable Windows port, just Linux.

http://projects.gnome.org/evolution/screenshots.shtml



> I think I switched to FF from IE from a post here and am glad to see FF is included.


I think you mean from IE to FF. (I think I should read it again:whistling) :clap:



> An inquiring mind wants to know........


Neo got you too Ubuntu and that is what I ran and put Windows users on almost since Ubuntu began, but I recently switched to a derivative of Ubuntu called Linux Mint. Mint takes Ubuntu and rearranges the UI (User Interface, i.e. desktop) to be more similar to Windows and adds stuff that Ubuntu leaves out (for philosophical/legal reasons) like Java, Flash, audio & video/dvd codecs. I find Mint is an easier transition for Windows users and less setup work for me. Ubuntu's desktop is closer to OSX, and Mint's is closer to Windows. They both actually use the same Window Manager software, Gnome, and you can make each look however you want they just come set up differently by default.

http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php

The link you want is the top one that says "Live CD", and just like Ubuntu if you know you have a 64 bit processor then download that one (the "amd64" link) or if you are unsure then download the 32 bit version (the "i386" link).

You will burn that .iso file to a *700* Meg CD with burning software that has a "write/burn image/iso to disk" option, all of these do.

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-cd-dvd-burning-software.htm#Quick_Selection_Guide

Both Ubuntu and Mint are "Live CD's" which means you can put them in a CD drive and reboot the computer and it will run Linux from the CD without having to install to the hard drive. It will run slower than it would from the hard drive simply because CD-ROMs are slower devices than hard drives. We use Live CDs to sample the particular version of Linux, in this case Ubuntu and Mint and also to check ahead of time that all the hardware is supported.

If you get stuck with any of this, have more questions, or want to talk more about actually installing just fire away.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

katoman said:


> In regards to Anti-virus defense, I was using Norton and about 4yrs ago got infected with I don't know what, but EVERYTHING was lost. Took my computer into a restoration specialist, and he said everything was gone, including Norton.
> 
> I've been using Trend Micro for the last 4ys with absolutely no complaints.
> 
> Norton can keep it.


Trend Micro is the AV I went with when I was running the IT Dept. in a previous life, good products. :thumbsup:

Yeah, Norton consumer grade products have a special reputation in the biz for suckin'.


----------



## PortlandRemodel (Apr 23, 2010)

Computer connected to a UPS. Trend antivirus. All my drives are Raid 5 which is my main "insurance plan." I use Server 2003 and love it. Back up to a hard drive. Beyond that I don't worry anymore. Over 25 years I've had crashes and all kinds of stuff but usually you have some warning. One


----------



## gideond (May 17, 2007)

I've got an old machine set up with Linux Mint myself. I switched it over from Ubuntu because Mint just plain works better for some reason. I had less problems getting my pain in the butt ATI card set up in Mint than in Ubuntu, which constantly black screened before I could get to the desktop to install the proprietary graphics drivers. I like Mint quite a bit and I am constantly tinkering with it. Unfortunately this rig is too old to effectively run a virtual machine without serious speed issues. That said, I still don't think I could replace Windows with Mint in a working environment, at least not unless I was going to transition all machines and software to it with some extensive planning. 

Linux has gotten easier to understand and there are no end of resources to help you get the hang of it. I agree that someone who has never used a computer before will have an easier time picking it up. It just like when Vista came out and no one could find a damn thing since they changed the location of everything for no apparent reason.

As for A/V solutions on Linux, yes there are several of them. Mostly this is because Linux is used a lot on server equipment and these A/V softwares are designed to scan all traffic before the packets make it to the destination machine. Linux is popular as an email server OS. Would you want to have your email come in completely unchecked when you are on a Windows machine just because we want to prove how secure Linux is by not running an A/V on it? There are in reality very few virus's on Linux. Windows viruses can't install and run correctly on Linux but you can be a carrier and infect someone else who is running Windows.


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

Interesting discussion, even a little feisty at times. I've never worked on Linux, but I do use a wide variety of apps which I'm not sure how well would run. My primary reason for using so many flavors of Windows is not because I'm totally in love with it, but I need to be able to replicate as many issues as possible in troubleshooting situations. Since I do mostly web design, it involves a lot of testing. I run the most common configurations to assure I'm seeing what the majority will see.

If it weren't for that, I'd probably want to live in my own box world and care less what problems everyone else is having.

One thing I doubt anyone will argue with about Windows, it keeps the techs busy (job security). For all the slamming of Windows we love to do, to take computing from trained tech users only to where anyone could figure out how to use it was an ambitious undertaking. MS may not have been the only one to do this, but I think they embraced the idea before most other companies did. To create something both idiot proof and stable is a lot to ask. 

Windows probably isn't quite as evil as they get accused of, but it does have issues. I'm sure they could do better, but one of the drawbacks to being so successful is you paint a huge target on your back. Some people live for the sole purpose of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in Windows. I don't envy MS when they have to constantly deal with that.


----------



## brandonriffel (May 22, 2010)

I've switched over my entire home (5 computers) to MacOS over the last 3 years. NONE of them have AV on them, nor do I plan to install any, until there is an actual virus outbreak on MacOS.

I would not suggest you use an imaging software for your backups. Most likely you'll just end up taking a backup of whatever is causing your problems. Then you'll just restore it back and you are no better off. I agree that you should be using a hosted backup option like mozy or carbonite. Then you don't have to worry about taking your backups off site. You should just make sure your data is always backed up. Then if your computer starts crashing or running slow, you just rebuild it with the system disks that came with your computer, do all the available updates (regardless of what OS you are using). Then install your AV software (I suggest Microsoft Security Essentials, it is free, and at least average). Once you are all up to date on your AV software, re-install your 3rd party software and then restore your data.

Linux is great! BUT, there is a learning curve indeed. You'll have to get used to non-microsoft productivity software. Things are different, but if you can make the jump and not negatively impact your business in the process, you won't be disappointed. Your IT support bills will drop over time as you have less and less issues with Windows.


----------



## brandonriffel (May 22, 2010)

BUT, if we are still talking about a slow computer, and how to speed it up, here are my suggestions.

1. More RAM - Maybe you don't have viruses or malware. Maybe you just have more OS than your computer can handle. If your PC is old, but still running WinXP, the service packs and fixes you have added, as well as IE upgrades, use up more ram than XP did when you bought it. You also may have some newer programs (newer versions of Office) that are running slow due to lack of RAM.

2. Too many applications running - Check the system tray (the little icons by your clock in the bottom right). Each of those is a program that is running currently and using up CPU cycles and RAM. Right click on the icons and look for preferences or settings. Some of them can be set to NOT start automatically. Just be sure you know what you are disabling. Don't turn off your AV software or backup software.

3. Malware - Download process explorer, (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) it is like task manager on steroids. Great for identifying applications that you might not want running. If you have some that you can't get rid of try Combofix (http://www.combofix.org/). Don't be confused by the advertisement for some spyware removal software on the site. Make sure you just download the combofix program itself.

4. Your computer is just too darn old. A 5 year old machine NEEDS to be replaced. You got your money's worth out of it, you have already fully depreciated it, and it is killing your computing productivity. Just bite the bullet and upgrade.


----------



## gideond (May 17, 2007)

Recommending Combofix to a novice is extremely dangerous. Combofix can totally wreck a system if you don't know what you are doing with it. Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware are better options for most. A 5 year old computer does NOT need replaced if it is doing what you need it to do. My main rig at home is almost 8 years old and I'm just now thinking of a whole new build. It'll still work fine for a linux machine to work on the internet with.


----------



## brandonriffel (May 22, 2010)

If you follow the instructions with combofix, it is pretty simple, or so I found. And I only recommended replacing a 5 year old computer, if it is running slow and wrecking your productivity. It's too bad that you had to post on here just to flame me. I was making suggestions, you were just trying to bust my chops. Thanks for your productive postings.


----------



## FlashTech (May 28, 2010)

*Windows to Mint Questions*

What kind of HD space does Mint use and what is optimum for memory?


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

brandonriffel said:


> I would not suggest you use an imaging software for your backups.


I hope I didn't confuse the issue of a disk image with backups. I fully agree. The image is ONLY for a state of known good to recover a computer to. Restoring backups has to be done very carefully for the exact reason you stated, to avoid migrating issues over to a freshly recovered computer.

I've actually used the technique you suggested with just reinstalling everything, and I've done it many times for different people. But as I stated above, that method now creates problems because MS decided to make "improvements" to their Automatic Updates. An image file seems like a better solution, but it does need to capture a state of "working good" to be of any use.

I'm also a strong advocate of offsite backups when combined with a solid onsite backup strategy. Onsite is what I call "first line of defense" while the offsite provides a solution to a "worst case scenario." With 80% of all businesses failing after a computer disaster, it's too risky to be playing Russian Roulette with data.


----------



## brandonriffel (May 22, 2010)

What I have done with a company that I've done consulting work is this:

They bought 10 computers at once, all identical. I set one up with all the software they wanted, all the updates, and AV. Then I used Ghost to make an image of this state for them to use for restores when the computers start crashing. These are just standard workstations with no vital data on them.

Right now they have a pretty slow ISP (a Verizon broadband card is the best they can get). So they have 2 USB hard drives that they do daily backups to. Each week they rotate on drive offsite. So if they have a catastrophic failure, they only lose 1 day of data. If they have a complete loss (fire or theft), they would lose everything up to the last time they took a drive off site.

Each business is unique and the owners of the business just need to sure they understand the risks and advantages of each technique, or mixture, as you suggest.


----------



## PortlandRemodel (Apr 23, 2010)

brandonriffel said:


> They bought 10 computers at once, all identical. I set one up with all the software they wanted, all the updates, and AV. Then I used Ghost to make an image of this state for them to use for restores when the computers start crashing. These are just standard workstations with no vital data on them.


This is why so many people are going to Citrix...:w00t:


----------



## gideond (May 17, 2007)

gideond said:


> Recommending Combofix to a novice is extremely dangerous. Combofix can totally wreck a system if you don't know what you are doing with it. Malwarebytes and SuperAntiSpyware are better options for most. A 5 year old computer does NOT need replaced if it is doing what you need it to do. My main rig at home is almost 8 years old and I'm just now thinking of a whole new build. It'll still work fine for a linux machine to work on the internet with.


I'm not trying to bust your chops. I just hate to see programs like Combofix recommended to freely. Even the professional spyware removal boards warn heavily against using programs of this nature without guided support. 

As for the computer, unless it was a piece of junk to begin with or your technology needs have massively increased in 5 years, there should be no need to replace it. Minor upgrades and cleanup should keep it working fine for a while yet.


----------



## gideond (May 17, 2007)

There are the system requirements for Mint:


x86 processor
192 MB of system memory (RAM)
3 GB of disk space for installation
Graphics card capable of 800×600 resolution
CD-ROM drive or USB port
I'm running it on 1GB of RAM with a 160GB HDD with pretty good performance. Most people seem to recommend at least 10GB of HDD space for decent performance. This is an old P4 2.0GHz machine so it's doing pretty good with Mint compared to how XP Home ran on it. A lot of that has to do with not have to run active A/V though.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

"As everyone knows by now who follows technology news, the Financial Times reported that Google "is phasing out the internal use of Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows operating system because of security concerns." Some doubt this story, because they say that's its vague about sources. Well, I asked, and the story is 'mostly' right. Google is switching away from Windows to Linux and Macs, but it's not just because of security. 

I e-mailed Google and, according to a Google official, while "We're always working to improve the efficiency of our business, but we don't comment on specific operational matters." That's not much of a statement, but did you notice the key word there? It's 'efficiency.' 

I then got on the phone, IM and e-mail with my friends at Google and they told me off-the-record pretty much what the Google employees told the Financial Times that "Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks." But, following that efficiency word around, I was also told that Linux was far cheaper than Windows and that many Google users preferred it, in any case, to Windows. While many others found Macs to just be more useful than Windows PCs. 

Google's internal users have eclectic tastes when it comes to Linux. Ubuntu was quite popular, but so was-surprise!--Google's own Android; Fedora; openSUSE; and the newly released MeeGo. As for the Mac users, I got the impression there may be more MacBook Pro users at Google than there are at Apple. 

The Linux users preferred it for all the usual reasons: It was faster, more secure, and more stable than Windows. In addition, it did everything they needed. As you might guess, Chrome is the Web browser of choice for Google Linux users, and many of them use Google's SaaS (Software as a Service) applications like Google Docs. As one of them told me, "Why should I waste my time with Windows and all its pain in the ass junk when I can do everything I need to do with Chrome on Ubuntu?" The Mac users, in turn, sounded like most people who like Macs. They preferred its interface and applications to those of either Linux or Windows. 

Now, some analysts claim that Google's move away from Linux isn't about security at all. Instead, they would have it that it's all about Google positioning itself to do battle with Microsoft and Windows. I'm sure that's part of it too, but for their claims that Windows is secure is just utter and total nonsense. Windows is insecure by design. Always has been, always will be. To pretend that Windows' security costs and failures aren't important to Fortune 500 companies is total balderdash. 

Have these fools forgotten that China attacked Google and many other major companies only a few months ago? Do you think sticking with an operating system that's has as many holes in as a fisherman's net make sense? I don't think so! As one staffer told me, "I am not going to be the next guy to hose the company because of Windows." 

Sure, Mac OS X has its security problems as well, but, in practice, it's still more secure than Windows. As for Linux, it's more secure than either one, and it's always been much tougher to attack than the others. 

There's also been some silly talk about how Google can't really mean that they're switching away from Windows because so many of their users depend on Windows. Uh... what makes you think that just because the rank and file is moving to other operating systems means that the developers aren't going to be using Windows machines? Heck, I'm about as pro-Linux desktop a person on the planet, and I use Windows PCs all the time for reviews. Of course, Google will still use Windows system for development and testing. 

I'm also sure that there are some special applications that don't exist on Linux and Macs that will still be running on Windows PCs. But, seriously, what work-a-day jobs can't you do on a Linux PC or Mac these days? Are there any? I can go days without 'needing' to touch my Windows PCs. 
My buddy Jason Perlow, who also runs multiple operating systems, has found that he can meet 80% of his computing needs without Windows and for the rest he uses virtualized Windows on Linux. That works for me, and it probably does for Google as well. 

The bottom line is that Google wants to be both more secure and more efficient. To do that, it makes perfect sense for them to abandon Windows for Linux and Mac OS X. Come to think of it, it makes perfect sense for most companies as well."

http://blogs.computerworld.com/16232/good_bye_windows_hello_linux_mac_says_google


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

It will be a long time until google give up Microsoft in the US Apple has around 6% of the current OS market and worldwide less than 2%. Linux has even less. It's going to stay that way for a long time. 10 years ago apple were saying they were gonna control the largest % of the OS in 2010 and they are still far from it.

Did you also know that most people with infected computers no matter what OS give their computers permission to run them. This is a problem that can't be fixed on any platform. User error is the biggest problem of any system and or course windows having such a big user base means these programs are written by the truck load.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

Part 1

K, here are some thoughts for Windows users on keeping your Windows speedy.

CBS you are kind of asking two questions aiming for the same answer, "How do I make Windows fast?"

First is how to keep windows fast and second is what to do if it slows up.

So when you get your pristine computer from Dell, Walmart, HP wherever, it is as fast as it's ever going to be for you, er...not necessarily. There are two sources of slow down to that new computer fresh out of the box (which are basically the same thing, running processes) i.e. active "services" (parts of Windows functionality), and apps that have been installed, software for hardware, and trial ware/freebies.

Generally speaking, if you want a well performing system, you want to uninstall most of the "crapware" that comes preloaded. For example, one of Norton's worst sins is the amount of hardware resources it takes up; there are several lighter weight options, Avira, Avast, Trend etc. Utilities that come with printers, scanners, multifunction devices, cameras, generally suck, are redundant to the OS or the apps you actually will use and try to run all the time.

Basically, the less stuff (processes) you have running the "faster" your computer will be. Look down at the "System Tray", you will see the collection of icons grow as you install more and more apps. You want to make as many of those icons go away as possible. This generally entails opening the app. that is tied to that icon and finding the "preferences" or "options" and turning off "check for updates", "start when Windows starts" or any variations on these.

Also check out the "Start Up" folder on the start menu, that should routinely get emptied out as well. The only apps most folks should want running constantly are security apps, AV, firewall, and spyware/trojan checkers if you choose one (I generally run the spyware/trojan checkers on demand).

Windows Services are something most users never even know about that are sucking up resources constantly. This site has great info on what theses services do and what turning them off affects. This site is solid gold info for beginning to understand and control windows. Turning off all unused services will give you noticeably faster boot times, lower memory usage, and snappier performance, as well as reducing possible sources of instability.

http://www.blackviper.com/

If you have installed a clean version of Windows, OEM or retail, then go straight to the blackviper tutorial/services shut down.

...


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

Good post, moore. This is all familiar territory for me, but it's good advice that many people here should find useful.

In my own experience, my computer has always been very fast because I of practices like you outlined. I keep the startup clean and keep close watch on how resources get used. I even use classic settings because the "eye candy" comes at a cost, and I'd rather let my apps have the resources than to let the OS hog them with unnecessary fluff. XP Pro is by far the fastest version of XP and you can usually keep it that way following your advice above.

My problem came in somewhere over the last couple months where my machine started slowing down and I was unable to identify the cause. I don't like having to do a recovery, but it is an effective way to flush out constipation from a computer. Since I keep good backups, I didn't expect any major problems other than time. It's the virtually useless "automation" in the Automatic Updates that caused the problems I experienced.

One of my main reasons for starting this thread was to warn anyone who does these recoveries that they don't go as smoothly as they used to. I've done the process many times, but whatever MS did to change their Automatic Update process, it was not an improvement. Theoretically, it's supposed to detect what you have, don't have, need, and in what order. From what I could tell, it was failing to get the order right. It was as if it was trying to put a screw on a hole that didn't exist rather than drill the hole first.

The other reason I had in mind for this thread was to get feedback on any experience someone here may have had on using a disk image to do a recovery. It's one thing to run an image program. It's another thing for it to actually work when you need it.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

cbscreative said:


> *Good post, moore. This is all familiar territory for me, but it's good advice that many people here should find useful.*


 Yeah, that post was meant to be a plodding, detailed bit for folks that are less knowledgeable on the subject; I expected most of it to be old hat to you. Although the services info is actually good stuff for even technical folks, you would have to do a lot of trolling on Google/MSDN to get what is in one compact location right there.



> *My problem came in somewhere over the last couple months where my machine started slowing down and I was unable to identify the cause.* I don't like having to do a recovery, but it is an effective way to flush out constipation from a computer. Since I keep good backups, I didn't expect any major problems other than time. It's the virtually useless "automation" in the Automatic Updates that caused the problems I experienced.


It's harder after the fact, but you can crack open Taskmanager and check your running processes, that should be the final story (though it's not) on what is running under the hood.

This guy_ Mark Russinovich_ has quite a rep and several books, then MS snapped him up, for producing great tools to debug and profile windows. Most can still be gotten from here, 

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb545027.aspx

if I remember rightly there are a couple that do a good job of a) dumping running processes and then b) mapping those processes to each other and their calling apps.



> *One of my main reasons for starting this thread was to warn anyone who does these recoveries that they don't go as smoothly as they used to. I've done the process many times, but whatever MS did to change their Automatic Update process, it was not an improvement.* Theoretically, it's supposed to detect what you have, don't have, need, and in what order. From what I could tell, it was failing to get the order right. It was as if it was trying to put a screw on a hole that didn't exist rather than drill the hole first.


Honestly, I personally have never really trusted MS software. If they can't produce a stable OS why would their snapshot/backup tools be different? They just don't make quality software as a general rule. Add to that that most of their product development is marketing driven vs. technically driven and it's just not something i have ever cared to rely on. (see below)



> *The other reason I had in mind for this thread was to get feedback on any experience someone here may have had on using a disk image to do a recovery.* It's one thing to run an image program. It's another thing for it to actually work when you need it.


I will throw out a few options that might prove useful in part two, but honestly most of my *restore* experience is years old with Ghost and it worked well enough back then. Today, as I mentioned earlier, I now mostly run Windows virtualized in Virtualbox which has solid tools for both cloning of a pristine image and maintaining a multiple snapshot history. I will say that I would (and am) seriously looking at the Linux/FOSS/LiveCD collection of tools, and it is extensive (for helping Windows users as you yourself seem to do). They are also free and generally of high quality, certainly they are driven solely by technical merit, and with the source code being open you tend to get the very best code a person can deliver as opposed to closed source which is done by people punching a clock, to meet a deadline, in a product format where no one will ever see any shortcuts or ugly hacks or bugs that don't have an immediate effect on a use case.

Works of love vs. works of wages.

I just came across this today which looks interesting (there are so many in the FOSS world). You can create a backup image and burn it into a liveCD. I will be checking into this one when I get a minute.

http://mephistobackup.webhop.org/

And lastly, for you CBSCreative, you said you do a lot of site checking on various OS/browser combos. Are you using virtualization?


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

moorewarner said:


> And lastly, for you CBSCreative, you said you do a lot of site checking on various OS/browser combos. Are you using virtualization?


So far, no. I have different computers each with a variety of browsers. I've not yet become aware of any issues that didn't already show up on at least one of my tests. For the most part, I've noticed if I test in IE6 and 7 or 8, Firefox, and Opera, one of those usually has the same bug that would show up in another browser. I'm not quite prepared to say testing in each of those is foolproof, but it does seem to identify almost any potential problem area.

If I need to be more thorough, I have a site bookmarked that will test a page on as many virtualized platforms as any tech would desire. Most of the designs I do don't require that level of detail since they use "tried and true" programming that's already been tested, but when I need to stray to a path less traveled, then testing is essential.

I'll also point out that I'm referring to _technical testing_ just to be sure my post doesn't get misunderstood by anyone else reading it. "Usability testing" should be done on EVERY site, meaning have real human beings that know nothing about your business provide feedback. I know a very low percentage of sites get this, and the owners would probably be shocked at what they would learn if they did usability testing. That kind of strays from the topic here, but I still thought it was important to clarify what I was referring to.


----------



## Adam1 (May 17, 2010)

Wow thats probably the most common problem with any windows pc...lolz but jokes apart il state the obvious. 
1. might want to look at increasing the ram
2. free up the space on the hdd
3. increase your virtual memory
4. disable the non relevant background programs and the non relevant programs loaded on startup

I know there are a lot more....but these came to my in a new york minute


----------



## Adam1 (May 17, 2010)

@ cbccreative - usability testing is soo so underestimated i tell you. I mean if you have a website just pick up a random guy from the street and pay 5 bucks and ask him to critique your site. It's probably the best way to spend money to improve your site. also there are some great websites for usability testing . I have listed a few of the ones i know of 
http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/
http://www.crazyegg.com/
http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp


----------



## cbscreative (Dec 17, 2008)

Adam, it got us a little off topic, but so very true. I'm sure that post will be very helpful here.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

Well, I still haven't gotten around to part two, but I did come across this interesting application today.

I have been reading several articles on this site and they are quite good, very accessible.

This application is for Widows XP users, and adds the functionality that MS has attempted to add to Vista/Win7 (UAC, User Access Control). This functionality has existed in Linux for forever and is a big part of it's security.

The article does a fine job of explaining things so no need for me to wear out my finger. :laughing:

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/surun.html

The functionality that this tool is trying to provide is the essence of computer security and stability, *control the bits*. Computers *get slow* and fail because the bits have changed, keep the bits from changing and you keep your computer from getting slow and failing (at least software wise).

Additionally, this app is Open Source, ie. Free Software, ergo free to use. :thumbsup:


----------

