|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Now I have to click my browser
several times to get it to go to websites and it takes longer to open programs, @ word, outloo. Also outlook doesnt send emails out |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
b1v3r,
1. How much RAM do you have in your PC? XP really needs at least 512MB of RAM to work efficiently, especially in Desktops. 2. Make sure that you check the PC or hardware manufacturers website for XP driver upgrades that you might need. Especially for printers, and other older hardware. Some are not compatible with XP. 3. Run some type of Adware/Spyware program, especially if you have yet to installed the XP SP2 update. Such as Ad-Aware or Spybot. 4. Upgrade to XP SP2, and update any MS Office programs that you have. You may need to reconfigure your browser and mail program's settings. You may want to check other software vendors, and see if they have any updates for their software, for XP. 5. If you have some type security suite such as Norton or McAffee, you will need to make sure that you get the XP upgrades for them, especially after you install XP SP2. Make sure that you read the instructions for configuring these programs. They can cause problems with browsers and email programs after the XP SP2 update, if not properly updated or configured. -- Add MS to your News Reader: news://msnews.microsoft.com Rich/rerat (RRR News) <message rule> <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>> "b1v3r" <b1v3r@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:26F0CFCB-FE34-4392-B279-7B447C6630CD@microsoft.com... Just upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Now I have to click my browser several times to get it to go to websites and it takes longer to open programs, @ word, outloo. Also outlook doesnt send emails out |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
RRR_News wrote:
> 1. How much RAM do you have in your PC? XP really needs at least > 512MB of RAM to work efficiently, especially in Desktops. This is somewhat overstated. It is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others need 512MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more--sometimes much more. -- Ken Blake Please reply to the newsgroup |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
I do have ad aware but that was installed after I upgreade to XP. I only have
256 MB ram. If I am going to need more ram, I think I will just get another computer. This one is about 5 years old.Thanx for the help. -- -- b1v3r "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: > RRR_News wrote: > > > 1. How much RAM do you have in your PC? XP really needs at least > > 512MB of RAM to work efficiently, especially in Desktops. > > > This is somewhat overstated. It is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You > get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using the > page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people running a > typical range of business applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB > works well, others need 512MB. Some people, particularly those doing things > like editing large photographic images, can see a performance boost by > adding even more--sometimes much more. > > > -- > Ken Blake > Please reply to the newsgroup > > > |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"b1v3r" <b1v3r@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:26F0CFCB-FE34-4392-B279-7B447C6630CD@microsoft.com > Just upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Now I have to click my > browser several times to get it to go to websites and it takes longer > to open programs, @ word, outloo. Also outlook doesnt send emails out If your hard drive is FAT32 it probably needs to be defragmented..A WinXP install leaves the drive quite fragmented. Make sure your anti-virus is not set to scan email. This provides no increased protection and can slow down or prevent receipt of and sending of email. Since you say you have Ad-Aware, update it and run it. -- Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE Please respond in Newsgroup only. Do not send email http://www.fjsmjs.com Protect your PC http://www.microsoft.com./athome/sec...t/default.aspx http://defendingyourmachine.blogspot.com/ |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
b1v3r wrote:
> I do have ad aware but that was installed after I upgreade to XP. I > only have 256 MB ram. If I am going to need more ram, I think I will > just get another computer. This one is about 5 years old.Thanx for > the help. -- Do not assume you need more RAM without checking. If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance. If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do nothing for you. Go to http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more. -- Ken Blake Please reply to the newsgroup >> RRR_News wrote: >> >>> 1. How much RAM do you have in your PC? XP really needs at least >>> 512MB of RAM to work efficiently, especially in Desktops. >> >> >> This is somewhat overstated. It is *not* a one-size-fits-all >> situation. You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have >> keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on what apps >> you run. Most people running a typical range of business >> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others >> need 512MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like >> editing large photographic images, can see a performance boost by >> adding even more--sometimes much more. >> >> >> -- >> Ken Blake >> Please reply to the newsgroup |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
>RRR_News wrote:
>> 1. How much RAM do you have in your PC? XP really needs at least >> 512MB of RAM to work efficiently, especially in Desktops. "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: >This is somewhat overstated. It is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You >get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using the >page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people running a >typical range of business applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB >works well, others need 512MB. Some people, particularly those doing things >like editing large photographic images, can see a performance boost by >adding even more--sometimes much more. I'd have to agree with Ken. Until recently I had an Dell old Pentium 2 laptop running at a mere 400 MHz. Only 128 MBs RAM.However with the RAM disk setting working well enough, and it ran just fine for what I needed (WiFi). It wasn't a blazer but it wasn't slow opening web pages or folders either. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Automatic Updates Windows 2000 Problem | Lude | Windows Update | 16 | 01-05-2006 05:06 PM |
| Network problem! | McClane | Windows XP Network Web | 1 | 01-05-2006 04:09 AM |
| Network problem! | McClane | Windows XP Network Web | 0 | 01-05-2006 04:09 AM |
| Re: Windows Explorer and Control Panel Freezing Problem | Gaga6 | Windows XP Help and Support | 0 | 01-05-2006 02:38 AM |
| Re: Data Execution Prog problem | Silvabod | Windows XP Help and Support | 0 | 01-05-2006 02:37 AM |