In previous OS News articles, I described how mature computers
up to ten years oldcan be
refurbished and made useful. One
article identified and evaluated different approaches to
refurbishing. This article tells how to performance tune a mature
Windows computer to make it serviceable again. I hope it will interest
anyone who wants to tune Windows.
Why Tune?
I volunteer with a charity that accepts computer donations, refurbishes
them, and gets them to people who can’t afford new computers. A quarter
of
the donations we receive are perfectly good computers that are tossed
out simply because Windows needs a tune-up.
Windows performance deteriorates over time. Just like your car, Windows
needs to be
tuned up to
perform right. Unfortunately most people don’t know this. They consider
their computer to be more like their TV or microwave oven — no
maintenance needed. What a shame, when
so many computers could stay in service with a simple tune up.
This article gives you a quick overview of how tune up a
slowing Windows system.
Background
Before you can performance tune Windows, you have to ensure it’s free
of malware. Malware consumes computer resources to run
programs
you don’t want
to run. Last month’s article
described a step-by-step procedure by which you can easily remove
malware from most
computers, based on my free comprehensive guide How To Secure Windows and
Your Privacy. You need to remove all malware from
a computer before you can tune
it.
Since Windows XP was the dominant Windows offering from 2001 to
2007, we’ll focus on it.
The tips also apply to Vista and Windows 7, but
the
examples
are fromXP. The information is based on my illustrated
guideHow
to Tune Up Windows (which covers all Windows versions.)
I’ll assume that the copy of Windows you want to tune resides on an
“unknowncomputer” — a computer about which you can make no
assumptions.
If you’re tuning a “known” computer, your own machine, you may be able
to skip some of the steps.
Back up Windows prior to changing any working
system (even if it’s performing poorly). Use Windows’ System Restoreor
System Protection feature to make a backup or “restore point” for
Windows before you start: Start
-> All Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools -> System
Restore.
Approach
Google “Windows tuning” and you’ll find tons of good performance tips.
But
there’s a problem. Many web sites present random tips without
prioritizing them. Thefocus
here
is on high-payback techniques that do not require deep expertise. I’ll
stick to what’s easy and
what
works.
There are four goals in performance tuning. You want to:
- Reduce the processor load
- Reduce memory usage
- Reclaim disk space and optimize disk access
- Ensure optimal use of the network connection
How important each of these is depends on the system you’re tuning.
What’s Slowing Down Your
System?
Some Windows computers are slow due to a bottleneck,
a single resource that is in short supply. The bottleneck slows down
the entire system. Your system could have a processing
bottleneck,a memory bottleneck,
inadequate
free disk space or slow disk I/O, or a slow network connection.
Identify the reason a
system is slow — the bottleneck — and resolve it, and you’ve fixed
performance.
Or your system might be short on several resources. In
this case you don’t have a single bottleneck you can address to fix
performance. The tips I’ll discuss below might provide a solution. Or
maybe the computer just doesn’t have the resources you need to perform
the tasks you want. In this case you might need to upgrade all
resources by buying a new
system.
The key point is that slow systems
areslow because
of one or more specific causes. No
system is “just slow”
— there are always specific reason(s) a system is slow.
To identify which resource(s) are lacking for the tasks you’re
trying to perform, view system operation when performance is poor.
Windows includes several excellent tools for real-time performance
monitoring
and tuning. The
one tool available in all Windows versions descended from Windows NT is
the
Task
Manager. (The powerful Resource
Monitor was introduced in Vista and improved
for Windows 7, but it’s not bundled with XP.)
The Task Manager allows you to see, in real time,programs’
use of the CPU, memory, disk, and the network connection. To
access it, just
simultaneously press either Ctrl +
Shift + Escape or Ctrl
+ Alt + Delete.
The screenshot below shows the Task Manager. In XP it only has five
tabs, for Applications, Processes, Performance, Networking and Users. The Processes tab lets you view CPU and
memory use in real time. Click View
on the top menu bar and you can easily add I/O statistics to the
default display (as shown below). These are
useful because they show you which processes perform the most disk I/O.
XP Task Manager Processes Panel
To see real-time use of any resource sorted by usage, just click or
double-click
on the column heading for that resource in the display. For example, to
find which processes use
the most CPU, justclick on the CPU
column heading. To find which processes are using the most
memory,click on Mem Usage.
Processes that remain high on the
list over time as the Task Manager
auto-updates its display are your “resource hogs” for that resource.
You can correlate the resource hog processes to their
application programsby clicking on the Applications tab. The Applications tab only lists foreground applications, programs
that you have specifically launched.
With
this understanding you can which resource(s) are
causing
your poor performance. Then you can deducehow to rectify
the situation. If only one resource is short, address the bottleneck
and you’ve fixed the performance problem. If several resources are
strained, you might be able to address the problem by following the
tips below. Or you might need a more powerful system for the work
you’re trying to perform.
Typical Tuning Steps
In
the Task Manager you have a tool to analyze performance and identify
resource limitations. For typical consumer computers, what are the
most
commonareas you’ll need to tune?
You’ll
nearly always find unneeded programs you can prune from these areas:
- Start-up list
- Systray
- Services
- Schedulers
The Start-up List and Systray — Pruning the Start-up list
makes Windows boot faster. It keeps unnecessary programs out of memory
and off the processor list. This is important because these programs
remain memory-resident during your entire session whether or not you
use them.
This also eliminates unneeded Systray
programs that launch during
start-up. Check your Systray, down in the lower righthand corner of
your screen … do you recognize every icon there? Is
each for a program you need and use? If not, you want to eliminate
those that are
superfluous.
The reason the start-up list accumulates unneeded programs is that many
applications add processes to it when they are installed (usually
without
asking). Many also try later on,
too, through the technique of “deferred infiltration.” The
result is that consumer
computers quickly become cluttered with little-used start-up
processes. These remain memory-resident for the duration of the session
even if they are never used.
With “well behaved” applications, you can remove their unneeded
start-up list processes and systray icons merely by changing their
configuration options. Often you just double-click or right-click on
their Systray icon to access their options panel.
Many times you’ll have to remove unneeded processes from outside of
the application. Access Windows start-up list through the System
Configuration
Utility by Start -> Run -> msconfig.
Or use the a free “startup manager” program like WinPatrol, Startup Inspector, or StartUp.
I recommend WinPatrol because it allows you to review and manage all
four of the above areas from within a single tool. Also, WinPatrol
stops any new process from silently adding itself to your start-up
list. To keep good performance you
need to lock down your start-up list going forward! Nothing
should
get added without your active affirmation.
WinPatrol intercepts any attempt to add a new process to your start-up
list. It presents a message box
allowing you to indicate whether any new process should be added. If
you haven’t had this protection before you’ll be astonished at how
frequently programs frommajor vendors try to sneak their
wayinto your system. It’s “industry-standard practice,” as
they’ll tell you. It’s also why so consumer computers take so long to
boot.
Using
either the System Configuration Utility or one of the free start-up
manager tools, you’ll viewa list of all the start-up processes.
You can disable any you want to eliminate. If you don’t
know what a process is or what it does, just google it.
For example, say you notice a
startup item named jusched and
wonder if it’s something you should keep active. Google on jusched and you’ll quickly find out
what this process does and whether you need it. Or look at this web site for the
most comprehensive database of start-up processes around. Good
reference web
sites will warn you if any process is spyware or malware.
In the case of jusched, the
web search finds
that this is a legitimate program, the
Java Update Scheduler. Unfortunately, this program sits in memory all
the
time just to check once a month if there is a Java update. You can
disable this process and use the Windows built-in Task Scheduler
instead,
saving the overhead jusched
otherwise causes. This is a great example of a legitimate program that
wastes resources because its function can be
accomplished more efficiently by other means. Typical consumer Windows
systems are cluttered with such processes.
You may occassionally run into an ill-behaved process or malware that
you
can not
remove through the means I’ve described here. These require editing the
Windows Registry or using anti-malware tools. Read here
for how to edit Registry start-ups. Read last month’s article
in this series for a step-by-step procedure on how to eliminate
malware.
Services — Just like the start-up processes, many programs add
unnecessary Services (resident background programs) to Windows. And
Windows by default runs many Services you don’t need. The reason is
that Microsoft has no way to predict which of the Services you will
use. So the philosophy is: better to make it available at a small cost
in overhead than have the user not have access to the Service. Now is
the time to tailor what Windows offers to your own needs.
Use
WinPatrol to
turn off unnecessary Services
or go to the Windows’
Services panel: Start ->
Control
Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services. Set any
Services you don’t need to Manual
or Disabled.
You’ll notice each Service has a one sentence description. Sometimes
this will
tell you whether you need the Service, but in most cases it won’t.
Windows’ famous ease of use does not apply to Service descriptions.
Therefore, either visit excellent Service reference web sites like The Elder Geek and Black Viper,
or google Service names just like you did with the start-up
processes. I can’t providea complete list here because there are
hundreds of
Services. Adding to the complexity is the fact that the default
Services and their settings vary by Windows version — and even by
Service Pack! Your goal is to stop any Service you do not need
from
automatically starting every time you boot your computer.
Schedulers — Access the Windows Task Scheduler
through
WinPatrol or byStart ->
Control Panel -> Scheduled
Tasks.
Disable any scheduled programs you don’t need. Reschedule the
others
to the times that are optimal for you and your use of the computer.
It’s
not unusual to see all kinds of resource-intensive batch programs
launch atrandom times onuntuned consumer computers,
regardless of the
inconvenience this causes.
Many programs use their own built-in schedulers. Check these
product-specific schedulers to see
when they launch resource intensive programs.
Either reschedule the program for a time more convenient to you or
disable it if it is not needed. I’ve found it useful to consolidate
and control all scheduled programs through the Windows Task Scheduler,
rather than allowing scheduled jobs to be launched from many
product-specific
schedulers.
Nothing is worse than being in the middle of
delicatework when a background program unexpectedly auto-launches
and freezes
the system. We’re talking about mature systems in this article, so we
assume your system has
but a
single CPU. This issue isn’t nearly as onerous with state-of-the-art
multicore systems that better support heavy background processing and
intense
multitasking.
Graphics
Mature computershave much less memory for graphics than
state-of-the-art
machines. This is especially true for display monitors plugged into the
motherboard’s built-in graphics interface rather than to an add-in AGP
graphics card. Most motherboards offer the minimally
acceptable amount of graphics adapter memory for their era. For an
older computer, this means “not much GUI memory.”
For XP you can conserve resources and often enhance
performance by turning off Window’s visual
effects. To do
this,right-click on My Computer
-> Properties -> Advanced Tab -> Performance Settings button.
Then: Adjust for Best
Performance -> Apply -> OK
The same procedure allows you to revert back to full graphic effects if
desired. Just select Adjust for Best
Appearance in the final step.
Efficient Use of the Computer
Many performance tuning web sites don’t mention the biggest factor
affecting Windows performance — you.
Three of the biggestimpacts on how your computer performs are:
- How you use it
- The applications you run
- How much concurrency you demand
How
you use the computer has a huge performance impact onmature,
single-processor systems. Want to slow down your system? Open
lots of
windows. Open dozens of
browser tabs. Launch background processes while you
do interactive work. Let Windows’ Automatic Updates run when it wants,
rather than when it makes sense for you. Starta big background
utility like an anti-virus
scanner or disk cleanup program to guarantee your system bogs down.
Work on a performance-compatible mix of tasks and you’ll
find your old computer is much more responsive. When you the nature of
your work allows
it, take this
to its logical extreme — work on one task at a time.
Pick the most efficient applications
for the tasks you want to perform.
For example, say you have a little writing to do. You could
launch the
latest version of Word. But sometimes older versions are more
efficient in terms of start-up
time,memory usage,
and the size of the output “.doc” data files they create.
Older versions of
software sometimes performbetter than
newer versions. If the older version still contains all the features
you
want and performs better,
consider using it instead of the newer version. My favorite example of
this principle is Adobe’s PDF Reader. Older versions are so much more
resource-efficient on older machines that they load visibly faster, yet
for my use, all versions just perform the same basic function of
viewing PDF files.
To
continue the
writing example, you might seek analternative to Word that is
more efficient. AbiWord is one
possibility, or here
are more free options. More efficient
still
is to write the document with an HTML editor, like Kompozer. Or
consider a text editor like Wordpad. Quickest of all is Notepad. It
doesn’t have the features of a word processor, like Word or its
competitors. But if you’re just writing a shopping list or taking down
some quick
notes,do you really need a Word processor? Select the most
performant application
that still meets your needs for the task you want to perform.
Many users never consider that they could perform tasks more
efficiently by working more efficiently. Or by picking more efficient
programs. It all adds up, especially for mature computers. This chart
suggests someefficient replacements for popular resource-heavy
programs:
| Application: | Popular Resource Hog: | Alternatives: |
| Browser | Internet Explorer | K-Meleon is way faster than IE, especially on older computers. It’s the Windows efficiency champ. Opera is alsofaster than IE. |
| Word Processor | Word | Use AbiWord or alternatives to word processors such as HTML editors like Kompozer. Best of all use light text editors like Notepad, when possible. |
| Spreadsheet | Excel | Try Gnumeric or other free alternatives on this web page. |
| Outlook | Based on this forum thread and this one there are faster free alternatives. You might also try web mail systems like Gmail if you have a fast, consistent network connection. |
|
| Web site Generator | Dreamweaver, NetObjects Fusion | Use HTML editors likeKompozer or text editors like Notepad when possible. |
| PDF Viewer | Adobe Acrobat | Foxit reader orolder versions of Adobe Acrobat perform way better than newer Adobe releases. Find more viewers here. |
| Image Editor | Adobe Photoshop | I use Microsoft’s simple bundled Paint program to resize, crop, rotate, perform simple image edits, and convert file formats — all the functions many casual users require. |
I’ve
mentioned that Internet Explorer often runs slowly on mature computers.
One
reason is that it
becomes cluttered with all kinds of add-ons. As with their start-up
list, most users don’trealize that their copy of IE has been jam
packed with “helpful” add-in extensions.
Review IE’s
installed Browser Help Objects
(BHO’s), toolbars, and extensions
usingWinPatrol. The
program makes it easy to disable and eliminate whatever you don’t want
or won’t use. Going forward,
WinPatrol will give you lock down control over IE add-ins in the same
way it protects your start-up list.
WinPatrol — The Tabs let you
manage the start-up list, Services, scheduled tasks, and more.
The Active
Tasks panel shows what’s currently running (sometimes useful
for tuning).
Here I’m checking IE for unnecessary add-ins.
Reclaiming Disk Space
To clean up the disk(s) of an unknown computer,delete unused user
accounts and reclaim their space. You’ll also want to
delete user data files. If previous users followed Windows convention
most of these should be in their Documents
or My Documents
folders. Otherwise you can use Windows’ Search function to easily find
files of specific types. You’ll want to delete old Microsoft Office
files.
Especially important are space-consuming multimedia
files (music,
video, photographs, and images). Sort
multimedia
file Search results and you’ll
often find that
deleting the dozen biggest filesreclaims more space than
deleting the next hundred. Be sure to check for other large file
types
such as archives (*.zip), downloaded self-installing product files
(*.exe), and disc
images (*.iso).
Review and un-install any unneeded programs by Start -> Control Panel -> Add or
Remove Programs.
After you un-install any application
check its folders to verify that
the
underlying files were actually removed. Sometimes you’ll see
that an
un-install removes a program from Windows Registry but doesn’t delete
all its disk files.
Next, use the option on the Add or
Remove
Programs panel to remove unused Windows
components.
Besides deleting pre-existing Windows user accounts you’ll also want to
remove users’ profiles from common
applications. A good example is email. Deleting previous user email
accounts along with their stored emails can reclaim significant space
if the email is stored on
the computer (rather than a remote server).
Once you’ve deleted and reclaimed user disk
space,eliminate the many Windows files that are no longer needed.
Windows’ Disk Cleanup and the free program CCleaner together
delete tons of old Windows files. These filesinclude temporary
files, temporary internet files, histories,
cookies, flash cookies, recently typed URLs, autocomplete
form history,
search autocomplete, most recently used (MRU) lists, log files of all
kinds, and
Index.dat files.
Many people don’t realize that
Windowskeeps
a list of all the web sites they
have
ever visited. Depending
on whether Internet Explorer auto-complete is
enabled Windows stores this in either one or two places. Deleting these
lists reclaims significant space on mature computers and addresses
privacy concerns.
Another good Windows cleanup programisPurgeIE for Internet
Explorer users, or its equivalent for Firefox users, PurgeFox. Both are
free for 15 days of
full use and cost $19.95 thereafter.
CCleaner — The left panel
shows some of the Windows files it cleans up
After running programs like Disk Cleanup, CCleaner, and PurgeIE, most
mature XP computers still waste gigabytes of disk space on obsolete
Windows files. These reside in folders used for obsolete
AutomaticUpdates, Windows hot fixes, IE version
upgrades, Office and Outlook upgrades, and
especially Service Pack installs and Windows version upgrades.
Cleaning up these folders falls outside the scope of our goal to focus
on “… high-payback techniques that do not require deep
expertise…” Each folder has a different, complicated tale to
tell. If you’re really short on disk space and have the time and
expertise to pursue it, google
on the folder names you’re interested in (usually $hf_mig$,
$NtUninstall, ServicePackFiles, Installer, SoftwareDistribution, and the ie* folders). If any reader
knows of any easy-to-use tool that cleans all this up, accurately and
reliably for all Windows versions, please post a
comment.
Once you are quite sure your system is in a good stable state and that
you’ll never need them, delete older System Restore points. Start the
Windows Disk Cleanup program,
the select the More Options
tab and the Cleanup… button
under the System Restore
label.
The system will ask you if you want to delete all restore
points but the most recent one. Reply “yes” to delete all restore
points
except the most recent one. This simple action often
reclaims gigabytes of disk space.
After Reclaiming Disk Space
After
you’ve reclaimed all possible disk space, you’ll want to run
to finish up properly. First, empty the Recycle Bin. Windows does not
reclaim disk space for reuse until you do this.
Second, run a “secure deletion” program like Eraserto over-write all
unused parts of the disk. (Other options are the last free
version of BCWipe
or recent versions ofCCleaner.)
These programs obliterate any user
data you have deleted via Windows by over-writing it. Until you
do this, some
files might still be retrieved using tools that recover deleted
files, because a Windows Delete only removes the directory pointer to
the data file on
disk. It does not destroy data in the file until it re-uses that
space.
On an unknown computer, it is
critical to securely delete data from previous users because you don’t
know what those files are. They could contain illegally
downloaded
music, video, photographs, software,
or child pornography. You don’t want thaton the computer.
In
the United States, the courts generally consider any data on a computer
to be yours even
if you didn’t
know it was
there, based simply on yourpossession of the computer. U.S. law
enforcement uses full disk search programs that will find data
thathas
not been securely deleted.
Improving Disk Access Speed
Finish with the disks by runningtheWindows disk
defragmentation
utility. You can find it by right-clicking any disk drive in My Computer, then selecting Properties and the Tools
tab. Defragmenting a disk aids performance because it packs data
contiguously on the disk. Otherwise the disk is “honey-combed,”
intermixing data with free space, which slows data
access.
Save this step until last to ensure you only have to
“defrag” each disk once. (By default Windows 7 and Vista run Defrag
weekly. XP does not schedule Defrag by default.)
Does Your Computer Need More Memory?
This article describes software techniques to tune up Windows. Still,
there is one hardware improvement worth mentioning because it enhances
the performance of most mature computers — topping out the
memory.Used memory is
cheap and this is the single hardware upgrade
that almost always improves performance on older systems.
To determine if your XP system would benefit from more
memory, use the computer as you typically would. Then start the Task
Manager and select the Performance
tab:
XP Task Manager Performance Panel
On the bottom half of the panel you’ll see memory usage statistics. The
Commit Charge (K) column Totalamount shows how much
memory you’re using right now, while the Peak amount shows the most memory
you’ve used during the session. Compare both these numbers to the
number for Physical Memory (K) column Total. If the Commit Chargenumbers exceed
that for the Physical Memory
column Total, then the
computer would benefit from adding more physical memory.
To apply this to the above illustration, the system is presently using
389,548 bytes of memory. The maximum memory used during the session is
457,464 bytes. Both are under the amount of real memory on this system,
which is 522,544 bytes. So in this example the
computer has 512M bytes of real memory and appears not to need any
more, at leastbased on usage in the current session.
This analysis does not apply to Windows 7 and Vista. These
systems list the Paging
File size on the Performance
tab.
You need to add more memory if the paging
file approaches the maximum size listed. Systems perform best when some
memory is stillAvailable orFree. I recommend using the
Resource Monitor to determine when you need more memory. This
article describes a precise technique using RM to see how many page faults are
occuring, which indicates whether you need more memory.
USB Memory is Useful
Another quick hardware
upgrade that improves older computers — add a USB memory stick. With
capacities now intogigabytes, this is an easy way to expand
available storage space at little cost. Plus thumb drives are great for
backups and
are easily portable. They can substitute for a slow or broken CD
drive or act as an extra disk drive if you have little free disk
space.
Vista and Windows 7 even have a feature called ReadyBoost
that allows the OS to use USB memory as if it were internal
memory. XP does not support ReadyBoost.
What Not To Do When
Performance Tuning
In
their performance tuning zeal some web sites advocate turning off
various
Windows features. This conserves the computer resources these functions
would otherwise consume. Butconsider what
you’re losing when you turn off each feature.
For example, many sitesrecommend you disable System Restore or
User Account Control.Thiscertainly saves resources. But
these are vital features for most consumers. Iwould not turn
them off if I were tuning a computer for an end user.
Some web sites urge you to clean Windows’ Registry and
a small industry has sprung up selling Registry cleaners.
The trouble is that Registry cleaning requires judgment not easily
embodied in an algorithm. Fully automatic Registry
cleaning can mean inaccurate
changes — a major issue given the criticality of the Registry to
Windows. Cleaning
programs have devised two key strategies to address this:
- Automatic Registry backup prior to cleaning (with easy restore)
- Asking the user which proposed changes to apply to the Registry
I
wouldn’t recommend Registry cleaning unless you have strong
expertise and a good backup. As stated
at Gizmo’s Freeware, “…since the introduction of Windows XP registry
cleaning is no longer a crucial issue…” I favor the view
sometimes promoted at Microsoft that Registry
defragmentation may be worthwhile for advanced users but that
Registry cleaning
usually is not.
Why Does Windows Slow Down?
Sometimes end users will ask you why their computer slows down over
time. This is a huge question with lots of complexities. You could
discuss Windows’ system design goals, the trade-offs between those
goals, goal prioritization, programmer costs to implement versus
relative user savings, ways operating systems self-manage, power
struggles between Microsoft designers and
marketing directors, planned obsolescence, and whether it really makes
sense for
future astronauts to upgrade Voyager IV’s 4k memory module
to modern standards when we finally fly past Pluto. By this time the
person asking the question is probably really
grateful they didn’t major in Computer Science. Or maybe they quietly
slipped away to get a coffee.
Here’s the short answer most people need: protect your system from
becoming bogged down with malware and other legitimate — but
unnecessary — programs that try to insinuate themselves into your
system.
Then tune it up once a year. You don’t have to be an expert to keep
Windows humming. But you do
have to be cognizant that Windows can not protect itself from unneeded
programs, and that, like a car, it sometimes needs tuning.
I’m sure readers will have many additional good tuning tips, so please
add yours in a comment to this
article. Thank you.
Next Month
In a previous article
that identified and evaluated different approaches to refurbishing
mature computers, I suggested that one valuable technique is
torun more than a single operating system. This couples all
the advantages of the existing Windows install with the
benefits of free and open source software.Next month I’ll
describe and compare different ways to run multiple
operating systems on one computer.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Howard Fosdick (President, FCI) is an independent consultant who
specializes in
databases and operating systems. His hobby is refurbishing computers as
a form of social work and environmental contribution. Reach him at contactfci at the domain name of sbcglobal (period) net.
| Previous Articles in this Series: | |
| Smart Reuse with Open Source |
How to defeatplanned obsolescence through refurbishing |
| Scandal: Most “Recycled” Computers Are Not Recycled |
What really happens to many “recycled” computers? |
| How to Revitalize Mature Computers |
Overview of how to refurbish mature computers |
| How to Secure Windows |
How to secureWindows computers |
| Resources: | |
| How To Secure Windows and Your Privacy |
Free comprehensive e-book tells how to secure Windows (July 2008) |
| How to Tune Up Windows |
E-book tells how to performance tune Windows (March 2010) |
It’s not a good idea to install an old Acrobat reader because of the security risks, it’s one of the most used vector of attack on Windows. While Foxit Reader is nice, you should mention lightweight open-source alternatives like sumatra pdf which loads faster than Acrobat and Foxit.
It’s not a good idea to install an old Acrobat reader because of the security risks
Indeed, that’s what jumped out at my eyes too from the article. Acrobat Reader is well-known for all the holes it has and thus it’s obviously a very bad idea to use non-recent versions. A really bad suggestion from the author!
About Foxit.. while true, it’s fast and easy, I actually find the Windows version of Evince much faster. And it’s completely free, too.
I’ve seen people run into printing limitations with the light viewers.
They may be faster but they come with the risk of disappointing the user who will then revert to Adobe.
IMO, it’s not a good idea to “clean up” Windows either. It’ll always end up a half-assed job. It’s impossible to know 100% that you’ve got everything. Hint: You probably didn’t. Once a system is breached, you cannot trust it any more. Period. And yet, these articles keep encouraging it, and explaining how it can be done instead of going the safer route–reinstalling Windows. WTF?
Either find those original Windows discs, or break down and order a new set from the computer’s manufacturer. Don’t like it? Well, I guess that’s what you get when you use and depend on proprietary, commercial software. Or go the easy route and get one of the various free BSD or Linux-based operating systems out there.
Anything is better than attempting to “clean” an infected Windows machine.
Edited 2010-10-20 17:24 UTC
I got the impression that this was written for general maintenance rather than recovery. In terms of tuning and general maintenance, Windows can benefit from it as more users benefit from these types of articles.
Now, in terms of a security breach and malware; we’re not talking a system tuneup anymore. Mind you, there are still times when “as best I can tell” is the requirement for lack of option to nuke and pave. These types of articles help people get through that.
Except that, “unknown” PCs are specifically mentioned in the article. Which means, machines that were originally owned by someone else, but the new owner wants to “clean” it up for his/her own use. Who knows where that thing has been, and what kinds of nasty things it has contracted over time. Maybe porn, warez or drive-by download sites in IE6? And I wouldn’t want to know just how many such pieces of software it has.
If you know exactly where that computer has been, and that is not dangerous sites–ie, it has been in your possession since it was new and you can somewhat trust it, I have less of a problem with this article. The problem occurs when it tries to help someone “clean” instead of properly *nuke* some stranger’s PC, which for all you know, could be one of the top 100 botnet-infected computers in the country.
That’s the common theme with these articles though. They teach some useful things to readers who would like to do some general cleanup and maintenance, but they assume that such a cleanup is all it takes to get some random, used Windows system back in good working condition and secure again. That’s just dangerous, given the fact that it is obviously directed at less experienced users.
These less experienced users the articles are targeting are exactly the ones who will be at the most risk when doing something like this; hell, even experienced users can’t be 100% sure they’ve got everything, but it’s far more likely for a less experienced user to skip (accidentally or not) an important step or miss some bad stuff.
Thanks for the tip on Sumatra PDF. I hadn’t heard of it. I’ve switched over to it already.
to simply install Linux, in less than an hour you could have a fully functioning Ubuntu or Linux Mint system up and running. It would even transfer the files from the Windows My Documents folder, if you wanted, into the home directory of the Linux system.
All of that would take about 20 to 30 minutes depending on the speed of the computer, and another half hour to add the media codecs/Flash plugins for Firefox, and do some personalisation.
All the software needed would already be installed, and there’d be no need to worry about Anti Virus software or malware in general. And the system will never slow down like a windows system does.
Think of all the time and effort saved.
to simply install Linux, in less than an hour you could have a fully functioning Ubuntu or Linux Mint system up and running.
Blah, blah, blah. You’re missing the whole point: this is an article of how to tune up Windows for those _who want to keep Windows_. This is not about which OS is better. There’s plenty of reasons to continue to use Windows and Linux is not always a reasonable alternative and thus a guide that attempts to help tuning up an existing Windows installation is a useful one.
True enough.
For many people a Linux installation would be just fine and they could do everything they needed to do using it, but they simply don’t know about it. This is a great pity, but it should be recognised as the pratical fact.
Looking at the article itself though is a handy reminder of just how much trouble it is to try to maintain Windows.
FTA:
True … but why for heavens sake? That souldn’t happen … the machine hardware itself is the eaxct same performance over time, that doesn’t deteriorate.
Just one point I note on this: a few days ago I was doing a “maintenance cleanup” of a Windows machine that is used only rarely, and MSE said that it had to download a new virus definition, and install an updated version of itself. Fair enough, I thought … until the virus definition file started to download. Good grief … how huge was that file? I’ve had whole CDs download faster.
Apparently from some reports there are two million new pieces of Windows malware which have first appeared just in this year alone. Two million. Per year!
Then I’m thinking … Windows has to load that file when MSE starts, and it has to scan each executable on demand against the contents of the file … which is huge. I can’t see any way that an older machine with up-to-date virus definitions is going to have anywhere near acceptable performance. It is going to take at least a few minutes to boot, and every program is going to take ages to start. It will be frustration plus trying to use such a machine … even after any efforts to “tune” its performance.
Perhaps this is why Windows performance seems to deteriorate over time … it doesn’t really, it is just that Windows has a whole lot more background work to do now compared to what it used to have. In addition if the virus definitions are held in RAM, Windows probably has less available memory than it used to.
So … unles you really, truly, absolutely have software which is strictly and unequivocably “Windows only” … it might be worth consider switching an older machine over to Linux even if it means having to work around some compatibility issues. Really. It is worth a thought … it might be saner to do that than to throw out older but still-functional hardware that can no longer perform adequately with Windows.
Edited 2010-10-20 02:26 UTC
For many people a Linux installation would be just fine and they could do everything they needed to do using it, but they simply don’t know about it. This is a great pity, but it should be recognised as the pratical fact.
Atleast for me Linux just doesn’t cut it. I do have Linux installed on my desktop, I got a laptop with Linux, and I have a Linux server, but on my desktop I spend 99% of time in Windows. Why? Well, simply and bluntly put: Linux sucks for gaming.
Anyways, couldn’t we just keep Linux out of the discussion? It’d be nice even for once to have all the damn advocates out and instead focus on the topic at hand: how to tune up a Windows installation. It has nothing to do with Linux or any other OS.
True … but why for heavens sake? That souldn’t happen … the machine hardware itself is the eaxct same performance over time, that doesn’t deteriorate.
I don’t know if Vista suffers from performance deterioration, but XP sure does. However, I’ve now used Windows 7 for half a year and I haven’t noticed any kind of performance deterioration _at all_. It’s still as spiffy as it was before even though it’s in constant, daily use and I haven’t even tried to perform any kind of tune-up activities on it.
Fair enough. I personally don’t use a computer for gaming … in my household we have games consoles for that.
Kind of agree, but not totally. I’m thinking that for older hardware it is no longer possible to “tune” Windows performance back to anything like it was when the machine was new. It may not be possible to get acceptable performance out of it. If people want their machine for some kinds of uses (not gaming), but say email, web browsing, Internet banking, facebook social interaction websites, write the odd letter, perhaps a bit of financial calcualtions or a balance sheet on a spreadsheet, photo management and printing, burn the odd CD, listen to music, YouTube … all of that is perfectly within the capabilities of Linux on older hardware.
I’m thinking that it is no longer within the capabilities of Windows on older hardware.
Good for you … but even less relevant to the topic of re-tuning an older Windows machine, and trying to re-instate its performance for some tasks, than what I posted and which you had a shot at me about.
Edited 2010-10-20 02:56 UTC
Troll.
How so? I gain no profit whatsoever from any of my words here.
How exactly does it hurt anyone if someone who happens to own an older Windows machine, and has only the uses as I described for it, decides to save themselves a pile of ongoing maintenance work by wiping Windows and putting Linux on their machine? They can still do all of the tasks as described perfectly well, they re-gain the original speed that the machine used to have, they re-gain useable memory and save heaps of download bandwidth because they have no need for virus definitions any longer (or WGA updates), and they no longer have any worries about malware getting on their machine as they use the Internet.
They win, nobody loses, surely everyone is happy?
What exactly is wrong with you Windows zealots anyway? Grouches.
Edited 2010-10-20 04:45 UTC
I like your sentiment but the article topic really was “how do I tune a Windows machine”. Discussion of osX, Linux, BSD, VMX or Plan9 does not equate to “here’s something that can improve your Windows performance.”
Your not being called a Troll because you profit from pushing another OS but because your continuing to push another OS topic not relevant to the article or discussion.
Imagine a discussion on partition selection and sizes for Linux based workstations and someone keeps chiming in with “well, on my Windows it works like this…”
Meh.
The only reason why one would want to “clean up Windows” or euphamistically “tune Windows” was because one wanted to continue to use an older machine, but it had managed to get itself into a mess, as Windows machines in the hands of typical home users are very apt to do.
I appreciate the efforts of the author of the original article in trying to help people, as that is indeed an admirable aim, but the approach is essentially flawed. Maintaining old Windows is an ever-increasingly daunting task for the vast majority of the people who happen to be in the situation where they might want to do this.
However, for most people in that situation, for the way that they wnat to continue to use their old machine, (when their uses of the machine does not include games), there happens to be a much better approach for them than trying to continue with the difficult task of cleaning and trying to maintain Windows in a clean state thereafter.
So I am on topic. I am precisely on topic of “trying to keep an old machine running usefully”. I am on topic for “re-tuning an older machine”. The sane approach of installing Linux instead, the easy approach, and ultimately the very satisfying approach is a bit left field for most people’s thinking, but nevertheless for many people in this situation (as long as they don’t want to play games, basically) it is far, far better than trying to continue on with Windows.
I am on topic from that point of view. I am precisely on topic for the entire purpose of this discussion.
It is interesting however how many Windows people are so very, very keen to say “la, la, la, I can’t hear you” about this. They try quite insistently to suppress it being even mentioned, and are very ready to insult in any way they can think of people who mention it. Why is this so?
”
The only reason why one would want to “clean up Windows” or euphamistically “tune Windows” was because one wanted to continue to use an older machine, but it had managed to get itself into a mess, as Windows machines in the hands of typical home users are very apt to do.
”
That assumes a little much. I personally want to tune Windows because I still use it in spite of how overpowering the hardware it’s on is. I also tune it inside VMs for specific uses. At work, I tune it so the non-techy users can have maintained tools to work with. Actually, I have about two of over a hundred cases where tuning is done to try and stretch old hardware. Why do you assume the only reason one would tune windows is to maintain it on old hardware?
time&place. Don’t be the guy busting into the purely Linux centric topic yelling “psht.. just use Windows”.
The context of this discussion isn’t about a knowledgeable person such as yourself tuning Windows systems at work for your colleagues. Not at all.
The context is set by the opening paragraphs of the original author.
FTA:
My bold. This is what we are talking about.
The author states, directly, that people are throwing away perfectly good Windows systems because they have got into a mess and people don’t know how to cure that.
The author goes into a long description of a complex, technical process to re-tune Windows systems that have fallen into this state.
I’m sorry, but that just totally misses the point. The people whose systems are falling into this state clearly don’t have the ability to follow complex process such as that. If they had that level of capability, their systems wouldn’t have degraded in the first place. A “simple tune up” is not at all simple to most people, who are not Windows experts after all.
Furthermore, even if people get someone to clean their old messed-up Windows systems for them, clearly the systems are simply going to fall back to a messed-up state in fairly short order afterwards anyway if they go back to the original owners.
If anyone really wants to help these people (provided their uses of the computer are OK, not games for example), the solution is staring everyone in the face: wipe Windows and install a decent Linux distribution on the machines instead.
Caveat … the machines have to be used for a certain category of tasks as I said originally: “If people want their machine for some kinds of uses (not gaming), but say email, web browsing, Internet banking, facebook social interaction websites, write the odd letter, perhaps a bit of financial calcualtions or a balance sheet on a spreadsheet, photo management and printing, burn the odd CD, listen to music, YouTube … all of that is perfectly within the capabilities of Linux on older hardware.”
Now, given that constraint, installing Linux is a far better solution for machines used in that type of role, rather than an expensive and time-wasting cycle of cleaning and tuning Windows every so many months.
Clearly. Obviously. Unarguably. How can anyone say otherwise with a straight face?
What I don’t understand is this “la, la, la, I can’t hear you” attitude coming from Windows supporters, trying to suppress the obvious facts that installing Linux is a perfect solution in some cases … some cases that a lot of people would be in BTW.
What is it? Why do Windows fans feel this need to get all holier-than-thou and try to shout down anyone who points these types of facts out? Who the hell are you to try to deny people a solution to their woes with Windows on their older machines?
Edited 2010-10-21 14:09 UTC
Again; place/time. The question was about tuning Windows machines that are going back out the door with Windows on them. If the question included “what alternative OS could I replace this OS with instead” then fantastic; I’d be all over the suggestions of applicable distributions.
When the question is “I have a Windows box that is going back out the door as a Windows box; how can I tune it up?” answering “install Linux” is a rather prickish and unhelpful opinion that is probably more about hearing one’s own speech rather than imparting helpful information to the asked question. It’s the same as walking into a purely Linux related discussion with “easy fix; format, install Windows” when that doesn’t remotely relate to the question.
Sometimes, the discussion is not the right place/time for introducing an unrelated topic even if it does happen to be advantages Linux based distributions.
Ooooh lah de dah. Just how high is that horse of yours?
Who the hell are you to suggest that solutions should not be offered just because they did not fit people’s exact expectations?
These people are throwing out perfectly good serviceable older (sometimes not-so-old) Windows machines in the mistaken belief that Windows machines just get slower with age. They are clearly not that au-fait with Windows, and just think of their machines as “their PC”.
They don’t have the skills to fix their machines, and even if their Windows machines were cleaned up and tuned for them, in short order they would probably be borked once again.
These people don’t necessarily want or need Windows, they just want a machine that works and which will keep working so they don’t have to throw it out after only a few years.
Wiping Windows and replacing it with linux is very likely to be a perfect solution for people in this situation (as long as they are not gamers), and save them a good deal of money in the process, despite however much you are keen to preserve your oh-so-sensitive feelings about the proper content of this thread, Mr self-appointed-who-made-you-the-moderator-anyway.
This thread topic is the perfect time and place to point this out.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Edited 2010-10-21 22:02 UTC
Trolls get paid for trolling?
Sign me up!
I have had the same experience with 7, as well as Vista.
Even XP stays fast with just a little upfront maintenance required, as so much Windows software misbehaves.
With Windows, installing software is more than just running the associated exe/msi file. One is also required to disable all the bullshit that launches at startup after the install, as well as uncheck those damn yahoo toolbars that so much stuff wants to install along with their software.
Do these things, your computer will always be fast, that is, unless you install anything labeled “Apple”
Vista is not any different in this regard. How much of XP slowdown is caused by the registry is debatable but Vista and 7 have the same registry improvements, namely the virtual registry.
Though the registry is commonly blamed for XP slowdown there has been no evidence to support this theory. The registry in XP is designed in a way to allow fast indexing even if it is filled.
In most cases degraded performance is caused by third party junk and drive fragmentation. Replacing older drivers can also make a new install seem faster. I’ve had XP tell me that a driver was up to date when it actually wasn’t. I have also seen it replace an older driver with an improved system driver after a reinstall.
IMO, the PC sucks for gaming, period. DRM, ridiculous copy protection schemes, requirement of installing obscene amounts of data only to have to… put the fucking disc back in every time you want to play. Windows, Linux, or Mac, gaming on them just sucks. Video game consoles were better for as long as I remember. Though unfortunately, with the rise of downloadable games and content and the DRM cropping up on gaming systems, it’s getting worse there; it’s no longer as simple as “stick the cartridge or disc in any machine and it works”.
What’s funny is, as much as PC gaming sucks these days, just about all the stuff I care about runs fine on most any other OS. All those DOS classics will run in DOSBox pretty much no matter what the operating system is. The Build Engine (Duke 3D, Shadow Warrior, Blood, etc.) was ported to modern operating systems. The original Doom engine was ported long ago to modern systems. Doom 3 runs on Linux (better than in Windows, in fact… ironically) and Mac OS X, and if id Software stays true to their history, it will likely be open sourced in the next several years. That leaves Microsoft’s Flight Simulator the sole Windows-requiring game (shock, surprise!) that I even give a rat’s ass about. For the rest, there’s consoles.
Sure, this doesn’t say much, other than modern PC gaming these days and that many older games work no matter what the OS, and that for my gaming needs any OS works well.
Oh, one more thing, regarding Flight Simulator X. It takes up a whopping ~13GB space installed, and has this “Product Activation” garbage built in to require activating… otherwise, you’ve bought an expensive demo. Problem is… you can only activate the game up to two times on one PC, which it is tied to. Apparently Microsoft never imagined that their OS blows and would need occasional reinstalls, or that 13GB is a lot of space and maybe users might want to free that space up occasionally and reinstall the game later.
To make matters worse, I actually bought the Gold edition of the game which has the Acceleration pack. Sorry, I REFUSE to activate when I don’t know how long I’ll keep it on my machine and have only two times to activate. Downloaded a crack to allow playing without activating with Microsoft’s servers. Tried installing the Acceleration expansion pack, and it refused because “FSX needs to be activated.” So apparently I need to download a DVD ISO with a cracked installer to play a game I bought and own. What’s worse is I already bought and opened it before finding out about the activation shit… all bets are off for getting any money back and telling them to shove it up their ass.
Grr… PC gaming is bullshit these days.
[Tries to cool down…] Alright, I think I went off-topic enough, just had to vent (just thinking about the FSX situation fires me up.) I’m outta here.
Even better, if the old machine is just being used for compatibility reasons, just don’t connect it to the internet. I have a old Pentium 2 Windows 98 machine that is used on occasion for running dos software and its still running just fine even after 11 years. No internet = no virus or malware of any kind, and no anti-virus software to clog up the works.
These are both falsehoods, I have had Windows 2000, XP and NT4.0 installs that are still running perfectly fine …. after 8 or 9 years. Still run as fast as the day I did the initial install.
My Windows 7 install has been running since it was RTM, hasn’t slowed down yet.
How I achieve this? I watch very carefully what an installer does and check startup items using msconfig or similar to see if anything is starting up that doesn’t need to be.
If you clean up as you go along … you don’t run into any of these problems. Exactly the same would happen if you tried running a load of stuff in the background with any OS (seen the same thing happen with MacOSX and Linux).
Congratulations on maintaining a well-preforming Windows installation for such a long time. You have done well, haven’t you.
This is an achievement that is clearly beyond the abilities of vast majority of people. Even the apparently knowledgeable author of the original piece, Howard Fosdick, couldn’t manage that.
Oh, wait … that probably wasn’t what you wanted to imply, was it!
Oh dear oh dear.
Edited 2010-10-20 12:40 UTC
Congratulations on maintaining a well-preforming Windows installation for such a long time. You have done well, haven’t you.
This is an achievement that is clearly beyond the abilities of vast majority of people. Even the apparently knowledgeable author of the original piece, Howard Fosdick, couldn’t manage that.
Oh, wait … that probably wasn’t what you wanted to imply, was it!
Oh dear oh dear. [/q]
Well unlike you it seems, what I do when I do a windows cleanup, is tell the owner what caused it and how to avoid it. A small amount of user education can go a long way.
Guess what?? If they listen … the installation continues to work well.
Then I would have to spend the next several months trying to find viable alternatives for the 40+ apps I use on Windows (wonder if they have anything for editing patches on my Yamaha Motif XF synth?), on top of wasting a lot of time trying to make some of these apps run under Wine, once I realize that there are no Linux alternatives for them.
In short, no thanks. Setting up Windows properly takes about a day for me, but then that setup is good for at least the next year.
BTW: Nice article. I didn’t read the whole thing, but one thing I’m not sure is mentioned in the article is… never install anything on your Windows box that says Norton or Symantec on it. The same goes for Adobe, except for Flash (which is unfortunately necessary for a lot of web sites/apps). You could also do yourself good by avoiding iTunes/Quicktime if you can.
Edited 2010-10-20 01:57 UTC
That’s irrelevant since this article is about Windows.
I know this might be hard to believe for many Linux fans but there people who like Windows.
Think of all the time wasted learning a new desktop and new applications.
Firefox and OpenOffice behave almost exactly the same on Windows as they do on Linux. Menus behave the same way, as does copy and paste, as does the volume control, hyperlinks, tabs, scrollbars, manipulating (opening, closing, minimising, dragging, resizing) Windows, managing files … many tasks are performed in near-identical fashion. Different applications like Okular instead of Adobe reader, Amarok instead of WMP, or Kopete instead of Windows messenger, or Kwrite instead of Notepad, or digikam instead of Picasa, or Krita instead of Paint.NET, or K3b instead of Nero, are similar enough and familiar enough in context that they aren’t at all difficult.
Compared with the intimidating complexity and dire words of warning about what not to do, as described in the article that is the OP of this discussion, picking up the use of a Linux distribution desktop (especially a KDE desktop) is a piece of cake.
I know this for a fact because I have seen dozens of people do it.
Edited 2010-10-20 05:09 UTC
Trollish but insightful – what do I do?
Just a few thoughts – the problem with old PCs is the the quality of cases, power supplies and fans is so poor, combined with the need to buy new keyboard mouse and monitor it often hardly makes it worth while. Recently turned an old box into a pfsense (FreeBSD) headless firewall – that seemed to make sense.
Admittedly off topic the PCs in my house dual boot 95% of the time I use Linux 5% Windows when I need to do something in Access which I need and doesn’t work well in Wine.
My sons PC 50% of the time in Linux he uses Windows for gaming, there is nothing installed in Windows but an AV and games – he probably games too much – I think Rome Total War is quite educational am I deluding myself?
Edited 2010-10-20 04:50 UTC
Oh the other problem of setting up old PCs in Windows is the hours you are going to spend finding drivers – Avoiding those evil drivers sites that just want to install malware to the box.
Going to funny sites in Taiwan to find some driver for old hardware – not fun
My reaction exactly, Tracyanne, but some people believe Windows == Computing, just as some people believe the earth is flat.
In this case the continued use of Windows shouldn’t be the problem. The problem here is the offloading of the “polishing of the compact piece of excrement” to someone who still believes that it is a worthwhile effort.
It’s what I (try to) do with questions about “fixing” Windows. I let users do the boring tasks themselves if I can. Me sitting at their computers and doing the work, while they are watching TV, gives me too much frustration and them far too less pain and suffering over their computing choices.
Even if you can “tune” up Windows, to what avail? It still stays Windows with all its deficiencies as a platform. Most of all being a bare OS, dependent on additional software to reach a state of sufficient reliability and being a money drain.
If you don’t stay on the upgrade treadmill, you’ll end up with a machine stuck in a bygone software era, where new software and hardware can’t function.
But to each their own.
I always change this setting since I read somewhere that windows xp at least only uses 512kb max which means most of my 6MB would be unused, is this still true? Maybe it would be worth a mention since some older cpus could still easily have 1 or 2MB.
Pretty sure it is a million times easier and better just to reformat and reinstall. If these are donated computers this has the added benefit of not needing to backup data, and removing any personal data.
Also, suggesting Abiword and Gnumeric as more lightweight alternatives to Office it pretty laughable. The latest versions of MS Office are very fast, and much more capable than Abiword/Gnumeric. You might not like it but it is true.
Simply wipe, install, then install the decent free apps users probably want: Chrome, 7zip, Paint.net, VLC, etc.
Reformatting is the way to go. Just make sure you have all the needed drivers on hand first. As for MS Office, one problem with it is the size of the install. Older machines have relatively tiny hard drives. Windows/MS Office can nearly fill the drive leaving little room for other programs and the user’s files. The problem here is many people do not donate the OEM discs (either lost or never prvided by the OEM). I haven’t read the EULA recently so I don’t know if the license is transferable.
Abiword and Gnumeric are fantastic alternatives compared to Wordpad and Calc. They don’t compete against MSOffice at all. MS Works used to be more of the kind of application, but AFAIK MS Works is discontinued now. Too much competition from the likes of Abiword, Gnumeric, Inkscape etc, I would imagine.
If you are going to use those applications, you may as well install Linux instead of Windows. Either the exact aspplications, or close equivalents, are available on Linux for all of those.
With Linux it is faster to install the OS (no product keys, no hunts for drivers, no lengthy virus database downloads), it won’t get attacked by malware, applications can be searched and installed from the one package manager, it is faster, it boots much faster, it is more compatible with every other platform, it follows standards, it doesn’t phone home, it respects your privacy, there are no ads, there is no “genuine advantage”, there is no DRM, etc, etc, etc.
The benefits are plentiful, and if you are going to install and run “the decent free apps users probably want” anyway … then there is no downside … these are all native applications to Linux anyway.
Enjoy.
Install of Windows 7 took all of 15 minutes on Brother’s Athlon 1700+ which has 1.5gb of ram. Didn’t need to “hunt” for drivers, they were already installed.
On a newer machine, Windows Vista and 7 will connected to the internet and downloaded the 3rd party drivers I was missing, which is exactly the same thing I had to do in fedora to get my Nvidia Card working.
Installing Microsoft Security Essentials took me about 5 minutes to download and install, another few minutes to update the signatures (which happen in the background so you don’t even notice it).
Windows is fine security wise once you have have the Firewall active and the antivirus setup and a decent browser such as chrome. I accept that Internet Explorer has it problems and I don’t recommend it.
I am an OpenBSD user, and I like opensource software, but some of what you are saying simply isn’t true anymore.
DRM etc really isn’t very nice … but then again it never has really affected me while using Vista or 7.
Installing software is easy in Linux until you have to install something that is not in a repository that you already have … then you have to install and configure the repository and you have to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with your existing ones.
With Windows I google the app, download the installer and run it. Don’t have to worry about repositories.
Even with OpenBSD and FreeBSD you don’t have to worry about these things … just set up ports and your url of where packages are and the package manager sorts everything else out.
I find Linux an absolute pain to use, even compared to difficult unix like OS’s such as OpenBSD and Solaris.
Such misinformation and misdirection it makes me wonder what in heavens name is the point?
1. This thread is about restoring older machines to reasonable health and performance, it has nothing to do with Windows 7. Windows 7 doesn’t run at all on older machines.
2. Don’t try to tell me how long it takes to install Windows, anti-malware and a useful set of affordable not-too-resource-demanding desktop applications on an older machine … it takes ages. I have done it many times, and it is an exceedingly painful and long-winded process compared to a Linux install from a LiveCD on the same machine.
3. One most certainly does have to search for drivers for older machines because the original CDs on which the drivers came is almost never available.
4. Hunting for and downloading installation files from the Internet for is a very hit and miss affair, it takes ages, and it is a very risky business because it may contain trojans. Linux application repositories and package managers are a godsend in comparison, they are exceedingly easy to use with just point-and-click installation of a huge range of software (enormous compared to BSD), and they guarantee no malware.
I could go on, but what is the point? No doubt you will try on more bullsh.. in reply.
Edited 2010-10-20 12:48 UTC
Such misinformation and misdirection it makes me wonder what in heavens name is the point?
1. This thread is about restoring older machines to reasonable health and performance, it has nothing to do with Windows 7. Windows 7 doesn’t run at all on older machines.
2. Don’t try to tell me how long it takes to install Windows, anti-malware and a useful set of affordable not-too-resource-demanding desktop applications on an older machine … it takes ages. I have done it many times, and it is an exceedingly painful and long-winded process compared to a Linux install from a LiveCD on the same machine.
3. One most certainly does have to search for drivers for older machines because the original CDs on which the drivers came is almost never available.
4. Hunting for and downloading installation files from the Internet for is a very hit and miss affair, it takes ages, and it is a very risky business because it may contain trojans. Linux application repositories and package managers are a godsend in comparison, they are exceedingly easy to use with just point-and-click installation of a huge range of software (enormous compared to BSD), and they guarantee no malware.
I could go on, but what is the point? No doubt you will try on more bullsh.. in reply. [/q]
1.) So an athlon 1700+ which is from 7-8 years ago is not an old machine? Runs Windows Vista and now 7 fine. Only Sub 1Ghz machines can’t run Vista and 7, and even my ultraportable from 2006 with a 1.2ghz processor runs 7 fine absolutely fine.
2. Installing Microsoft Security Essentials took minutes on a 1.2 ghz laptop. Firefox took a few minutes. Office and other large apps do take a while, but so does Open Office.
3. I have done plenty of cleanups of installs for Windows on older machine, most of the new versions of Windows (this includes Windows Xp Service Pack 2, this is really the older version of windows you should be running on a machine) which has many drivers for most hardware common hardware components. Usually only the video driver needs installing and wireless drivers … most video cards in the last 10 years are either nvidia, ati or intel … all have easily identifiable download sites.
4. No it not a hit and miss affair … if you think it is difficult to download software without malware on you really shouldn’t be rebuilding machines. Don’t download from torrents, don’t download from dodgy looking sites.
Softpedia, CNET etc are now good sources because they scan the files they host for known trojans. Most sites that have files which have malware on will be screaming it is a dodgy website. If someone doesn’t know the difference they should have a locked down machine.
Again if you are not sure … you can scan the file with anti virus before you execute.
If you are talking about machines older than 2001, IMO they should be binned, especially considering how cheap and powerful modern laptops and desktops are.
Unlike you my friend I am not a Zealot … I use whatever works.
Edited 2010-10-20 15:49 UTC
If it was not under the control of a trusted user then it should be assumed to be compromised.
I don’t care if you use every scanner on the market, they still don’t eliminate the risk of passing on a trojan.
Could you imagine someone getting a computer from charity and then having their identity stolen as the result?
Format C and if there is no XP key then put Linux on it. Tell the user where they can take the computer if they ever want to have Windows installed.
First, I would not recommend using any third party tools to clean up windows or help you do the job. I often find those programs to cause just as many, if not more, problems as then they solve.
Second, The software substitution list is a joke. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE foss software and use it almost exclusively. However, if you have a Dreamweaver, MS office, Photoshop on a donated PC that you are not going to reformat, Leave them there unless there is a really good reason not to. If the new user doesn’t need/ will never need one of them, then by all means remove them. But, those are F*ing expensive a** programs who’s complete functionality cannot be readily replaced by FOSS as of yet. If the user really needs them, leave them. Dream weaver especially. There absolutely is not another program in the same category as it. Even older versions are very useful.
This is very true. Precisely spot on.
However, having noted that … it remains a very difficult task to “clean” a Windows machine if it has become compromised and clogged up. People in that situation, where they have expensive programs installed on a machine where the Windows OS has been messed up, unfortunately find themselves very much between a rock and a hard place.
In general though, even though it sucks, I agree with the recommendation above. If there is expensive software installed on a machine, even a nearly-borked machine, then do not reformat, leave it there unless there is a really good reason not to.
In this situation, an attempt to “clean and tune” the machine is worth the effort.
…a step-by-step procedure by which you can easily remove malware from most computers…
I’m no expert, but a while back I spent quite some time on a consulting assignment in the company of an IT department who really were serious experts. Their view, and they convinced me they were right, was that you cannot remove malware from an infected windows machine with an acceptable level of certainty. They did not even try.
Their reasoning was, how do you know you have succeeded? How do you prove a negative? They thought the risk reward ratio was so far against them that they simply reformatted and reinstalled from optical media. They were prepared to recover selected document files. but mostly all that survived was unformatted text however.
I concluded that if these guys could not do it, I certainly could not, and what I say to people now is, they have two choices if they want me to do it. One is Linux. The other is a new clean windows install.
Agreed. The amount of time spent is non trivial, and as you said the risk is that you will leave some malware around. I still do it every now and then for people who have lost their install cds for their os and apps. Its not for the faint of heart or those that charge by the hour. There are no guarantees that it will work, which is okay if you are charging them in non monetary amounts.
Windows performance deteriorates over time.
No, it doesn’t. You state it like it’s a fact. Unfortunately that doesn’t make it true.
Your issue is with the author of the original article, Howard Fosdick. Those words are quoted from the opening paragraph Howard wrote.
FTA:
My bold.
Mr Fosdick appears to have a great deal of experience in the matter. Take it up with him.
Edited 2010-10-21 09:00 UTC
You asked for a program that cleans up old windows files reliably. I always use Frackyes SystemCleanup:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~franckey/franckey/software/systemcleanup.htm
Find and remove temporary, cache, history and backup files on all your local and network drives. System Cleanup will protect recent used files. Drives and folders can be manually added to an exclude list to protect files and improve disc reading speed.
I find it reliable, it does not need to be installed (it is an standalone executable).
It’s sad that some people, when they read an article like this, feel compelled to promote their pet operating systems.
Why can’t they accept the article on its own terms?
I use Windows and Linux, and I don’t like Apple. But I don’t feel compelled to post “Use Windows! Use Windows! Use Windows!” every time I see an article on Apple. Just skip the article if it doesn’t interest you… because your off-topic comments don’t interest us.