Work slower after updates?

[Bob I]

------------

can no agree with fact that boot loading time isn't important. My Dell
vostro 1520 laptop booted fast before upgrades, and I never even focused
on that, usually I turn my laptop a few times per day..
There was a vaste quantity of updates for .NET Framework software, can
this software cause slow down? Dont know what is necessity of this
software at all.

If it is that important how come you haven't installed an SSD?

 

[SC Tom]

Windows Defender is *not* an anti-virus program; it's an anti-spyware
program. Like most other anti-spyware programs, it plays just fine
with anti-virus programs in general.

One exception: Microsoft Security Essentials, AVG, Norton, and McAfee
(and perhaps some others) turns off Defender. That's good, not bad.
Not only is there potential conflict, but there's no reason to have
both; they all essentially have something very similar to Defender
built into them, and running both at once will hurt your performance
and create the risk of problems as they conflict with each other.

Yep, you're right. Getting my MS AV/AS programs inverted again. Must be this
old age thing

Zone Alarm is another to add to list of ones that turn it off (falls under
the "some others").

 

[Allen Drake]

Regular updates are provided for security.

They don't usually include changes in design intent.

And from that perspective, there is no reason to expect changes.

I'd be looking for some AV product that has started scanning
early on, as a source of slowdown.

The OS is known to do a lot of caching or pre-caching, optimizations
to speed up various things. Perhaps an update has affected some
aspect of that.

*******

A tool used in the past for analysing startup, was "bootvis".

That is no longer supported, and doesn't exist for Windows 7.

If used as a search term though, it might dig up other third
party versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootvis

http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/bootvis/ (pictures of results)

*******

Boot tracing is described here.
It uses the Windows Performance Toolkit.

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/140247-trace-windows-7-bootshutdownhibernatestandbyresume-issues/

xbootmgr -trace hibernate -traceFlags BASE+CSWITCH+DRIVERS+POWER -resultPath C:\TEMP

which apparently starts a hibernate operation, and traces everything
until the system is booted again.

I'm sure that will be hours of fun. Like a lot of other
Microsoft debugging tools.

So there are tools, but it'll mean work.

Paul

My new netbook is slower now then when I first got it. I have added
nothing and just let it sit there for over a month. By boot is
noticeably longer. I am thinking of removing all the updates and
starting over again and never allowing them to be installed and
compare that system to all the other systems I have. I think the
whole update system sucks. There is no "analyzing" your system to see
what you need and what you don't. Just what updates you don't have.
The time it takes to actually read about each one is time consuming to
no end. Security my butt. This is how each widows OS get bloated IMO.

 

[Paul]

My new netbook is slower now then when I first got it. I have added
nothing and just let it sit there for over a month. By boot is
noticeably longer. I am thinking of removing all the updates and
starting over again and never allowing them to be installed and
compare that system to all the other systems I have. I think the
whole update system sucks. There is no "analyzing" your system to see
what you need and what you don't. Just what updates you don't have.
The time it takes to actually read about each one is time consuming to
no end. Security my butt. This is how each widows OS get bloated IMO.

All parts of the core system will receive updates.

Anything which is a separate add-on (something that required actually
adding software to the computer), will be selectively updated. For
example, if you install .NET 4.0, then expect to start receiving
..NET 4.0 security updates. It wouldn't make sense to deliver those
to you, if .NET 4.0 wasn't on the machine.

The reason the core OS has to be updated, is you could start using
the most obscure feature of the core, at a moments notice. And then,
it could be until the end of the day, before the OS gets updates to
patch and protect that feature. It's better to just keep the store
that holds the core stuff, updated at all times.

If you do decide to "level and reload", keep careful notes. And
be objective about the results. The hard part of your experiment,
is determining when the OS has "finished booting", because modern
OSes have lots of asynchronism, and you could be confusing the
AV software scanning files, for the OS not being finished booting.
That's where a tool like Bootvis would help, with its nice graphs.
I'm surprised Microsoft didn't realize how much people liked those
graphs. I like the look of them. They could have dropped the optimization
portion, and just kept the part that measures boot time.

Paul

 

[Rob]

My new netbook is slower now then when I first got it. I have added
nothing and just let it sit there for over a month. By boot is
noticeably longer. I am thinking of removing all the updates and
starting over again and never allowing them to be installed and
compare that system to all the other systems I have. I think the
whole update system sucks. There is no "analyzing" your system to see
what you need and what you don't. Just what updates you don't have.
The time it takes to actually read about each one is time consuming to
no end. Security my butt. This is how each widows OS get bloated IMO.

Of course there is analysis before updates are downloaded.
Update scans your installation and only offers those updates
which apply to core and previously installed options.
Netbooks are pretty slow though, so the trick really is to
be careful of what you run on it, especially 3rd-party applications
and choice of anti-virus/malware. Avoiding any applications
which require .NET is a good start - there are always alternative
applications available which don't use that.
Remember netbooks are designed for web-browsing, email and
other messaging. As soon as you start asking them to run 'full'
applications, their inherent low processing power becomes all to
apparent.
You can make these things run pretty quickly if you don't try
and use them as general purpose PCs. If you do only use it for
browsing etc, try installing some flavour of linux, which works
great for simple stuff like this.

 

[Char Jackson]

My new netbook is slower now then when I first got it. I have added
nothing and just let it sit there for over a month. By boot is
noticeably longer.

Start by checking the list of programs and services that start
automatically during boot. Netbooks are seriously underpowered for all
but the most menial tasks, so it doesn't take much to slow things
down. If you were concerned about boot times and processing speed, you
wouldn't have purchased a netbook.

I am thinking of removing all the updates and
starting over again and never allowing them to be installed and
compare that system to all the other systems I have.

That's a really bad idea, but only if you intend to connect to the
Internet. If you do everyone else a favor and permanently disconnect
your netbook from the Internet, then your idea is fine. Otherwise it
just becomes a vector by which you (and the rest of us!) are put at
increased risk.

I think the
whole update system sucks. There is no "analyzing" your system to see
what you need and what you don't. Just what updates you don't have.

So yes, there is analyzing. The security updates that you don't have
are the ones that you need. What other analyzing were you expecting?

The time it takes to actually read about each one is time consuming to
no end. Security my butt. This is how each widows OS get bloated IMO.

Hopefully, if you go down this road you'll completely disconnect from
the Internet. Thanks in advance.

 

[Boscoe]

My new netbook is slower now then when I first got it. I have added
nothing and just let it sit there for over a month. By boot is
noticeably longer. I am thinking of removing all the updates and
starting over again and never allowing them to be installed and
compare that system to all the other systems I have. I think the
whole update system sucks. There is no "analyzing" your system to see
what you need and what you don't. Just what updates you don't have.
The time it takes to actually read about each one is time consuming to
no end. Security my butt. This is how each widows OS get bloated IMO.

Have you got the maximum amount of memory installed that your netbook
supports?

 

[charlie]

Windows Defender is *not* an anti-virus program; it's an anti-spyware
program. Like most other anti-spyware programs, it plays just fine
with anti-virus programs in general.

One exception: Microsoft Security Essentials, AVG, Norton, and McAfee
(and perhaps some others) turns off Defender. That's good, not bad.
Not only is there potential conflict, but there's no reason to have
both; they all essentially have something very similar to Defender
built into them, and running both at once will hurt your performance
and create the risk of problems as they conflict with each other.

For whatever it's worth, I did notice a major change after the last
batch of updates this week. Not sure why yet, but the windows
performance changed in the video numbers (gaming, Aero, 3d) down words
(7.5 to 6???) I'll have to go through the usual poke around to see if
there is any obvious cause. I didn't see any significant difference in
the Haven test frame rates. The only clue so far was the "hardware has
changed", etc. message after the updates and before I ran the win
performance tests. I did not get the chance to retest. (Yet!)

 

[Bob I]

For whatever it's worth, I did notice a major change after the last
batch of updates this week. Not sure why yet, but the windows
performance changed in the video numbers (gaming, Aero, 3d) down words
(7.5 to 6???) I'll have to go through the usual poke around to see if
there is any obvious cause. I didn't see any significant difference in
the Haven test frame rates. The only clue so far was the "hardware has
changed", etc. message after the updates and before I ran the win
performance tests. I did not get the chance to retest. (Yet!)

Perhaps you "updated" the video driver to a generic one? See if you can
"roll back" to the previous correct one.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Blake

My personal view is that the attention many people pay to how long it
takes to boot is unwarranted. Assuming that the computer's speed is
otherwise satisfactory, it is not generally worth worrying about. Most
people start their computers once a day or even less frequently. In
the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.

[]
Well, provided it isn't several minutes, I tend to agree with you.

However - and this is a serious question - how _do_ you convince someone
to not keep closing down when not using? I am in the process of
preparing a 7 laptop for an elderly and not very computerate person, to
replace her (800 MHz I think) XP system (even including having found the
version of Thunderbird that looks like Eudora, to minimise the change
for her!), and I have the feeling that she will shut it down whenever
she's not using it, which I want to discourage (if only to encourage her
to use it more!).

 

[Ken Blake]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Blake

My personal view is that the attention many people pay to how long it
takes to boot is unwarranted. Assuming that the computer's speed is
otherwise satisfactory, it is not generally worth worrying about. Most
people start their computers once a day or even less frequently. In
the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.

[]
Well, provided it isn't several minutes, I tend to agree with you.

However - and this is a serious question - how _do_ you convince someone
to not keep closing down when not using? I am in the process of
preparing a 7 laptop for an elderly and not very computerate person, to
replace her (800 MHz I think) XP system (even including having found the
version of Thunderbird that looks like Eudora, to minimise the change
for her!), and I have the feeling that she will shut it down whenever
she's not using it, which I want to discourage (if only to encourage her
to use it more!).

Except perhaps for your comment in parentheses, I don't think it
matters much at all. This question is asked periodically and usually
garners all sorts of fervent responses, on both sides of the question.
Some people never turn off their computers, claiming turning them off
can cause the hardware to fail sooner. Others turn them on and off
multiple times each day, to save electricity.

My view is that it doesn't matter very much either way, and you should
do what works best for you. Personally I power on once a day, when I
get up in the morning, and power off once a day, when I go to bed at
night.

 

[Char Jackson]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Blake

My personal view is that the attention many people pay to how long it
takes to boot is unwarranted. Assuming that the computer's speed is
otherwise satisfactory, it is not generally worth worrying about. Most
people start their computers once a day or even less frequently. In
the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.

[]
Well, provided it isn't several minutes, I tend to agree with you.

However - and this is a serious question - how _do_ you convince someone
to not keep closing down when not using? I am in the process of
preparing a 7 laptop for an elderly and not very computerate person, to
replace her (800 MHz I think) XP system (even including having found the
version of Thunderbird that looks like Eudora, to minimise the change
for her!), and I have the feeling that she will shut it down whenever
she's not using it, which I want to discourage (if only to encourage her
to use it more!).

I'm not sure if it would help, but you can change the default action
of the Shutdown button to Sleep instead of Shutdown. That might
encourage her a bit.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Blake

My personal view is that the attention many people pay to how long
it
takes to boot is unwarranted. Assuming that the computer's speed is
otherwise satisfactory, it is not generally worth worrying about.
Most
people start their computers once a day or even less frequently. In
the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in
the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting.
I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.

[]
Well, provided it isn't several minutes, I tend to agree with you.

However - and this is a serious question - how _do_ you convince
someone to not keep closing down when not using? I am in the process
of preparing a 7 laptop for an elderly and not very computerate
person, to replace her (800 MHz I think) XP system (even including
having found the version of Thunderbird that looks like Eudora, to
minimise the change for her!), and I have the feeling that she will
shut it down whenever she's not using it, which I want to discourage
(if only to encourage her to use it more!).

As a thought, make sure Windows is set to hibernate instead of power
down when the physical power button is pressed, when the start menu
power button is clicked, and when the lid is closed.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

However - and this is a serious question - how _do_ you convince
someone to not keep closing down when not using? I am in the process
of preparing a 7 laptop for an elderly and not very computerate []
minimise the change for her!), and I have the feeling that she will
shut it down whenever she's not using it, which I want to discourage
(if only to encourage her to use it more!).

As a thought, make sure Windows is set to hibernate instead of power
down when the physical power button is pressed, when the start menu
power button is clicked, and when the lid is closed.

Ah, I presume "the physical power button" is what Char meant by "the
shutdown button". That would indeed help.

I'm off now to find how to make that change: I presume it's in power
management under screensavers under desktop properties.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:56:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

However - and this is a serious question - how _do_ you convince someone
to not keep closing down when not using? I am in the process of []
she's not using it, which I want to discourage (if only to encourage her
to use it more!).

Except perhaps for your comment in parentheses, I don't think it
matters much at all. This question is asked periodically and usually
garners all sorts of fervent responses, on both sides of the question.
Some people never turn off their computers, claiming turning them off
can cause the hardware to fail sooner. Others turn them on and off
multiple times each day, to save electricity.

(Well, there's no right answer from the wear and tear point of view:
both leaving running, and turning on, stress components, though in
different ways.)

My view is that it doesn't matter very much either way, and you should
do what works best for you. Personally I power on once a day, when I
get up in the morning, and power off once a day, when I go to bed at
night.

Me too, more or less (well, I turn on when I get in of an evening, and
off when I go to work in the morning, but same anyway.) But I want to
encourage my friend to use the computer more for everyday life - if only
Google and Wikipedia - so the minor wait of the boot process is
undesirable.

 

[charlie]

Perhaps you "updated" the video driver to a generic one? See if you can
"roll back" to the previous correct one.

The Generic video driver from Nvidia is the latest and greatest. The
only confusion factor has to do with is Xfire actually active, since
Nvidia's diags can fool the user into thinking it is when it's not.
Video drivers were not a listed part of the MS updates this week for
this system. Some obscure settings can change, as a result of
applications setting them, and then not reverting them back.

 

[Allen Drake]

Have you got the maximum amount of memory installed that your netbook
supports?

I am sorry, for some reason I posted "netbook" when I meant notebook.
My bad. I do have a netbook and was thinking of my notebook but
Somehow I slipped on that one.

The notebook I am referring to is an ASUS G73S running an Intel Core
i7 with 8 Gigs of RAM at the moment.

It is like I posted, slower now and I do believe it to be the
Updates. If there is something running that shouldn't be it is not of
my doing as I have downloaded nothing and been to no web sites. I get
a notice that I can speed up the boot process and gain .26 seconds if
I choose. Overall I get 7.9 rating except for the HDD but nothing will
satisfy that but an SSD.

 

[Allen Drake]

Start by checking the list of programs and services that start
automatically during boot. Netbooks are seriously underpowered for all
but the most menial tasks, so it doesn't take much to slow things
down. If you were concerned about boot times and processing speed, you
wouldn't have purchased a netbook.

As I indicated in another post I gave wrong info. I am referring to my
ASUS Notebook.Actually my netbook boots fine with lightning speed. I
have not allowed automatic updates and it came with WinXP Home. I keep
it mounted in my car and use it with DeLorme software as a GPS. I have
a USB wireless device for traffic updates from Google. But that's
another story.

I have also noticed my newest system that I also have not activity
used yet is slowing down after the installations of massive updates.
Now I will be told that these updates have nothing to do with the boot
process but I am seeing this time and time again on new installations
of Win7. Hmmmmm..........

That's a really bad idea, but only if you intend to connect to the
Internet. If you do everyone else a favor and permanently disconnect
your netbook from the Internet, then your idea is fine. Otherwise it
just becomes a vector by which you (and the rest of us!) are put at
increased risk.

I have used many systems that have never allowed updates and yet to
see any problems. I wonder if anyone can point me to ONE example of
such a problem(regarding "Security issues"). I have had to install
some where apps will not work without one in particular. I have seen
apps advise you to install an update but IMO there are just to damn
many and I do not believe your system is properly "analyzed" to see
which ones you actually need. Just a blanket approach and install
everyone that is not present. Hence bloat ware.

So yes, there is analyzing. The security updates that you don't have
are the ones that you need. What other analyzing were you expecting?

Analyzing to see if there are applications that need windows updates.
What else were you thinking I was referring to. A search to see if you
have all updates in not in any way analyzing anything.

Hopefully, if you go down this road you'll completely disconnect from
the Internet. Thanks in advance.

Like I said show me where anyone can point to an example of a
security breach due to a failure to update.

 

[Bob I]

As I indicated in another post I gave wrong info. I am referring to my
ASUS Notebook.Actually my netbook boots fine with lightning speed. I
have not allowed automatic updates and it came with WinXP Home. I keep
it mounted in my car and use it with DeLorme software as a GPS. I have
a USB wireless device for traffic updates from Google. But that's
another story.

I have also noticed my newest system that I also have not activity
used yet is slowing down after the installations of massive updates.
Now I will be told that these updates have nothing to do with the boot
process but I am seeing this time and time again on new installations
of Win7. Hmmmmm..........

I have used many systems that have never allowed updates and yet to
see any problems. I wonder if anyone can point me to ONE example of
such a problem(regarding "Security issues"). I have had to install
some where apps will not work without one in particular. I have seen
apps advise you to install an update but IMO there are just to damn
many and I do not believe your system is properly "analyzed" to see
which ones you actually need. Just a blanket approach and install
everyone that is not present. Hence bloat ware.

Analyzing to see if there are applications that need windows updates.
What else were you thinking I was referring to. A search to see if you
have all updates in not in any way analyzing anything.


Like I said show me where anyone can point to an example of a
security breach due to a failure to update.

Pick one

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...gc.r_pw.&fp=af5f4f3fbb50940f&biw=1624&bih=774

 

[Allen Drake]

Pick one

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...gc.r_pw.&fp=af5f4f3fbb50940f&biw=1624&bih=774

Thanks for the links. There sure are some long reads. I was actually
looking for some personal posts by users rather then stories and
examples of how incomplete yet one more MS OS is after all the
attempts to get it right without using the public as beta testers. My
brother gave up a long timer ago and converted to Linux and I never
really understood why until now. He continually complained about the
update issues. I am still tempted to use a system without them and see
if I become an actual victim if I would ever find out. I enjoyed the
quick boots without them when I first installed WIN7. Not so now on
two systems that have never been used yet for much of anything. No
downloads or installs of SW. Nothing but an occasional Google for
something to read or some research.