I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
don't need the nose bleed specs you need for w/11. I am happy running
7.

Paul pointed me to PC Mover when I migrated to 7 from XP and it was
about 90% effective. I did lose some stuff.

I am thinking if I can get a board and the appropriate driver disk I
might be able to just swap boards and load the new drivers, keeping my
world the same.

What gotchas am I going to run into?

No "Good Guy" I am not loading 11.

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

|
| I am thinking if I can get a board and the appropriate driver disk I
| might be able to just swap boards and load the new drivers, keeping my
| world the same.
| | What gotchas am I going to run into?
|

I've done that numerous times. I like to maintain disk image
backups with BootIt, having all my software and settings set up.
Then I use that as backup as well as the install for new systems.
First, of course, you'll need a pro or enterprise version. Beyond that,
I haven't found it a big deal. Just a bit tedious as Windows goes
batty with "Found new hardware" messages. You just need to
have the CD for the board, etc handy. If you want to, you
can also uninstall drivers just before your last shutdown, then disk
image that.

gfretwell@aol.com graced us with on 4/24/2022 12:05 PM:
> I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
> speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
> processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
> I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
> don't need the nose bleed specs you need for w/11. I am happy running
> 7.
>
> Paul pointed me to PC Mover when I migrated to 7 from XP and it was
> about 90% effective. I did lose some stuff.
>
> I am thinking if I can get a board and the appropriate driver disk I
> might be able to just swap boards and load the new drivers, keeping my
> world the same.
>
> What gotchas am I going to run into?

Biggest "gotcha" is whether new mobo has all needed Win7 driver support
as later mobo no longer do. Same goes for new graphics card driver
support, if upgraded. After that, it's mostly a tedious process.

gl

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

On 4/24/2022 6:22 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> gfretwell@aol.com graced us with on 4/24/2022 12:05 PM:
>> I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>> speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>> processors. (dual core 2.3 now). I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
>> don't need the nose bleed specs you need for w/11. I am happy running
>> 7.
>>
>> Paul pointed me to PC Mover when I migrated to 7 from XP and it was
>> about 90% effective. I did lose some stuff.
>>
>> I am thinking if I can get a board and the appropriate driver disk I
>> might be able to just swap boards and load the new drivers, keeping my
>> world the same.
>>
>> What gotchas am I going to run into?
>
> Biggest "gotcha" is whether new mobo has all needed Win7 driver support as later mobo no longer do. Same goes for new graphics card driver support, if upgraded. After that, it's mostly a tedious process.
>
> gl
>

Windows 7 doesn't have in-box USB3 drivers, and
then the USB3 ports can only work if you add the
drivers for it.

My previous PC, had Asmedia USB3 ports, and Asmedia coverage
starts at Windows 7. NEC USB3 ports started at WinXP.

Current PCs, mostly have USB3 ports on the Southbridge,
via FlexIO, and the processor companies aren't about to
provide Windows 7 USB3 drivers for you. Only an add-on card
would have drivers (buy Asmedia card, plug in, use).

And even moderately recent Intel boards are missing Win7 drivers.
They took a "drop dead" approach to Windows 7,

As an example, I could take my RTL8139 NIC card and install
that, and the OSes have in-box drivers for it. When I was trying
to get the Bitdefender Offline Scanner CD to work, it had no
driver for my GbE. But by inserting the old NIC, I could get
definition updates for a scan.

Bodging stuff in like that, only helps up to a point. And
if you're paddling upstream (you're bumping heads with Intel),
then there are bound to be tiny details at issue.

Take for example, the new processor with the P and E cores.
Windows 7 won't know what an E core is, and the scheduler will
schedule them equally. The E core will get as many slices as
the P core. If I go back two generations, maybe the fast power-state
changes, Windows 7 does not know about them. And because we're
paddling upstream, there's no particular reason for an
itemized list of "things to fix" to have been prepared for
you either. I can only guess at the issues.

I'm not saying it is "impossible" to run Windows 7. Just that
the parties involved did some things on purpose, and you have
to expect surprises. Like, right now, I can't even think of a
"good" platform for the purpose, one that I would say "if you
do a little research, this could be a good one". Skylake was
the last officially supported one. Things that aren't too much
different than Skylake could work. Would Windows 7 understand
a 5800X3D. Probably not. There was already an issue (with a
"supported" OS), where not all the cache was enabled. So even
when the team is paddling in your direction, the results still
aren't perfect.

Some of the lower-end Intel CPUs, don't have E cores. It's
only the more core-heavy ones that have P and E. The low
end ones might also be missing the current Turbo method, and
might be using the one-back Turbo method. Those Marketing men
with their Rolex watches, they are masters at this game. No
opportunity to screw a customer is missed.

Paul

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| Some of the lower-end Intel CPUs, don't have E cores. It's
| only the more core-heavy ones that have P and E. The low
| end ones might also be missing the current Turbo method, and
| might be using the one-back Turbo method. Those Marketing men
| with their Rolex watches, they are masters at this game. No
| opportunity to screw a customer is missed.
|

You never mentioned AMD. Do you only use Intel? I've
only used AMD for about 20 years now. I don't know if
they have better support. I do know that it can get complicated.
For example, I once had an MSI board and they refused to
support XP. But then it turned out that the drivers were really
coming from Via, and Via had only one driver pack for all Windows
versions. MSI just couldn't be bothered to be helful.

On 4/24/2022 10:10 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> | Some of the lower-end Intel CPUs, don't have E cores. It's
> | only the more core-heavy ones that have P and E. The low
> | end ones might also be missing the current Turbo method, and
> | might be using the one-back Turbo method. Those Marketing men
> | with their Rolex watches, they are masters at this game. No
> | opportunity to screw a customer is missed.
> |
>
> You never mentioned AMD. Do you only use Intel? I've
> only used AMD for about 20 years now. I don't know if
> they have better support. I do know that it can get complicated.
> For example, I once had an MSI board and they refused to
> support XP. But then it turned out that the drivers were really
> coming from Via, and Via had only one driver pack for all Windows
> versions. MSI just couldn't be bothered to be helful.

I have both sitting right next to me right now.
Two terminals on desktop, one Intel driven, one AMD driven.

The top computer is getting a bit old, but still not bad.
The bottom computer is new and uses an AMD CPU. It replaces
the Typing Machine, which passed away from multiple illnesses.

https://i.postimg.cc/W3QsHQ51/Pauls-Current-Computers.gif

AMD is a bit like a car, with poor fit on body panels.

It general runs good, but you can see gaps sometimes.

For example, when Memtest runs, one of the tests is
visibly slow and the "time clock" on the screen malfunctions
a bit. A lot of the code in that program is assembler.
I don't cut slack for this. Iron programs should run
at iron speed.

I couldn't run VMWare Workstation, without turning off Hyper-V
in Windows11 Features. VMWare Workstation put up a dialog saying
nested VM feature was missing. VirtualBox 6 (latest) is
currently broken, but this is just as likely to be a
"Microsoft screwing with kernel again" issue as anything
else. Except... VirtualBox has not rushed out any patch,
and seems entirely unaware anything is wrong.

So yeah, for the "new machine", I bought AMD. I like
the low power operation. But those panels don't always
meet, I see gaps, and there's always a "slight sense
of disquiet". Should I be happy for AMD, or angry
at them ? Dunno what I should be doing in this case.

If you're wondering why I don't promote them, it's
because I'm conflicted on the issue. If it was a
clear cut case of deceit, I'd fire both barrels
at them.

With Intel, you have to wonder whether they'll
honor the warranty, or will make some excuse if
you submit damaged goods. On the one hand, they
operate their CPUs at higher power levels than
might be good for them (turbo at 224 watts), on
the other hand, they treat some other user settings
as a "crime" and warranty denial material. The Intel
processors also *bend*, due to forces applied to the
socket, and warranty denial is promised if you use
washers to adjust the contact pressure and stop
bending the processor. What can I make of that ?
Is there a warm feeling ? 224 watts of warmth.

Paul

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:05:59 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>processors. (dual core 2.3 now).

>I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II

Unless you are short of RAM for the programs you run, more RAM
wouldn't increase your speed.

A faster processor? Maybe, but that depends on what programs you run.

A different motherboard? Unlikely to make a significant difference

You don't say what kind of drive you use, but unless you already have
one, my guess is that a faster drive-- SSD PCIe Gen4 X4 NVMe--might
make the biggest difference.

>don't need the nose bleed specs you need for w/11. I am happy running
>7.
>
>Paul pointed me to PC Mover when I migrated to 7 from XP and it was
>about 90% effective. I did lose some stuff.
>
>I am thinking if I can get a board and the appropriate driver disk I
>might be able to just swap boards and load the new drivers, keeping my
>world the same.
>
>What gotchas am I going to run into?
>
>No "Good Guy" I am not loading 11.

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in

|
| https://i.postimg.cc/W3QsHQ51/Pauls-Current-Computers.gif
|

I'm surprised the new CPUs don't seem to be faster.
I'm running an AMD FX-8300. 8 cores. 3600 MHz. Bus
speed 200. $65. Last time I looked it seemed the design
was more efficient and the prices were *way* up.

You have a 7 nm and a 22 nm. Mine is 32 nm. But
yours doesn't seem to translate to higher speeds. Why
aren't they more like 15 GHz?

| If you're wondering why I don't promote them, it's
| because I'm conflicted on the issue. If it was a
| clear cut case of deceit, I'd fire both barrels
| at them.

I can see that. I took a dislike to Intel because they were
exploiting a monopoly. If it hadn't been for AMD, CPUs
would cost in the thousands and we'd still be getting
incremental improvements every 6 months.

But I was also curious whether AMD hardware, in
general, gets better drivers than Intel, given that much
of it is on the motherboard these days. At least it is
for me. I don't game or listen to music, so I have
no need of expansion cards in general.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:02:26 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:05:59 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>>speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>>processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
>
>>I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
>
>Unless you are short of RAM for the programs you run, more RAM
>wouldn't increase your speed.
>
>A faster processor? Maybe, but that depends on what programs you run.
>
>A different motherboard? Unlikely to make a significant difference
>
>You don't say what kind of drive you use, but unless you already have
>one, my guess is that a faster drive-- SSD PCIe Gen4 X4 NVMe--might
>make the biggest difference.
>

I am running an SSD C: but I only have 3 gig memory., My Intel board
says it takes 8G and they list the sticks I need but I can't get them
to work.
I just got tired of screwing with it after a half dozen tries with
different "supported" RAM sticks. It hangs on boot with all of them. I
do have another processor here I haven't tried that is supposed to be
marginally faster.
I used to do a lot of hardware hacking, tracking down obscure drivers
etc but I guess I am just getting lazy these days. I was hoping I
could just throw a board or maybe a new machine at it without changing
my "experience".

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:22:34 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:02:26 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:05:59 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>>>speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>>>processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
>>
>>>I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
>>
>>Unless you are short of RAM for the programs you run, more RAM
>>wouldn't increase your speed.
>>
>>A faster processor? Maybe, but that depends on what programs you run.
>>
>>A different motherboard? Unlikely to make a significant difference
>>
>>You don't say what kind of drive you use, but unless you already have
>>one, my guess is that a faster drive-- SSD PCIe Gen4 X4 NVMe--might
>>make the biggest difference.
>>
>
>I am running an SSD C:

SSD's are better than HDs, but a Gen4 NVMe is much better than either.

> but I only have 3 gig memory.,

How much RAM you need depends on what programs you run, but 3GB is
insufficient for almost everyone. That's likely the first thing you
should improve.

> My Intel board
>says it takes 8G and they list the sticks I need but I can't get them
>to work.
>I just got tired of screwing with it after a half dozen tries with
>different "supported" RAM sticks. It hangs on boot with all of them. I
>do have another processor here I haven't tried that is supposed to be
>marginally faster.
>I used to do a lot of hardware hacking, tracking down obscure drivers
>etc but I guess I am just getting lazy these days. I was hoping I
>could just throw a board or maybe a new machine at it without changing
>my "experience".

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 15:01:02, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>How much RAM you need depends on what programs you run, but 3GB is
>insufficient for almost everyone. That's likely the first thing you
>should improve.
[]
Mostly, I'd agree, but it _can_ be enough. Have a look at the
Performance tab in Task Manager to see how much you _are_ using; if
"Free" is mostly above zero, then more won't help. (But I'd agree, it's
probably the first thing to upgrade - if you can [some laptops you
can't].) Likewise if your HD light is on most of the time.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The "H" in Jesus H Christ comes from "Harold be Thy name" in the Lord's Prayer
- "Lewis" on usenet, 2022-3-12.

On 4/25/2022 1:22 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:02:26 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:05:59 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>>> speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>>> processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
>>
>>> I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
>>
>> Unless you are short of RAM for the programs you run, more RAM
>> wouldn't increase your speed.
>>
>> A faster processor? Maybe, but that depends on what programs you run.
>>
>> A different motherboard? Unlikely to make a significant difference
>>
>> You don't say what kind of drive you use, but unless you already have
>> one, my guess is that a faster drive-- SSD PCIe Gen4 X4 NVMe--might
>> make the biggest difference.
>>
>
> I am running an SSD C: but I only have 3 gig memory., My Intel board
> says it takes 8G and they list the sticks I need but I can't get them
> to work.
> I just got tired of screwing with it after a half dozen tries with
> different "supported" RAM sticks. It hangs on boot with all of them. I
> do have another processor here I haven't tried that is supposed to be
> marginally faster.
> I used to do a lot of hardware hacking, tracking down obscure drivers
> etc but I guess I am just getting lazy these days. I was hoping I
> could just throw a board or maybe a new machine at it without changing
> my "experience".
>

When I got my new board, it wouldn't POST.

And my suspicion was immediately cast on "old BIOS
on board does not support Zen3".

Now, in the old days, this was a pain to fix.

When shopping for new retail boards, look for a
button on the IO plate for "BIOS flashing". There
is a standalone USB chip flashing scheme, which allows
updating a BIOS so a newer processor SKU can run. It
took me a number of tries, before it "kicked off"
properly, read the BIOS image from a FAT USB stick,
and upgraded the BIOS. After that the board would POST :-)

Which beats having to borrow a processor, just to flash up.

Both my systems here, an Intel and an AMD, have that
button on the back.

*******

On your existing board, what was your conclusion as to why
it didn't work ? What were the symptoms ? Would you get a
flashing underline, a beep pattern, anything useful ?

Maybe we discussed it at some time in the past -- if not,
the board Make and Model number would help, the CPU SKU
(for a check of ark.intel.com, like "E8400"). It's more likely
to be a Northbridge issue than a CPU issue. Or a problem with
BIOS design.

For example, one board with 8GB max, the BIOS would improperly
map the hardware addresses, if exactly 4GB was installed. Memory
would overlap with USB overcurrent registers, and the system
would have a toast in the tray saying "USB overcurrent!!!".
If you changed to some other amount of RAM, it all worked.

Paul

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:11:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/25/2022 1:22 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:02:26 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:05:59 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>>>> speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>>>> processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
>>>
>>>> I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
>>>
>>> Unless you are short of RAM for the programs you run, more RAM
>>> wouldn't increase your speed.
>>>
>>> A faster processor? Maybe, but that depends on what programs you run.
>>>
>>> A different motherboard? Unlikely to make a significant difference
>>>
>>> You don't say what kind of drive you use, but unless you already have
>>> one, my guess is that a faster drive-- SSD PCIe Gen4 X4 NVMe--might
>>> make the biggest difference.
>>>
>>
>> I am running an SSD C: but I only have 3 gig memory., My Intel board
>> says it takes 8G and they list the sticks I need but I can't get them
>> to work.
>> I just got tired of screwing with it after a half dozen tries with
>> different "supported" RAM sticks. It hangs on boot with all of them. I
>> do have another processor here I haven't tried that is supposed to be
>> marginally faster.
>> I used to do a lot of hardware hacking, tracking down obscure drivers
>> etc but I guess I am just getting lazy these days. I was hoping I
>> could just throw a board or maybe a new machine at it without changing
>> my "experience".
>>
>
>When I got my new board, it wouldn't POST.
>
>And my suspicion was immediately cast on "old BIOS
>on board does not support Zen3".
>
>Now, in the old days, this was a pain to fix.
>
>When shopping for new retail boards, look for a
>button on the IO plate for "BIOS flashing". There
>is a standalone USB chip flashing scheme, which allows
>updating a BIOS so a newer processor SKU can run. It
>took me a number of tries, before it "kicked off"
>properly, read the BIOS image from a FAT USB stick,
>and upgraded the BIOS. After that the board would POST :-)
>
>Which beats having to borrow a processor, just to flash up.
>
>Both my systems here, an Intel and an AMD, have that
>button on the back.
>
>*******
>
>On your existing board, what was your conclusion as to why
>it didn't work ? What were the symptoms ? Would you get a
>flashing underline, a beep pattern, anything useful ?
>
>Maybe we discussed it at some time in the past -- if not,
>the board Make and Model number would help, the CPU SKU
>(for a check of ark.intel.com, like "E8400"). It's more likely
>to be a Northbridge issue than a CPU issue. Or a problem with
>BIOS design.
>
>For example, one board with 8GB max, the BIOS would improperly
>map the hardware addresses, if exactly 4GB was installed. Memory
>would overlap with USB overcurrent registers, and the system
>would have a toast in the tray saying "USB overcurrent!!!".
>If you changed to some other amount of RAM, it all worked.
>
> Paul

I have a few different sets of RAM sticks that are on the list from
Intel. I can't get them to work.
It looks like it is going to boot. BIOS says it has the right amount
of RAM but it won't boot. It comes up eventually but 10-15 minutes
later and it is incredibly slow. It still reports the right amount of
memory. I have tried different combinations of sticks and it acts the
same. It has been a while but I seem to remember one stick at a time,
works. Two fail (any two) or all 4.
This is an Intel branded board DQ965GF with a Core2 6600 CPU at 2.4
gz.
The sticks are Crucial MY16HTF2566AY DDR 2 667MZ. (what it calls for)
The ones that work are 800mz DDR 2 two 1g and two .5g

The 2g chips do identify as 667.

I agree the CPU I bought is not likely to fix anything . That is why I
was thinking about just getting a new board

On 4/26/2022 2:51 AM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:11:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2022 1:22 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:02:26 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:05:59 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>>>>> speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>>>>> processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
>>>>
>>>>> I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are short of RAM for the programs you run, more RAM
>>>> wouldn't increase your speed.
>>>>
>>>> A faster processor? Maybe, but that depends on what programs you run.
>>>>
>>>> A different motherboard? Unlikely to make a significant difference
>>>>
>>>> You don't say what kind of drive you use, but unless you already have
>>>> one, my guess is that a faster drive-- SSD PCIe Gen4 X4 NVMe--might
>>>> make the biggest difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am running an SSD C: but I only have 3 gig memory., My Intel board
>>> says it takes 8G and they list the sticks I need but I can't get them
>>> to work.
>>> I just got tired of screwing with it after a half dozen tries with
>>> different "supported" RAM sticks. It hangs on boot with all of them. I
>>> do have another processor here I haven't tried that is supposed to be
>>> marginally faster.
>>> I used to do a lot of hardware hacking, tracking down obscure drivers
>>> etc but I guess I am just getting lazy these days. I was hoping I
>>> could just throw a board or maybe a new machine at it without changing
>>> my "experience".
>>>
>>
>> When I got my new board, it wouldn't POST.
>>
>> And my suspicion was immediately cast on "old BIOS
>> on board does not support Zen3".
>>
>> Now, in the old days, this was a pain to fix.
>>
>> When shopping for new retail boards, look for a
>> button on the IO plate for "BIOS flashing". There
>> is a standalone USB chip flashing scheme, which allows
>> updating a BIOS so a newer processor SKU can run. It
>> took me a number of tries, before it "kicked off"
>> properly, read the BIOS image from a FAT USB stick,
>> and upgraded the BIOS. After that the board would POST :-)
>>
>> Which beats having to borrow a processor, just to flash up.
>>
>> Both my systems here, an Intel and an AMD, have that
>> button on the back.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> On your existing board, what was your conclusion as to why
>> it didn't work ? What were the symptoms ? Would you get a
>> flashing underline, a beep pattern, anything useful ?
>>
>> Maybe we discussed it at some time in the past -- if not,
>> the board Make and Model number would help, the CPU SKU
>> (for a check of ark.intel.com, like "E8400"). It's more likely
>> to be a Northbridge issue than a CPU issue. Or a problem with
>> BIOS design.
>>
>> For example, one board with 8GB max, the BIOS would improperly
>> map the hardware addresses, if exactly 4GB was installed. Memory
>> would overlap with USB overcurrent registers, and the system
>> would have a toast in the tray saying "USB overcurrent!!!".
>> If you changed to some other amount of RAM, it all worked.
>>
>> Paul
>
> I have a few different sets of RAM sticks that are on the list from
> Intel. I can't get them to work.
> It looks like it is going to boot. BIOS says it has the right amount
> of RAM but it won't boot. It comes up eventually but 10-15 minutes
> later and it is incredibly slow. It still reports the right amount of
> memory. I have tried different combinations of sticks and it acts the
> same. It has been a while but I seem to remember one stick at a time,
> works. Two fail (any two) or all 4.
> This is an Intel branded board DQ965GF with a Core2 6600 CPU at 2.4
> gz.
> The sticks are Crucial MY16HTF2566AY DDR 2 667MZ. (what it calls for)
> The ones that work are 800mz DDR 2 two 1g and two .5g
>
> The 2g chips do identify as 667.
>
> I agree the CPU I bought is not likely to fix anything . That is why I
> was thinking about just getting a new board
>

https://download.xma.co.uk/Motherboards/DQ965GF/BIOS/CO96510J.86A.5953/CO_5953_ReleaseNotes.pdf

"Fixed issue where system would run slow with 4 GB of RAM and
certain PCI Express Graphics cards."

But it doesn't say whether that's with a 32 bit or 64 bit OS.

It's a Q chipset and lots of Release Note entries about Management Engine
and the like. Probably 4x2GB should work, and the address space is
at least 64GB, so a large PCI Express video should work. (Even though
I had trouble once, testing my 1080 in the X48 setup.)

It's Flex Memory, so you can run it with three sticks if
you want, like 3x2GB. Whatever the interaction, like bounce
buffers, it should remain slow with 4GB just as easily
as with 6GB. It's only if there is something "magic" about
4, that a change to 6 might fix it. I think I ran the X48
with 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB total, so tried all those values,
and nothing to report on a setup with similar mapping
capabilities.

*******

Intel 8th gen is Kaby Lake, and Wiki says Windows 8.1, Windows Update
is disabled, meaning 8th gen is where support is cut for the
newer processors. Win7 is probably the same.

Looking on Newegg, there seem to be plenty of entries to look at,
if going back in time. But you'd have a ton of work to do, to
find out which processors worked with which boards. (Chase down
CPU-Support on manufacturer site.)

The tables at the bottom of these pages, give a way to compare
things at the family level.

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i3/Intel-Core%20i3%20i3-10100.html

Core i7-10700K 8 / 16 3.8 GHz 5.1 GHz 16 MB 125W AVX, AVX2, HT, TXT, TBT, Unlock $374

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core%20i7%20i7-11700K.html

Core i7-11700K 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 5 GHz 16 MB 125W AVX512, TXT, Unlock

It looks like CPU-World has stopped updating, so for 12th gen I have
to do it manually. The Intel spec tries to add their cache totals
together, to make something to battle 5800X3D with :-) I just list the L3.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134594/intel-core-i712700k-processor-25m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html

Core i7-12700K 8/16/4e 3.6 GHz 5 GHz 16MBL3? 125W AVX512 is pinned off

I didn't select the top SKU in each gen, because it's probably not worth
the extra money. You get some 5GHz turbos in the above, and that's probably
good enough.

The Windows 7 support is going to be bad on those anyway, and
you're more likely to get better support on Windows 10.

Paul

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

| What gotchas am I going to run into?
|

I realize this isn't what you're asking for, but I wonder
about just cleaning. I'm running XP on 3 GB and have an
early Win7 box with 2 GB RAM. XP runs like the wind.
Win7 is fine, with no sign of lag and a fast boot. I use
it mostly to stream movies to the TV, but also use it
for web browsing and the like.

What I do with all my compouters is to strip down
the services, disable System Restore, disable indexing,
avoid AV programs, which offer liittle protection, anyway,
set browser cache limit small, maybe 20 MB. (Most
pages are generated instantly these days and web speeds
are very fast, so there's little value in having a cache.)
Also, make sure TEMP folders stay clear. I like to set a
swap file of a set size on a different partition, to avoid
congestion and fragmentation on C drive.

Download Procmon and Autoruns to make sure there's
no unnecessary bloat running. In general, 3 GB RAM should be
more than enough, but Microsoft and software makers are
increasingly assuming that they can afford to be lazy. I
repeatedly run into software that's using wrappers on top of
wrappers, like Python runtime running things like Qt. It's
gobs of extra libraries loading to make the code writing
more simple. The same is true of .Net. There is good software
out there, though. For example, Irfan View is only a couple of
MB (without the plugins). Why? Because there are no bloated
libraries. The author is writing clean Win32 code. There's still
good software like that.

In Win98 it used to be common for computers to gradually
slow down to molasses speed. Completely unusable. It turned
out the cause was IE's unlimited cache. People would end up
with close to 1 GB of useless browser cache, and with IE
tied into Explorer, it apparently forced Explorer to monitor that
cache when opening folders. Never underestimate the problems
that IE can cause. It's tied into Explorer as well as shell
extensions. But it's fine as long as you cut its cache and don't
use it as a browser.

I also like to run a VBScript once in awhile to check for oversize
files. I once discovered that way that my firewall never deletes
logs. I like the logs, but I have to remember to clean them out
once in awhile.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 08:46:33, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>
>| What gotchas am I going to run into?
>|
>
> I realize this isn't what you're asking for, but I wonder
>about just cleaning. I'm running XP on 3 GB and have an
>early Win7 box with 2 GB RAM. XP runs like the wind.
>Win7 is fine, with no sign of lag and a fast boot. I use
>it mostly to stream movies to the TV, but also use it
>for web browsing and the like.

(Which browser?) Do they have SSDs?
>
> What I do with all my compouters is to strip down
>the services,

I'd love to do that, but it has always seemed both a lot of work (in
finding what the individual services _do_: _simple_ explanations seem
hard to find), and knowing a few months down the line that the reason
something (perhaps rarely-used) is no longer working is because you
stopped a service it needs.

> disable System Restore,

I can see that that _sometimes_ uses up resources, but surely only when
you're installing something, or - if you've let it run daily or whatever
- at a known time.

> disable indexing,

I find "Everything" most useful (and impressive), but never - knowingly,
anyway - use any other indexing, including that built into Windows.
(Once in a blue moon I do a _content_ search using Agent Ransack, which
I _expect_ to be slow [it's actually usually a little faster than I
expect].) Does "Everything" rely on any of the built-in indexing? If
not, is it _easy_ to disable the built-in (and what won't work? If it's
only the search box at the top right of a File Explorer window, I never
use that anyway, and it's just an irritant if I click in it
accidentally)?

>avoid AV programs, which offer liittle protection, anyway,
>set browser cache limit small, maybe 20 MB. (Most
>pages are generated instantly these days and web speeds
>are very fast, so there's little value in having a cache.)
>Also, make sure TEMP folders stay clear. I like to set a
>swap file of a set size on a different partition, to avoid
>congestion and fragmentation on C drive.

I can't find a setting in Chrome for cache size. Googling, only yields
suggestions of adding a parameter to the shortcut that starts it; quite
apart from I have several, that seems a clunky way to do it - surely
there's a way from inside Chrome itself.
>
> Download Procmon and Autoruns to make sure there's
>no unnecessary bloat running.

But how does a normal bear of little brain know what _is_ unnecessary?

> In general, 3 GB RAM should be
>more than enough, but Microsoft and software makers are
>increasingly assuming that they can afford to be lazy. I

Very much so.

>repeatedly run into software that's using wrappers on top of
>wrappers, like Python runtime running things like Qt. It's
>gobs of extra libraries loading to make the code writing
>more simple. The same is true of .Net. There is good software

What bugs me, though, is that I often seem to find the system is busy
_when I'm not doing anything_. As far as I can tell, it's _often_
browser tabs I've left open but am not looking at - but not always;
besides, I have an add-on that suspends tabs after a period of
inactivity (I currently have it set to 1 hour), so I'm not _convinced_
those are always the source. I can't see that inefficient _code_ would
explain this; if I'm not _doing_ anything, surely inefficient code
shouldn't be.

>out there, though. For example, Irfan View is only a couple of
>MB (without the plugins). Why? Because there are no bloated
>libraries. The author is writing clean Win32 code. There's still
>good software like that.

Indeed. And doesn't charge (home users) for his efforts! (To the extent
that I bought it anyway, though quite a lot of years ago.)
[]
> I also like to run a VBScript once in awhile to check for oversize
>files. I once discovered that way that my firewall never deletes
>logs. I like the logs, but I have to remember to clean them out
>once in awhile.
>
Presumably such oversized files slow things down when the software that
uses them opens them to add to them, and only then? (How big would you
consider oversize?)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Worst programme ever made? I was in hospital once having a knee operation and I
watched a whole episode of "EastEnders". Ugh! I suppose it's true to life. But
so is diarrhoea - and I don't want to see that on television. - Patrick Moore,
in Radio Times 12-18 May 2007.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:15:56 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 15:01:02, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>[]
>>How much RAM you need depends on what programs you run, but 3GB is
>>insufficient for almost everyone. That's likely the first thing you
>>should improve.
>[]
>Mostly, I'd agree, but it _can_ be enough.

Can? Yes. That's why I said "almost everyone" and "likely."

But it's a rare person for whom it would be enough.

> Have a look at the
>Performance tab in Task Manager to see how much you _are_ using; if
>"Free" is mostly above zero, then more won't help. (But I'd agree, it's
>probably the first thing to upgrade - if you can [some laptops you
>can't].) Likewise if your HD light is on most of the time.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:54:18 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/26/2022 2:51 AM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:11:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2022 1:22 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:02:26 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:05:59 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have this machine set up the way I like it but I have a need for
>>>>>> speed and I am running out of options for more RAM and faster
>>>>>> processors. (dual core 2.3 now).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am thinking I can buy a faster board pretty cheap these days. II
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you are short of RAM for the programs you run, more RAM
>>>>> wouldn't increase your speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> A faster processor? Maybe, but that depends on what programs you run.
>>>>>
>>>>> A different motherboard? Unlikely to make a significant difference
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't say what kind of drive you use, but unless you already have
>>>>> one, my guess is that a faster drive-- SSD PCIe Gen4 X4 NVMe--might
>>>>> make the biggest difference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am running an SSD C: but I only have 3 gig memory., My Intel board
>>>> says it takes 8G and they list the sticks I need but I can't get them
>>>> to work.
>>>> I just got tired of screwing with it after a half dozen tries with
>>>> different "supported" RAM sticks. It hangs on boot with all of them. I
>>>> do have another processor here I haven't tried that is supposed to be
>>>> marginally faster.
>>>> I used to do a lot of hardware hacking, tracking down obscure drivers
>>>> etc but I guess I am just getting lazy these days. I was hoping I
>>>> could just throw a board or maybe a new machine at it without changing
>>>> my "experience".
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I got my new board, it wouldn't POST.
>>>
>>> And my suspicion was immediately cast on "old BIOS
>>> on board does not support Zen3".
>>>
>>> Now, in the old days, this was a pain to fix.
>>>
>>> When shopping for new retail boards, look for a
>>> button on the IO plate for "BIOS flashing". There
>>> is a standalone USB chip flashing scheme, which allows
>>> updating a BIOS so a newer processor SKU can run. It
>>> took me a number of tries, before it "kicked off"
>>> properly, read the BIOS image from a FAT USB stick,
>>> and upgraded the BIOS. After that the board would POST :-)
>>>
>>> Which beats having to borrow a processor, just to flash up.
>>>
>>> Both my systems here, an Intel and an AMD, have that
>>> button on the back.
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> On your existing board, what was your conclusion as to why
>>> it didn't work ? What were the symptoms ? Would you get a
>>> flashing underline, a beep pattern, anything useful ?
>>>
>>> Maybe we discussed it at some time in the past -- if not,
>>> the board Make and Model number would help, the CPU SKU
>>> (for a check of ark.intel.com, like "E8400"). It's more likely
>>> to be a Northbridge issue than a CPU issue. Or a problem with
>>> BIOS design.
>>>
>>> For example, one board with 8GB max, the BIOS would improperly
>>> map the hardware addresses, if exactly 4GB was installed. Memory
>>> would overlap with USB overcurrent registers, and the system
>>> would have a toast in the tray saying "USB overcurrent!!!".
>>> If you changed to some other amount of RAM, it all worked.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> I have a few different sets of RAM sticks that are on the list from
>> Intel. I can't get them to work.
>> It looks like it is going to boot. BIOS says it has the right amount
>> of RAM but it won't boot. It comes up eventually but 10-15 minutes
>> later and it is incredibly slow. It still reports the right amount of
>> memory. I have tried different combinations of sticks and it acts the
>> same. It has been a while but I seem to remember one stick at a time,
>> works. Two fail (any two) or all 4.
>> This is an Intel branded board DQ965GF with a Core2 6600 CPU at 2.4
>> gz.
>> The sticks are Crucial MY16HTF2566AY DDR 2 667MZ. (what it calls for)
>> The ones that work are 800mz DDR 2 two 1g and two .5g
>>
>> The 2g chips do identify as 667.
>>
>> I agree the CPU I bought is not likely to fix anything . That is why I
>> was thinking about just getting a new board
>>
>
>https://download.xma.co.uk/Motherboards/DQ965GF/BIOS/CO96510J.86A.5953/CO_5953_ReleaseNotes.pdf
>
> "Fixed issue where system would run slow with 4 GB of RAM and
> certain PCI Express Graphics cards."
>
>But it doesn't say whether that's with a 32 bit or 64 bit OS.
>
>It's a Q chipset and lots of Release Note entries about Management Engine
>and the like. Probably 4x2GB should work, and the address space is
>at least 64GB, so a large PCI Express video should work. (Even though
>I had trouble once, testing my 1080 in the X48 setup.)
>
>It's Flex Memory, so you can run it with three sticks if
>you want, like 3x2GB. Whatever the interaction, like bounce
>buffers, it should remain slow with 4GB just as easily
>as with 6GB. It's only if there is something "magic" about
>4, that a change to 6 might fix it. I think I ran the X48
>with 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB total, so tried all those values,
>and nothing to report on a setup with similar mapping
>capabilities.
>
>*******
>
I am still running the on board display adapter so that shouldn't be
an issue. I did try several combinations of configurations with no
joy. I am a little nervous screwing with it too much since all those
plastic clips are almost old enough to drink. I may end up with a used
board that does have W/7 support. I have a lot of old stuff on this
machine that I still use and rebuilding it would be tough. That is why
I just want to swap my C: into another board. I plan on cloning it
into another drive and testing the whole mess on the bench before I
actually swap boards. I might just get another machine. I do know a
guy who sells old off lease stuff. I just need to be sure I can get
all the drivers for that board.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:46:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>
>| What gotchas am I going to run into?
>|
>
> I realize this isn't what you're asking for, but I wonder
>about just cleaning. I'm running XP on 3 GB and have an
>early Win7 box with 2 GB RAM. XP runs like the wind.
>Win7 is fine, with no sign of lag and a fast boot. I use
>it mostly to stream movies to the TV, but also use it
>for web browsing and the like.
>
> What I do with all my compouters is to strip down
>the services, disable System Restore, disable indexing,
>avoid AV programs, which offer liittle protection, anyway,
>set browser cache limit small, maybe 20 MB. (Most
>pages are generated instantly these days and web speeds
>are very fast, so there's little value in having a cache.)
>Also, make sure TEMP folders stay clear. I like to set a
>swap file of a set size on a different partition, to avoid
>congestion and fragmentation on C drive.
>
> Download Procmon and Autoruns to make sure there's
>no unnecessary bloat running. In general, 3 GB RAM should be
>more than enough, but Microsoft and software makers are
>increasingly assuming that they can afford to be lazy. I
>repeatedly run into software that's using wrappers on top of
>wrappers, like Python runtime running things like Qt. It's
>gobs of extra libraries loading to make the code writing
>more simple. The same is true of .Net. There is good software
>out there, though. For example, Irfan View is only a couple of
>MB (without the plugins). Why? Because there are no bloated
>libraries. The author is writing clean Win32 code. There's still
>good software like that.
>
> In Win98 it used to be common for computers to gradually
>slow down to molasses speed. Completely unusable. It turned
>out the cause was IE's unlimited cache. People would end up
>with close to 1 GB of useless browser cache, and with IE
>tied into Explorer, it apparently forced Explorer to monitor that
>cache when opening folders. Never underestimate the problems
>that IE can cause. It's tied into Explorer as well as shell
>extensions. But it's fine as long as you cut its cache and don't
>use it as a browser.
>
> I also like to run a VBScript once in awhile to check for oversize
>files. I once discovered that way that my firewall never deletes
>logs. I like the logs, but I have to remember to clean them out
>once in awhile.
>

The biggest problem I seem to have is Facebook. That can drag this
thing face down in the mud. I don't use it a lot but it seems when I
do it just gets slower and slower until I just "X" out of it and start
over. It is like the script just keeps growing. Memory is running 95%
or higher. I assume it keeps a little back and just starts paging. One
thing with SSDs, you can't hear them thrash.

I have a couple of other W/7 machines that are incredibly slow too and
one is just running a DOS based MP3 player. I haven't really
investigated it since the music still plays but I know it isn't right.
That program will run on a 486 DX2.

On 4/26/2022 11:33 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:15:56 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 15:01:02, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> []
>>> How much RAM you need depends on what programs you run, but 3GB is
>>> insufficient for almost everyone. That's likely the first thing you
>>> should improve.
>> []
>> Mostly, I'd agree, but it _can_ be enough.
>
>
> Can? Yes. That's why I said "almost everyone" and "likely."
>
> But it's a rare person for whom it would be enough.
>
>
>> Have a look at the
>> Performance tab in Task Manager to see how much you _are_ using; if
>> "Free" is mostly above zero, then more won't help. (But I'd agree, it's
>> probably the first thing to upgrade - if you can [some laptops you
>> can't].) Likewise if your HD light is on most of the time.

Part of the problem on RAM, is browsers using more and more
RAM as time passes. The browser seems to be defenseless against
the Javascript coding it hosts.

Even Windows Update leaks memory a bit, like if you try and
do 150+ updates using a WSUSOffline stick. It does not entirely
"deflate" when a single update finishes. And before you know
it, the RAM is shooting over the 3GB mark. You have to reboot,
and do the rest of the updates in a second pass.

Paul

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

| The biggest problem I seem to have is Facebook. That can drag this
| thing face down in the mud.

Ah. I've never used that. Though you could try, if you
haven't already, NoScript and UBlock Origin. With the
former you can allow FB scripts by default and then block
all the extra stuff. Only allow what's really necessary. With
UBO, I haven't used it much, but it seems to generally
block ads and tracking.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| >Win7 is fine, with no sign of lag and a fast boot. I use
| >it mostly to stream movies to the TV, but also use it
| >for web browsing and the like.
| | (Which browser?) Do they have SSDs?

Both computers have SSDs. I use Firefox, New Moon (XP)
and Waterfox (7). The streaming is in Firefox on Win7 and
in Chromium on a Raspberry Pi 4. (We have 2 TVs. The RP4
is handy. About $100, the size of a deck of cards. It gives
me a Linux system, browser, etc with the TV serving as
monitor and using a USB keyboard/mouse.

| >
| > What I do with all my compouters is to strip down
| >the services,
| | I'd love to do that, but it has always seemed both a lot of work (in
| finding what the individual services _do_: _simple_ explanations seem
| hard to find), and knowing a few months down the line that the reason
| something (perhaps rarely-used) is no longer working is because you
| stopped a service it needs.
|

It does take some research. And many are not really
using much memory. But I also like to do it for security.
I had a hassle last week.... I was thinking of writing a
QR code reader program, just so I could check any that
I come across. It turned out to be more complex than
I'd thought. Then I found a library called zxing. But that
doesn't come in a vanilla DLL. It's using .Net 4, which I
didn't have on XP. So I installed it. That installed a service
to "maintain" .Net 4. That caused a much slower boot. So
I disabled that service. I don't even want .Net loading
except for the rare cases when I actually use it. I don't
even have any .Net software.

| > disable System Restore,
| | I can see that that _sometimes_ uses up resources, but surely only when
| you're installing something, or - if you've let it run daily or whatever
| - at a known time.
| It's also using a lot of space. I use disk imaging and data
backups. I don't need SR.

| > disable indexing,
| | I find "Everything" most useful (and impressive), but never - knowingly,
| anyway - use any other indexing, including that built into Windows.
| (Once in a blue moon I do a _content_ search using Agent Ransack, which
| I _expect_ to be slow [it's actually usually a little faster than I
| expect].) Does "Everything" rely on any of the built-in indexing? If
| not, is it _easy_ to disable the built-in (and what won't work? If it's
| only the search box at the top right of a File Explorer window, I never
| use that anyway, and it's just an irritant if I click in it
| accidentally)?

I don't know how Everything indexes. I've never used it.
I just disable indexing and use Agent Ransack. I know
where most things are, so I don't need to do a lot of
searching.

|
| >avoid AV programs, which offer liittle protection, anyway,
| >set browser cache limit small, maybe 20 MB. (Most
| >pages are generated instantly these days and web speeds
| >are very fast, so there's little value in having a cache.)
| >Also, make sure TEMP folders stay clear. I like to set a
| >swap file of a set size on a different partition, to avoid
| >congestion and fragmentation on C drive.
| | I can't find a setting in Chrome for cache size. Googling, only yields
| suggestions of adding a parameter to the shortcut that starts it; quite
| apart from I have several, that seems a clunky way to do it - surely
| there's a way from inside Chrome itself.

I don't know much about Chrome. I wouldn't touch it. I've
got Chromium on the RP4 only because it's required for
streaming. There's no Google Widevine DRM on ARM for
Firefox. One reason I don't use any of those things is because
there are almost no settings. There are some hidden ones
I came across at one point, but I think they're mostly hardware
settings.

| >
| > Download Procmon and Autoruns to make sure there's
| >no unnecessary bloat running.
| | But how does a normal bear of little brain know what _is_ unnecessary?
|

You just have to do the research, like the rest of us. :)
Almost nothing needs to start at boot. But lots of things like to.
That's become a trick with bloated crap like Libre Office, to make
it look like it's not so slow.

| > In general, 3 GB RAM should be
| >more than enough, but Microsoft and software makers are
| >increasingly assuming that they can afford to be lazy. I
| | Very much so.
| | >repeatedly run into software that's using wrappers on top of
| >wrappers, like Python runtime running things like Qt. It's
| >gobs of extra libraries loading to make the code writing
| >more simple. The same is true of .Net. There is good software
| | What bugs me, though, is that I often seem to find the system is busy
| _when I'm not doing anything_. As far as I can tell, it's _often_
| browser tabs I've left open but am not looking at - but not always;
| besides, I have an add-on that suspends tabs after a period of
| inactivity (I currently have it set to 1 hour), so I'm not _convinced_
| those are always the source. I can't see that inefficient _code_ would
| explain this; if I'm not _doing_ anything, surely inefficient code
| shouldn't be.
|

That's asking for trouble. I think there are settings to
stop loading in the background, and you can disable autorefresh
in Firefox, at least. I also disable prefetching. But I don't use tabs
and avoid leaving too many windows open. The way it works these
days, by default, is that people are running constantly updating
webpages in dozens of tabs. It's nuts. That's no longer visiting
sites online. It's really loading lots of online services and leaving
them running.

I block virtually all ads with HOSTS. I don't allow video in
webpages. I block script I don't need. Pages load pretty
much instantly for me.

| > I also like to run a VBScript once in awhile to check for oversize
| >files. I once discovered that way that my firewall never deletes
| >logs. I like the logs, but I have to remember to clean them out
| >once in awhile.
| >
| Presumably such oversized files slow things down when the software that
| uses them opens them to add to them, and only then? (How big would you
| consider oversize?)

:) I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't consider
my attic is clean just because no boxes are falling down the
stairs. Big, unnecessary files plug up the works. They
can leave you short on space. I like to keep it all clean.
And it's also not always obvious that things are problems.
The IE cache problem is a good example. With the firewall,
I don't know whether a big log slows down logging, but
why not just keep it clean?

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 16:51:47, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>| >
>| > What I do with all my compouters is to strip down
>| >the services,
>|
>| I'd love to do that, but it has always seemed both a lot of work (in
>| finding what the individual services _do_: _simple_ explanations seem
>| hard to find), and knowing a few months down the line that the reason
>| something (perhaps rarely-used) is no longer working is because you
>| stopped a service it needs.
>|
>
> It does take some research. And many are not really
>using much memory. But I also like to do it for security.

Like you, I'd just like to stop the unnecessary ones, on principle! Just
a lot of work.
[]
>| > disable System Restore,
[]
> It's also using a lot of space. I use disk imaging and data
>backups. I don't need SR.

I'll admit I cant remember when I last used it for myself. It has worked
for some other people I've helped though, when time was limited.
[]
>| > Download Procmon and Autoruns to make sure there's
>| >no unnecessary bloat running.
>|
>| But how does a normal bear of little brain know what _is_ unnecessary?
>|
>
> You just have to do the research, like the rest of us. :)

(-:

>Almost nothing needs to start at boot. But lots of things like to.
>That's become a trick with bloated crap like Libre Office, to make
>it look like it's not so slow.

I just leave the machine running all the time, so am not _too_ bothered
about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)
>
>| > In general, 3 GB RAM should be
>| >more than enough, but Microsoft and software makers are
>| >increasingly assuming that they can afford to be lazy. I
>|
>| Very much so.
>|
>| >repeatedly run into software that's using wrappers on top of
>| >wrappers, like Python runtime running things like Qt. It's
>| >gobs of extra libraries loading to make the code writing
>| >more simple. The same is true of .Net. There is good software

All of those, though, shouldn't tie up the processor(/RAM/HD) when I'm
not actually _doing_ anything.
[]
> That's asking for trouble. I think there are settings to
>stop loading in the background, and you can disable autorefresh
>in Firefox, at least. I also disable prefetching. But I don't use tabs
>and avoid leaving too many windows open. The way it works these
>days, by default, is that people are running constantly updating
>webpages in dozens of tabs. It's nuts. That's no longer visiting

I fear that's the problem. I might try reducing the timeout add-on to
say five minutes or less to see if it helps.

>sites online. It's really loading lots of online services and leaving
>them running.
>
> I block virtually all ads with HOSTS. I don't allow video in

So do I. (I really must get round to installing that thing you told me
about that allows wildcards in HOSTS.) But I see very few ad.s - apart
from YouTube ones, which I don't think HOSTS will stop. (And I tolerate
those as they presumably pay for YouTube.)

>webpages. I block script I don't need. Pages load pretty
>much instantly for me.

Unfortunately, a lot of the pages I want need script.
[]
> :) I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't consider
>my attic is clean just because no boxes are falling down the
>stairs. Big, unnecessary files plug up the works. They
>can leave you short on space. I like to keep it all clean.
>And it's also not always obvious that things are problems.
>The IE cache problem is a good example. With the firewall,
>I don't know whether a big log slows down logging, but
>why not just keep it clean?
>
Same as me using RED (remove empty directories).
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning
to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic
Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:23:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>Almost nothing needs to start at boot.

Right. I have things *I* want to have running autostart.

> But lots of things like to.

>>That's become a trick with bloated crap like Libre Office, to make
>>it look like it's not so slow.
>
>I just leave the machine running all the time

So do I. But even those who don't typically boot only once or twice a
day. Boot time should hardly matter to anyone, whether it's 30 seconds
or five minutes.

Back when I used to power off at night and boot in the morning, when I
got up I powered on, then went to get my coffee. When I came back it
was done booting. I didn't know how long it took and I didn't care.

> so am not _too_ bothered
>about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)

I don't care about that either. Back when I powered off at night, I
clicked Shut Down, and went to bed. Again, I didn't know how long it
took and I didn't care.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:43:37 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/26/2022 11:33 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:15:56 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 15:01:02, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> []
>>>> How much RAM you need depends on what programs you run, but 3GB is
>>>> insufficient for almost everyone. That's likely the first thing you
>>>> should improve.
>>> []
>>> Mostly, I'd agree, but it _can_ be enough.
>>
>>
>> Can? Yes. That's why I said "almost everyone" and "likely."
>>
>> But it's a rare person for whom it would be enough.
>>
>>
>>> Have a look at the
>>> Performance tab in Task Manager to see how much you _are_ using; if
>>> "Free" is mostly above zero, then more won't help. (But I'd agree, it's
>>> probably the first thing to upgrade - if you can [some laptops you
>>> can't].) Likewise if your HD light is on most of the time.
>
>Part of the problem on RAM, is browsers using more and more
>RAM as time passes. The browser seems to be defenseless against
>the Javascript coding it hosts.
>
>Even Windows Update leaks memory a bit, like if you try and
>do 150+ updates using a WSUSOffline stick. It does not entirely
>"deflate" when a single update finishes. And before you know
>it, the RAM is shooting over the 3GB mark. You have to reboot,
>and do the rest of the updates in a second pass.
>
> Paul

That actually sounds like what happens with Facebook. It may be
Firefox or it might be Norton. When I look at processes it is hard to
tell.