supposed to be multitasking...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Windows is supposed to be multitasking, right? Pre-emptive multitasking.

So why does it often freeze up - totally unresponsive to mouse clicks or key
presses - for several seconds when certain web pages are loading, or when
some other programs run?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Multitasking doesn't mean that a single thread still can't lock the system.

Matt Gibson - GSEC

"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com> wrote in message
news:elb52bKsFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Windows is supposed to be multitasking, right? Pre-emptive multitasking.
>
> So why does it often freeze up - totally unresponsive to mouse clicks or
> key presses - for several seconds when certain web pages are loading, or
> when some other programs run?
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

It *should* mean that, shouldn't it? It's *pre-emptive* multitasking after
all.

Maybe this is OT, but is Linux like that too?



"Matt Gibson" <mattg@blueedgetech.ca> wrote in message
news:upXjf2KsFHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Multitasking doesn't mean that a single thread still can't lock the
> system.
>
> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>
> "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com> wrote in message
> news:elb52bKsFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Windows is supposed to be multitasking, right? Pre-emptive multitasking.
>>
>> So why does it often freeze up - totally unresponsive to mouse clicks or
>> key presses - for several seconds when certain web pages are loading, or
>> when some other programs run?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

From: "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com>

| Windows is supposed to be multitasking, right? Pre-emptive multitasking.
|
| So why does it often freeze up - totally unresponsive to mouse clicks or key
| presses - for several seconds when certain web pages are loading, or when
| some other programs run?
|

Could be lots of reasons such as malware using up all the resources, insufficient RAM, too
many open windows, etc.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Jim]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com> wrote in message
news:%23oLpg7KsFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> It *should* mean that, shouldn't it? It's *pre-emptive* multitasking after
> all.
>
> Maybe this is OT, but is Linux like that too?
Most operating systems use what is called round robin scheduling with
pre-emptive override. Round robin means that the system slices the time
into segments and schedules programs into those segments on a regular basis.
However, from time to time, programs need access to the hardware regardless
of whether their time to use the computer has come or not. This use is
called "pre-emptive". A rogue process can hang the system whether it
features "pre-emptive" multitasking or not. It would be very unusual for
Linux not to have "pre-emptive" multitasking as this feature has been in use
for almost 30 years now.
I can't say how easy it would be for Linux to exhibit this type of hang.
It would seem, however, to be more productive for you to determine why your
system is hanging, because most don't.
By the way, slow loading of web pages is sometime caused by server problems
(over which you have no control), by slow connections to the internet, or by
large downloads. I had most of the problems when I was used a 56K modem.
It is a very different story with DSL, but servers sometimes do get too
busy.
Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that there were reasons to allow a single
thread to hog the processor if it wants to. Doesn't sound like a good idea
to me, but I'm not an operating system engineer.

Yes, I do seem to have a lot of hangs. It never lasts terribly long, usually
no more than ten seconds, but too frequent. Longer on bootup. I have a lot
of services running, everything from Norton Antivirus to MSSQL and dozens
more that I have no idea what they are... I think no malware though.

Maybe it's time for a complete disk wipe and reinstall. I hate doing that
because it takes at least a full day, maybe even two because I have so much
stuff. But it's been over two years since the last one.



"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsGlSe.451$6e1.88@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com> wrote in message
> news:%23oLpg7KsFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> It *should* mean that, shouldn't it? It's *pre-emptive* multitasking
>> after all.
>>
>> Maybe this is OT, but is Linux like that too?
> Most operating systems use what is called round robin scheduling with
> pre-emptive override. Round robin means that the system slices the time
> into segments and schedules programs into those segments on a regular
> basis. However, from time to time, programs need access to the hardware
> regardless of whether their time to use the computer has come or not.
> This use is called "pre-emptive". A rogue process can hang the system
> whether it features "pre-emptive" multitasking or not. It would be very
> unusual for Linux not to have "pre-emptive" multitasking as this feature
> has been in use for almost 30 years now.
> I can't say how easy it would be for Linux to exhibit this type of hang.
> It would seem, however, to be more productive for you to determine why
> your system is hanging, because most don't.
> By the way, slow loading of web pages is sometime caused by server
> problems (over which you have no control), by slow connections to the
> internet, or by large downloads. I had most of the problems when I was
> used a 56K modem. It is a very different story with DSL, but servers
> sometimes do get too busy.
> Jim
>
>

 

[Malke]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Paul Pedersen wrote:

> Thanks for the info. I didn't know that there were reasons to allow a
> single thread to hog the processor if it wants to. Doesn't sound like
> a good idea to me, but I'm not an operating system engineer.
>
> Yes, I do seem to have a lot of hangs. It never lasts terribly long,
> usually no more than ten seconds, but too frequent. Longer on bootup.
> I have a lot of services running, everything from Norton Antivirus to
> MSSQL and dozens more that I have no idea what they are... I think no
> malware though.
>
> Maybe it's time for a complete disk wipe and reinstall. I hate doing
> that because it takes at least a full day, maybe even two because I
> have so much stuff. But it's been over two years since the last one.
>
I think a format/clean install is way overkill and unnecessary. A
well-maintained XP box never has to be wiped. I have some that have run
for years and are just as perky as the day I installed them. A better
idea for you would be to do some reading here:

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/slowcom.htm
http://aumha.org/a/health.htm - Take Out the Trash (section 4)

As for processes, do Start>Run>services.msc [enter] and see what you've
got starting with Windows. Use the System Configuration Checker to see
what applications are starting up. Look up what you find here:

http://castlecops.com/StartupList.html
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_index.htm
http://www.blackviper.com/
http://www.theeldergeek.com/services_guide.htm
http://www.liutilities.com/products/wintaskspro/processlibrary/

As far as NAV goes, I will be blunt and say that it is evil. Uninstall
that bloatware and install a system-friendly AV instead and be amazed
at how responsive Windows will be.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks for the suggestions.


> As far as NAV goes, I will be blunt and say that it is evil. Uninstall
> that bloatware

It has certainly gotten expensive! Antivirus updates used to be free, then
$4/year, now it's almost as much as a complete upgrade.


> and install a system-friendly AV instead and be amazed
> at how responsive Windows will be.

Any recommendations? I tried McAfee and hated it. It's even more intrusive
and offensive than NAV.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

From: "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com>


|
| Any recommendations? I tried McAfee and hated it. It's even more intrusive
| and offensive than NAV.
|

AVAST -
http://www.avast.com/i_idt_1016.html - FREE

AntiVir -
http://www.free-av.com/ - FREE

AVG -
http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/lng/us/tpl/v5 - FREE

CA eTrust -
http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/index.cfm - FREE for one year.
{ Free offer extended indefinitely }

CA eTrust tops the list.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks! I'll check them out.


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:OP7jKkmsFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> From: "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com>
>
>
> |
> | Any recommendations? I tried McAfee and hated it. It's even more
> intrusive
> | and offensive than NAV.
> |
>
> AVAST -
> http://www.avast.com/i_idt_1016.html - FREE
>
> AntiVir -
> http://www.free-av.com/ - FREE
>
> AVG -
> http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/lng/us/tpl/v5 - FREE
>
> CA eTrust -
> http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/index.cfm - FREE for one year.
> { Free offer extended indefinitely }
>
> CA eTrust tops the list.
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
>
>