OT Has w7 slowed down recently

On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:17:42 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Johny B Good
writes
On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:11:02 +0100, Wilf
wrote:

On 11/05/2012 10:40, lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when (Gary)
came up to me and whispered:

Mcafee

And there lies your problem...


Well, not really. I've suffered a noticeable slow-down on my win7
laptop machine lately and was using Kaspersky Internet Security. I
temporarily changed to MSSE ... no difference. Then changed to McAfee
... no difference. The task manager shows single figure CPU usage most
of the time yet the fan is always quite loud and the machine is very slow.

Fairly classic symptom of clogged up heatsink fins allowing the cpu
to attain a high enough temperature for it to throttle down.

The OP said was going to de-fluff the works (on the 11 May). Has there
been any report of what he found?

The first time that I experienced slow operation and crashing when the
CPU was being worked hard, I found the fins of the CPU heatsink were
(like Winnie the Pooh) literally 'stuffed with fluff'.

I find it useful to have available a program which monitors the CPU and
motherboard temperatures, the various voltages, the fan speeds etc. The
one I use is specifically for this motherboard (available free, in my
case, from Asus). However, if a manufacture doesn't provide such a
program, I'm sure there are other non-specific programs which do the
same, for example:
http://majorgeeks.com/Motherboard_Monitor_d311.html
et al.

I usually have the monitor running in the background, and it comes in
handy for checking that the CPU isn't glowing red hot. In fact, it never
really exceeds 48C, even when working flat out for prolonged periods.

Monitoring tools are a convenient way to check cpu temperature
whether configured to run at boot up or on demand.

I tend to use Asrock MoBos (my previous brand of choice, Jetway,
stopped being stocked by my trade supplier a few years back) which
don't seem to have such monitoring software on their driver CDs (or
else some *******ised monitoring tool with a pretentious in-your-face
GUI).

That MBM5 monitoring tool is quite old, as was pointed out on the
extreme overclockers forum in this quote:

"The creator of mbm5 stopped updating it a while ago. Most boards
past skt 754 are not supported anymore, unless you own a DFI."

Confirmed when I discovered I already had that version downloaded
from just over two years ago. The modified date of 18 July 2006
suggests the developer, Alexander van Kaam, had last worked on it no
later than 6 years ago.

The Motherboard compatability list isn't hosted on a web page, it's
the list only available by running the program itself to access the
setup window. However, the download is so tiny (a mere 1.22MB - less
than a floppy's worth) that you can download and try it out. Whilst
your specific MoBo might not be listed, there is a small possibility
that one of those listed might be close enough to produce meaningful
CPU temperature data.

Another Monitoring tool that's well worthy of consideration is
SpeedFan. Whilst it might be more complex to configure for your MoBo,
the setup options are a lot more comprehensive and more flexible than
being restricted to a limited list of pre-defined MoBo configurations.

Having said all that, I've just downloaded the latest version (446)
and, after a second install attempt, got it to show some temperature
data which may or may not relate to the cpu cores as well as a
****load of other spurious temps and fan speeds (speeds for non
existant fans!).

Unfortunately, this was also true to a lesser degree with the earlier
version (423) I used to use with an earlier MoBo and it would seem
this is par for the course. However, you can at least deselect the
spurious readings in the confguration menu.

Annoyingly, the systray icon shows the top listed temperature, which
happens to be the GPU, with no means to select the more critical hard
disk drive temperature as the default. Hovering the mouse will reveal
all the selected temps.This is far from ideal but better than nothing.

The best monitoring tool is usually the one supplied by the MoBo
maker, but as I've just confirmed with this Asrock MoBo, they don't
always supply such monitoring software.

I'm pretty sure there are other monitoring utilties available but I
haven't searched for alternatives to MBM5 and SpeedFan in over two
years. I think I'll have another look after I've posted this little
missive.
--
Regards, J B Good

On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:21:42 +0200, Martin wrote:

Or even in just "The Royal Navy"

The Royal Navy is not unique to Britain.

The others are foreign and therefore, don't count.

J G Miller wrote:
On Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, at 21:31:16h +0100, Bill Wright explained:

The fault was something called 'clock speed' I think.
Something was running at half speed. Or something.

Had somebody knocked the TURBO button on the front
by accident?

http://upload.wikimedia.ORG/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Casebuttons.jpg

Sometimes it would cause the CPU speed to almost halve from 8 MHz to 4.77 MHz.
Yes, probably. It would be human error. The computer man says everything
that goes wrong here is down to human error. When the dog chewed the
printer cable I protested, but he said, "Course it's human ****ing
error! You bought the ****ing dog!"

Bill

Andy Burns wrote:

And that's why I won't be buying one, if I can't choose the O/S I won't
buy.

For the record, I don't want secure boot either, and I wouldn't buy a
tablet with secure boot.

My argument was in response to the anti-MS hysteria from Ratty, who
asserts that they're going to introduce it across the board, including
the traditional desktop PC.

He's failed to show any evidence that this is MS policy, whereas I've
shown evidence that this is *not* MS policy.

So, it looks like our desktops will remain open and free, and we can
all buy Android phones and tablets instead.

Obviously I can't predict the future, but neither can Ratty, so we can
only speak to the evidence as it is.

--
SteveT

In article , J G Miller
wrote:
On Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, at 20:56:26 at +0100, Adrian C wrote:

Linux professionals are trained like Doctors. Windows professionals
are trained like Veterinarians.

I think your analogy is the wrong way around.

Windoze professionals will generally be clueless about Linsux and BSD
systems, whereas Linsux and BSD professionals will generally have some
idea on how to solve Windoze problems.

it is certainly my experience that people who use Linux (or RISC OS) also
use Windows, at least for some of the time. Most in my experience have also
used Mac OSs or others. Whereas my experience is also that many who use
Windows have never tried the alternatives, and often have no awarness that
you can even change the OS on a machine - beyond installing a MS provided
'upgrade'.

Must admit that Adrian's comment did make me smile though. Since many
'computer' problems seem to me to stem from the user, not the box. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
It's the other way round: if you buy an ARM tablet with
Windows 8 you won't be able to install any other OS on it. Or so it
would seem at the moment.
[...]
I don't know why everyone is making such a fuss. We are NOT talking
about desktop PCs.

Given Microsoft's influence on the personal computer market, is there not
a danger that ARM devices, tablets and desktops, running Windows could
become the most common type of computer you can buy? To the average
punter, an ARM desktop running Windows 8 (or 9 or 10...) is the same thing
as an Intel desktop running the same system. They're both just computers,
but if one type is marketed as "more secure", or it runs a bit faster, or
is cheaper, which one will they choose?

Then where will the market be for anything else?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Wed, 16 May 2012 01:44:29 +0100, Johny B Good
wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:17:42 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Johny B Good
writes

On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:11:02 +0100, Wilf
wrote:

Fairly classic symptom of clogged up heatsink fins allowing the cpu
to attain a high enough temperature for it to throttle down.

The OP said was going to de-fluff the works (on the 11 May). Has there
been any report of what he found?

The first time that I experienced slow operation and crashing when the
CPU was being worked hard, I found the fins of the CPU heatsink were
(like Winnie the Pooh) literally 'stuffed with fluff'.

I find it useful to have available a program which monitors the CPU and
motherboard temperatures, the various voltages, the fan speeds etc. The
one I use is specifically for this motherboard (available free, in my
case, from Asus).

However, see my comment under section 7 of the following:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/PCHa...areFaults.html

I've had really bad experiences now with two Gigabyte motherboards,
and don't use them any more, but the app they provided with the two
completely failed to spot basic things such as chipset fans dying.

However, if a manufacture doesn't provide such a
program, I'm sure there are other non-specific programs which do the
same, for example:
http://majorgeeks.com/Motherboard_Monitor_d311.html
et al.

That MBM5 monitoring tool is quite old, as was pointed out on the
extreme overclockers forum in this quote:

"The creator of mbm5 stopped updating it a while ago. Most boards
past skt 754 are not supported anymore, unless you own a DFI."

Confirmed when I discovered I already had that version downloaded
from just over two years ago. The modified date of 18 July 2006
suggests the developer, Alexander van Kaam, had last worked on it no
later than 6 years ago.

I'm not sure that van Kaam was the writer of the original program.
IIRC (but it is several years now since I looked at this) he only
wrote the additional service program that can be installed to ensure
that MBM is always launched, even at the logon screen. I believe that
MBM5 was last seriously updated by the original programmer even
further back than van Kaam's work. The OP gave up supporting it
because motherboard manufacturers refused to divulge necessary
hardware information.

The Motherboard compatability list isn't hosted on a web page, it's
the list only available by running the program itself to access the
setup window. However, the download is so tiny (a mere 1.22MB - less
than a floppy's worth) that you can download and try it out. Whilst
your specific MoBo might not be listed, there is a small possibility
that one of those listed might be close enough to produce meaningful
CPU temperature data.

I have been using MBM5 for some time on my standard build. I have got
it to work quite well, certainly better than the original programs
supplied with the motherboards, on several PIII & P4 motherboards, but
not on the Asrock P4 motherboard which is in this, currently my main,
computer that I am using now.

For the benefit of others, I've appended links to some MBM5 config
files to this post.

Another Monitoring tool that's well worthy of consideration is
SpeedFan. Whilst it might be more complex to configure for your MoBo,
the setup options are a lot more comprehensive and more flexible than
being restricted to a limited list of pre-defined MoBo configurations.

Yes, I'm using SpeedFan on this PC running W2k. However it hangs on
an older Asus P4 motherboard running W7. I use W7 so little that I've
not yet bothered to find out why.

Having said all that, I've just downloaded the latest version (446)
and, after a second install attempt, got it to show some temperature
data which may or may not relate to the cpu cores as well as a
****load of other spurious temps and fan speeds (speeds for non
existant fans!).

Which program are you referring to now?

Annoyingly, the systray icon shows the top listed temperature, which
happens to be the GPU, with no means to select the more critical hard
disk drive temperature as the default. Hovering the mouse will reveal
all the selected temps.This is far from ideal but better than nothing.

I thought this was configurable in both MBM and SF - I can't
remember how I did the latter, but all my PCs show the most critical
temperature, the *C*PU, in the System Tray.

The best monitoring tool is usually the one supplied by the MoBo
maker, but as I've just confirmed with this Asrock MoBo, they don't
always supply such monitoring software.

No, see my comments on the page linked above.

(Out of original order)

I usually have the monitor running in the background, and it comes in
handy for checking that the CPU isn't glowing red hot. In fact, it never
really exceeds 48C, even when working flat out for prolonged periods.

Monitoring tools are a convenient way to check cpu temperature
whether configured to run at boot up or on demand.

Yes, I'd always recommend having something monitoring the hardware to
alert you quickly of potential danger. Ideally, such a program
should:

+ Run as a service, so that it is running all the time, even when
the PC is at the log-on screen

+ Monitor CPU (temperature, fan speed, and loading)
Chipset (temperature and fan speed if there is one)
PSU (voltages and fan speed)
HD (SMART data and temperature)
Any other fans attached to the motherboard via connectors
Any other critical temperatures on the motherboard

+ Should be able to be configured by the user to give instant alerts
and/or even shut the machine down in case of a critical failure.

- Not stop monitoring when minimised to the System Tray or in other
normal situations

- Not be a significant processing or hardware load on the machine

I tend to use Asrock MoBos (my previous brand of choice, Jetway,
stopped being stocked by my trade supplier a few years back) which
don't seem to have such monitoring software on their driver CDs (or
else some *******ised monitoring tool with a pretentious in-your-face
GUI).

Yes, what is needed is a discrete but powerful background service for
normal users such as I have described above, not a make-believe
spaceship console for overclocking freaks.

MBM5 INI Files
==============

Abit IS7-V2
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...%20MBM%205.INI
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...0Dashboard.INI

Abit VH6II
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...%20MBM%205.INI
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...0Dashboard.INI

Gigabyte GA-8S655FX-L
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Giga...%20MBM%205.INI
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Giga...0Dashboard.INI
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
The vast majority of customers are interested in what it
does, not how it does it or what the various hardware and software
building blocks are inside the case.
(Those comments are about functionality. Companies like Apple make many
sales by appealing to fashion and trendiness.)
This is very much the case with Sony and B&O in the 70s where you paid a
similar price but one bought you electrical and function excellence and
the other brought you style.
--
Clive

On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:37 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Wed, 16 May 2012 01:44:29 +0100, Johny B Good
wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:17:42 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Johny B Good
writes

On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:11:02 +0100, Wilf
wrote:

Fairly classic symptom of clogged up heatsink fins allowing the cpu
to attain a high enough temperature for it to throttle down.

The OP said was going to de-fluff the works (on the 11 May). Has there
been any report of what he found?

The first time that I experienced slow operation and crashing when the
CPU was being worked hard, I found the fins of the CPU heatsink were
(like Winnie the Pooh) literally 'stuffed with fluff'.

I find it useful to have available a program which monitors the CPU and
motherboard temperatures, the various voltages, the fan speeds etc. The
one I use is specifically for this motherboard (available free, in my
case, from Asus).

However, see my comment under section 7 of the following:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/PCHa...areFaults.html

I've had really bad experiences now with two Gigabyte motherboards,
and don't use them any more, but the app they provided with the two
completely failed to spot basic things such as chipset fans dying.

However, if a manufacture doesn't provide such a
program, I'm sure there are other non-specific programs which do the
same, for example:
http://majorgeeks.com/Motherboard_Monitor_d311.html
et al.

That MBM5 monitoring tool is quite old, as was pointed out on the
extreme overclockers forum in this quote:

"The creator of mbm5 stopped updating it a while ago. Most boards
past skt 754 are not supported anymore, unless you own a DFI."

Confirmed when I discovered I already had that version downloaded
from just over two years ago. The modified date of 18 July 2006
suggests the developer, Alexander van Kaam, had last worked on it no
later than 6 years ago.

I'm not sure that van Kaam was the writer of the original program.

Well, that was the name that showed in the file properties window.
Anyway, that's besides the point, said point being the fact that the
files modification date was almost 6 years ago which, upon reflection,
is most likely the date I downloaded it rather than when it was last
worked upon by whoever that happened to be.

IIRC (but it is several years now since I looked at this) he only
wrote the additional service program that can be installed to ensure
that MBM is always launched, even at the logon screen. I believe that
MBM5 was last seriously updated by the original programmer even
further back than van Kaam's work. The OP gave up supporting it
because motherboard manufacturers refused to divulge necessary
hardware information.

The Motherboard compatability list isn't hosted on a web page, it's
the list only available by running the program itself to access the
setup window. However, the download is so tiny (a mere 1.22MB - less
than a floppy's worth) that you can download and try it out. Whilst
your specific MoBo might not be listed, there is a small possibility
that one of those listed might be close enough to produce meaningful
CPU temperature data.

I have been using MBM5 for some time on my standard build. I have got
it to work quite well, certainly better than the original programs
supplied with the motherboards, on several PIII & P4 motherboards, but
not on the Asrock P4 motherboard which is in this, currently my main,
computer that I am using now.

For the benefit of others, I've appended links to some MBM5 config
files to this post.

Another Monitoring tool that's well worthy of consideration is
SpeedFan. Whilst it might be more complex to configure for your MoBo,
the setup options are a lot more comprehensive and more flexible than
being restricted to a limited list of pre-defined MoBo configurations.

Yes, I'm using SpeedFan on this PC running W2k. However it hangs on
an older Asus P4 motherboard running W7. I use W7 so little that I've
not yet bothered to find out why.

Having said all that, I've just downloaded the latest version (446)
and, after a second install attempt, got it to show some temperature
data which may or may not relate to the cpu cores as well as a
****load of other spurious temps and fan speeds (speeds for non
existant fans!).

Which program are you referring to now?

SpeedFan


Annoyingly, the systray icon shows the top listed temperature, which
happens to be the GPU, with no means to select the more critical hard
disk drive temperature as the default. Hovering the mouse will reveal
all the selected temps.This is far from ideal but better than nothing.

I thought this was configurable in both MBM and SF - I can't
remember how I did the latter, but all my PCs show the most critical
temperature, the *C*PU, in the System Tray.

IMHO, the most critical temps (assuming you value your precious data)
are those of the hard disk drives. A modern CPU is unlikely to
actually burn out short of the cooling fan heatsink suddenly jumping
off the heat spreader (in which case, no amount of monitoring is going
to help).

Aside from the leaping heatsink scenario, the worst that can happen
to an overheating cpu is that the system will slow down or become
unstable and crash whereas an overheated drive might cause
irretrievable data loss. The former is more a matter of inconvenience
whilst the latter could well prove to be a tragedy. Personally, I
prever inconvenience over tragedy.


The best monitoring tool is usually the one supplied by the MoBo
maker, but as I've just confirmed with this Asrock MoBo, they don't
always supply such monitoring software.

No, see my comments on the page linked above.

Please note the use of the adverb "usually" in my statement above.


(Out of original order)

I usually have the monitor running in the background, and it comes in
handy for checking that the CPU isn't glowing red hot. In fact, it never
really exceeds 48C, even when working flat out for prolonged periods.

Monitoring tools are a convenient way to check cpu temperature
whether configured to run at boot up or on demand.

Yes, I'd always recommend having something monitoring the hardware to
alert you quickly of potential danger. Ideally, such a program
should:

+ Run as a service, so that it is running all the time, even when
the PC is at the log-on screen

+ Monitor CPU (temperature, fan speed, and loading)
Chipset (temperature and fan speed if there is one)
PSU (voltages and fan speed)
HD (SMART data and temperature)
Any other fans attached to the motherboard via connectors
Any other critical temperatures on the motherboard

+ Should be able to be configured by the user to give instant alerts
and/or even shut the machine down in case of a critical failure.

- Not stop monitoring when minimised to the System Tray or in other
normal situations

- Not be a significant processing or hardware load on the machine

Quite frankly, I'd be happy to use an on demand monitoring utility,
provided it could correctly identify the fans and temperature sensors.
Sadly, no such utility can see hard drive temps when AHCI is enabled.
However, it suffices that I can check them when selecting a non-AHCI
mode in the cmos to verify their delta Ta readings even though this
would only be a once in a blue moon check since the switch back to
AHCI (required for the e-SATA hotswap function) involves windows going
through its 'detected new hardware - installing drivers' routine on
the subsequent re-boot.

I tend to use Asrock MoBos (my previous brand of choice, Jetway,
stopped being stocked by my trade supplier a few years back) which
don't seem to have such monitoring software on their driver CDs (or
else some *******ised monitoring tool with a pretentious in-your-face
GUI).

Yes, what is needed is a discrete but powerful background service for
normal users such as I have described above, not a make-believe
spaceship console for overclocking freaks.

Preferably one, in my case, that works in win2k and, more
importantly, one that doesn't rely upon dotnet as a crutch for a lack
of programming skill.


MBM5 INI Files
==============

Abit IS7-V2
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...%20MBM%205.INI
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...0Dashboard.INI

Abit VH6II
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...%20MBM%205.INI
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Abit...0Dashboard.INI

Gigabyte GA-8S655FX-L
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Giga...%20MBM%205.INI
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Giga...0Dashboard.INI

I did try to explore for asrock ini files but can't find a list. Do
you have any such files?

MBM5 is quite ancient and I haven't tried it for quite some time. I
might just give it a go but I very much doubt it'll work for this
asrock ALiveXFire-eSATA2 R3.0 AM2 socket MoBo.

--
Regards, J B Good

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Given that a fair bit of my use of RISC OS (native to ARM) is on an
emulator on a 'PC' (running Linux) I see a certain irony in that. :-)

Oh, of course. Any processor can emulate any other processor - von
Neumann says so.

But emulating another processor is very processor-intensive compared
with emulating an API, which is what Wine does (for instance).

--
SteveT