Automatic updates crippling legacy machine

  • Thread starter Thread starter henry markov
  • Start date Start date
H

henry markov

I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run "well
enough" however sometime in the last several months its responsiveness
became awful most of the time. Using performance monitor I determined that
"automatic updates" was driving it into a condition of more than 100 paging
transactions/second rather continuously. When I disabled automatic updates
the machine returned to its usual condition which is to say I can have a
number of apps open and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates
changed in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally)
recently in a way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some people
will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an adequately
sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that it really
does work decently for anything else I do including software development.
 
henry said:
I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run
"well enough" however sometime in the last several months its
responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance
monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into a
condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather
continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the machine returned
to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps
open and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates changed
in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally)
recently in a way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some
people will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an
adequately sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such
that it really does work decently for anything else I do including
software development.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer, but I run Win2000Pro-SP4 and I leave MS automatic
updates off and just do it manually.
I also use the 'Custom' mode so that I can choose what updates I want to
install.
Usually it is not a good idea to dl any updates from MS for your devices.
Buffalo
 
henry markov said:
I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run
"well enough" however sometime in the last several months its
responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance
monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into a
condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather
continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the machine returned
to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps open
and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates changed in a
significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally) recently in a
way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some people will
distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an adequately
sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that it
really does work decently for anything else I do including software
development.
Click to expand...

When this happens, does Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del) show high CPU usage
for anything, on the Processes tab?
 
henry markov said:
I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run "well
enough" however sometime in the last several months its responsiveness
became awful most of the time.
Click to expand...

Since September 2009, Microsoft has started pushing out updates that are not
fit for purpose but merely to make the systems completely useless. This is
borne out by the fact that people are now rushing to buy Windows 7 and
Microsoft has plans to push out even more updates that will certainly
cripple your system beyond repair. You have been warned.

My advice to all is to stop receiving Automatic Updates; configure your
firewall so that "no exceptions are allowed", Install SP3 if not already
installed and install Microsoft Security Essentials with definition updates
downloaded manually.

If you follow this simple, common sense advice, your system will remain in
pristine condition and will last longer than you may have expected.

I have not installed ANY updates post XP/SP3 so I don't have these hang-ups;
crashes; unresponsiveness; slow to open documents; and slow to save files.

hth
 
LD55ZRA said:
Since September 2009, Microsoft has started pushing out updates that are not fit for purpose but
merely to make the systems completely useless. This is borne out by the fact that people are now
rushing to buy Windows 7 and Microsoft has plans to push out even more updates that will certainly
cripple your system beyond repair. You have been warned.

My advice to all is to stop receiving Automatic Updates; configure your firewall so that "no
exceptions are allowed", Install SP3 if not already installed and install Microsoft Security
Essentials with definition updates downloaded manually.

If you follow this simple, common sense advice, your system will remain in pristine condition and
will last longer than you may have expected.

I have not installed ANY updates post XP/SP3 so I don't have these hang-ups; crashes;
unresponsiveness; slow to open documents; and slow to save files.

hth

--

LVTravel <[email protected]> is a convicted paedophilia from Johnstown, USA
and has been outed under Megan's Law. Please report him to your local
authorities if you see him near your kids.
Click to expand...

Is "Chicken Little" a relative of yours?
 
the poor system performance
is likely due to have only 384
megs of ram.

you will likely see an improvement
by having at least 512 megs of
ram installed.

personally, I would go with 1
gig of ram.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
 
db said:
the poor system performance
is likely due to have only 384
megs of ram.
Click to expand...
[snip]

Really doubt it for what he uses it for.
Course, it sure wouldn't hurt anything and ram is pretty cheap these days.
Buffalo
 
henry markov said:
I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run "well
enough" however sometime in the last several months its responsiveness
became awful most of the time. Using performance monitor I determined that
"automatic updates" was driving it into a condition of more than 100 paging
transactions/second rather continuously. When I disabled automatic updates
the machine returned to its usual condition which is to say I can have a
number of apps open and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates
changed in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally)
recently in a way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some
people will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an
adequately sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that
it really does work decently for anything else I do including software
development.
Click to expand...

Automatic Updates is just not appropriate for some systems, like yours, and
in that case should be disabled. You then assume responsibility for
periodically checking for updates manually.

In particular, Microsoft Update can take significantly longer than Windows
Update.
 
db said:
the poor system performance
is likely due to have only 384
megs of ram.

you will likely see an improvement
by having at least 512 megs of
ram installed.

personally, I would go with 1
gig of ram.
Click to expand...

Boards of that vintage often had memory capacities below 512 meg. It may
already be fully populated.
 
henry markov said:
I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run
"well enough" however sometime in the last several months its
responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance
monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into a
condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather
continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the machine returned
to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps open
and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates changed in a
significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally) recently in a
way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some people will
distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an adequately
sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such that it
really does work decently for anything else I do including software
development.
Click to expand...

Henry,
You seem to have disappeared, or at least are not answering any of your
replies. Since we still don't know what if anything is happening with
your CPU usage during the problem, have a look here for what might be
involved, even if svchost is not showing high CPU usage:

AumHa Forums -- Svchost.exe Uses 100% CPU Resources
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=33303
 
true.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
 
henry said:
I have a legacy 866MHz, 384Mbyte, XP/SP3 machine that has always run
"well enough" however sometime in the last several months its
responsiveness became awful most of the time. Using performance
monitor I determined that "automatic updates" was driving it into a
condition of more than 100 paging transactions/second rather
continuously. When I disabled automatic updates the machine returned
to its usual condition which is to say I can have a number of apps
open and get reasonable performance. Has automatic updates changed
in a significant way (either intentionally or unintentionally)
recently in a way that explains this behavior? Oh, since I know some
people will distain the specs of my machine note that it does have an
adequately sized paging file, is defragged regularly, etc, etc, such
that it really does work decently for anything else I do including
software development.
Click to expand...

Henry, read Glee's repy to you and click on the link he suggested and read
the 3rd post down. It could explain what is happening to your PC using XP
SP3.
Buffalo
 
Back
Top