Probably - it is certainly unlikely to hurt. Chances are you are already trying to use more than 512 anyway, so you will be taking a performance hit as a result.
Do a Ctrl+Alt+Del to bring up task manager. Click the Performance tab and look at the very bottom line of the window where it says Commit Charge. What is the number before the slash? Also what is the number after Physical Memory - Total?
Sounds like it is more of a hardware issue. How old is the machine? A few years ago a load of dodgy electrolytic capacitors got onto the market and fitted to motherboards etc. Open up your machine making sure you slice through any anoying "warranty void" labels. Have a look at your motherboard and see if you can spot any electrolytic caps. They look a bit like small vertically mounted cyclinders. Check all of them to see if they have something that looks like dried brown foam on top. If they have then those electrolytics are technically known as "stuffed". This could be affecting the power line quality on the motherboard causing instablity.
If you still think it is a software issue then have a look in the Event Viewer. Right click "My Computer" and select "Manage" then expand the tree System Tools / Event Viewer and have a look in "System" and "Application" for any warnings or errors. It could provide some useful clues as to what is going on with your system.
If you are really fed up with Windows, then save all your data to and external drive and get someone who knows what they are doing to wipe your hardrive and install Ubuntu.
Hope that helps
Would you put ME back on a machine?
Avoiding it does not really help much - it just means you can't run .net apps. Since that is the way MS want to push people. As far as I am aware just having it installed does not have any performance impact for non .net apps.
Indeed - Norton has become so resource hungry as to make all but unusable on all but the latest hardware.
No. But I wouldn't install an OS for which I didn't have at least the minimum required memory.
That happens with a lot of applications anyway, and you can right click and select run as administrator on the setup exe to avoid anymore UAC prompts.
Not if you are testing the installation routine and how it works when
*not* doing that sort of thing.
Why not? How else are you going to learn how to strip stuff down? It worked too.
Very simply - it isn't worth doing. IME trying to run any MS OS in a machine at minimum memory is bad enough. There is a nasty habit of complex software to apparently work in below-spec. machines and then suddenly have problems. Could be as simple as when installing other software, or patching, or when the wind changes direction.
I can't easily imagine a commercial organisation wishing to strip stuff down in order to run it on severely old kit. My kit all conforms to at least the XP minima. So why on earth would I want to do so?
There are other reasons to strip stuff out.. like enhancing security. I know the IT dept at my previous place spent ages trying to strip stuff out to stop us users doing things.. it didn't work.. we were all engineers designing computer systems and software.
Well if your installation routine requires you to test the UAC prompts that's what you do. Not an issue if that's what your job is is it?
Ha! Neither of those two, but I am 6'6" and we met in a pub.
Still tedious as hell. And I pity the poor end users. If they don't understand, then they will either not do things (anything that causes such a prompt) they should or simply allow anything that asks to have the access it wants. Doesn't really help with security very much.
Ah, beer goggles.
How does he figure that we wonder...
Yup, my experience also. Something integrated that works out of the box with no configuration is a massive step forward. It represents the difference between no one having any recovery mechanism, to at least some having one!
(I am quite a fan of Retrospect, but setting it up and configuring is scary enough if you know what you are doing - for a novice user its just not going to happen. MS have a fairly long history of supplying lame ineffectual backup tools it has to be said)
While not being its primary function, it appears that it can do a full system restore (although I presume you would need to manually reload the OS first).
Fair point.
Which I don't. I've found the best way to keep a machine lean, mean and running is to control what gets put on it.
Which is a shame - back in the DOS/W9X days I rescued many a dying machine with Norton Utilities.
Regards,
IME, most restore requests disappeared when volume shadow copies were instituted - and users were told how to access them to recover files/file versions.
Not a 'proper' backup in the conventional sense - but almost everything the users wanted day to day.
That's true. I had some bad experience running .net apps some time back, seemed to me they were slow and unresponsive and I was able to find other, faster solutions. I don't currently run anything that requires it, so I'm not really motivated to see whether things have improved as yet - but perhaps I should.
Regards,
Its like all software.. you compromise runtime speed for ease of development. Its a good trade off ATM as hardware is somewhat quicker than it needs to be, provided you have enough RAM. At ~£15 a gig it there isn't a good reason to be short of RAM.
If you don't know that, don't offer backup advice to others. ;-)
Lets start with fire, flood, theft, software errors, hardware faults, user error. There are more if you want to think about it for a while.
List where and how you think time machine protects you and I will tell you why it doesn't.
Having one that *may* cover user error but sod all else unless you understand what can go wrong and take steps to work around the problems.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.