OT{ sort of .Slow computer

Apr 20, 2015 64 Replies

Product activation (most notably on MS Office from 2002 on, and Windows from XP on) will often notice that the the mobo has been changed and require that you reactivate. Normally if some time (several months) has passed since the last time it was activated, then it will often reactivate over the internet without any further problem.

Sometimes however it might refuse and you will need to phone MS. Sometimes the phone based automated activation will then pass it. Other times you may have to go as far as a real person.

What happens then depends on what you say, and what you are activating. In the case of an OEM version of windows (i.e. not one bought at retail) you are in effect in violation of the terms if you are simply "upgrading" a machine - since that in effect is a "new" machine, and OEM copies are supposed to die with the hardware they were shipped on. The exception to this rule is if you are repairing a machine under warranty. So explaining that you have just repaired a customers machine with a new motherboard etc, will normally get them to reactivate.

With retail versions you normally just need to assure them that you only have less than the licensed number of installed copies already, and they will reactivate.

(Note with Office 2013 when it was first released they quietly dropped the retail license terms - forcing OEM terms on all copies. However after a bit of an outcry they backed away from this and the PKC versions (i.e. medialess boxes just with a key card) can be reactivated under retail style licensing now.

In the case of many machines you can simply use the number on the CoA sticker. If you need to recover keys then there are various utils out there like magical jelly bean and produ key that will recover the original key from the installation.

That's not always true (typically about 40% of the time with XP and less with Win 7. Never tried it with Win 8 yet).

It depends on how much the hardware platform has changed and whether a new HAL is required (say by changing architecture from AMD to Intel). If you have the right media versions then you can usually do a "repair" install, that preserves the installed applications and machine configuration.

I consider that a reinstall, even if not full...

I cant believe how fast the latest linux install goes either compared with et upgrade/reboot/upgrade cycle of Winders

It isn't, all it does is ensure that the drivers are appropriate.

formatting link

Works a treat.

I take it you've installed all the Windows updates? They seem to have just that effect. Only real cure is a later version of Windows. And then it starts all over again.

On 21/04/2015 12:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote: #

It takes about 10 minutes to do win10 how long does linux take?

It's life under Windows only if you're dumb enough to download s*it. I played with Linux for a week and then binned it, if it's all the same to you.

Will you be my guest?

John Rumm scribbled

And he's installed a load of s**te, it'll remain there.

I believe that most Linux OSs are immune to fragmentation. I gather Microso ft is always in need of a defrag. I presume the OP has already tried physic ally cleaning the machine to stop over heating and thae various other trick s to speed upi things like gettng a second drive.

Filling a drive if it's your only drive is rather silly but the OP is a Mic rosfty!

WFmoron wrote that page?

You're wrong on that last. I don't bother to defrag and since the main machine is the PVR now, that is potentially the worst situation for fragmentation, very large files with very little free space with new very large files written daily.

And fragmentation won't be the reason for the slowdown anyway.

It's very unlikely to be that either.

That makes no difference now either. It was only ever relevant when there wasn't enough physical ram so the system was swapping all the time with drives that didn't seek very fast with lousy thruput.

Works fine.

Since the OP claimed to have not installed anything new, I am not sure why you make that claim in this case.

Obviously one needs to balance the relative benefits of a clean install against a repair - there are pros and cons to both.

However it is very easy to under estimate the amount of time that can be spent getting a clean install back into your preferred configuration.

And very easy to do a repair install, see if that fixes the speed problem and do a clean reinstall if it doesn?t.

Its been a while since I fixed a bunch of windows stuff, but fixing it was, I concluded, mostly a waste of time. Fresh installs became the standard routine.

The only time that went less well than hoped was with a machine that had a faulty video card. It was working acceptably, with some junk across the bottom of the screen, but win refused to reinstall because it was faulty.

Things may have changed since

NT

That's obvious.

What was being discussed was what do to after a motherboard swap. A repair install works fine in that situation and is a lot less work than a clean install, particularly if there are quite a few apps installed and quite a bit of configuration done.

They have. And the system being discussed doesn't have a fault.

It seems optimistic to say that all will be well with a new mobo & repair install. It might, but its more likely to be the apps causing the problem. That's one issue windows has completely failed to address, unlike linux.

NT

No, that has worked fine every time I have done it.

Not if it did work fine and then got to slow later.

Wrong.

Even wronger.

Where and which old install files that slow the system down?

Thanks

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required