I'm currently working on one. A Toshiba Equium L10-273

It has 256MB RAM and XP Home (although it reports 240MB RAM - so I guess
some is being used by the graphics or something).

Would adding another 512MB help *much* do you think? or is it the fact that
it's a Celeron that's killing it?

Fred.

Upgrading RAM from 256 to 512 probably will make a significant
difference. Also, laptops have very slow hard drives, in most cases.

Fred Finisterre wrote:

> I'm currently working on one. A Toshiba Equium L10-273
>
> It has 256MB RAM and XP Home (although it reports 240MB RAM - so I guess
> some is being used by the graphics or something).
>
> Would adding another 512MB help *much* do you think? or is it the fact that
> it's a Celeron that's killing it?
>
> Fred.
>
>
>

"Fred Finisterre" <finisterre******.com> wrote in message
news:N5-dnY1BqNGwZqnYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> I'm currently working on one. A Toshiba Equium L10-273
>
> It has 256MB RAM and XP Home (although it reports 240MB RAM - so I guess
> some is being used by the graphics or something).
>
> Would adding another 512MB help *much* do you think? or is it the fact
> that it's a Celeron that's killing it?
>
> Fred.

I guess I would have to ask what "run like a dog" means. I have a Compaq
with the same configuration and feel that it runs just fine and suits my
needs.

"Fred Finisterre" <finisterre******.com> wrote in message
news:N5-dnY1BqNGwZqnYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> I'm currently working on one. A Toshiba Equium L10-273
>
> It has 256MB RAM and XP Home (although it reports 240MB RAM - so I guess
> some is being used by the graphics or something).
>
> Would adding another 512MB help *much* do you think? or is it the fact
> that it's a Celeron that's killing it?
>

Windows XP really needs a minimum of 512 Mb of memory to run properly. It
does run in 256 Mb, but as you notice, rather slowly (especially as you have
shared graphics).

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:453750ae$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net
> Windows XP really needs a minimum of 512 Mb of memory to run
> properly. It does run in 256 Mb, but as you notice, rather slowly
> (especially as you have shared graphics).

How much do you think for Windows 2000? And then for Windows 98SE?

--
Bill

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:4537a315$0$1355$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:453750ae$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net
>> Windows XP really needs a minimum of 512 Mb of memory to run
>> properly. It does run in 256 Mb, but as you notice, rather slowly
>> (especially as you have shared graphics).
>
> How much do you think for Windows 2000? And then for Windows 98SE?
>

As always, the more the better. 128Mb is entirely adequate for Windows 2000
(and I have run it in 64 Mb, though it was not fast by any means). Windows
98SE will run well in 64 Mb.

Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running in the background that you don't
need. Symantec Antivirus takes about 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's running
(right after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's horsepower, making the Toshiba terribly slow for a
few minutes.

Lots of software nowadays likes to inject itself into the computer all the time that way. That's
partially why a fresh reinstall of Windows is often done by some folks - the speedup due to the
elimination of such detritus is startling. But you can also use the Task Manager and other such
tools to pare 'em away yourself.

Jim Horn (Toshiba 1.3GHz Celeron M & Nec Pentium 75)

James Horn wrote:
> Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running in the background that you don't
> need. Symantec Antivirus takes about 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's running
> (right after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's horsepower, making the Toshiba terribly slow for a
> few minutes.

Norton AV is its own virus.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:453e3912$0$88631$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
> James Horn wrote:
>> Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running in
>> the background that you don't need. Symantec Antivirus takes about
>> 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's running (right
>> after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's horsepower, making the
>> Toshiba terribly slow for a few minutes.
>
> Norton AV is its own virus.

Hahahaha... That is funny. <grin>

--
Bill

BillW50 wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:453e3912$0$88631$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
>> James Horn wrote:
>>> Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running in
>>> the background that you don't need. Symantec Antivirus takes about
>>> 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's running (right
>>> after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's horsepower, making the
>>> Toshiba terribly slow for a few minutes.
>>
>> Norton AV is its own virus.
>
> Hahahaha... That is funny. <grin>

Unfortunately, it's true. I've seen so many problems caused by NAV,
especially when the owner thinks that they've removed it from their
system, there are bits and pieces remaining.

I was working on a relatives' system where she had the strange problem
of not being able to go to any secure web sites, but regular web sites
were just fine. Finally tracked it down to an old copy of Norton
Internet Security, that she thought was completely uninstalled. Symantec
now even has free tools on their site that enable you to remove their
products.

For anti-virus, use the free version of Grisoft AVG
("http://free.grisoft.com/doc/2/lng/us/tpl/v5"). It's the least
intrusive of the antivirus programs.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:453e721f$0$88642$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> BillW50 wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:453e3912$0$88631$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
>>> James Horn wrote:
>>>> Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running in
>>>> the background that you don't need. Symantec Antivirus takes about
>>>> 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's running (right
>>>> after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's horsepower, making the
>>>> Toshiba terribly slow for a few minutes.
>>>
>>> Norton AV is its own virus.
>>
>> Hahahaha... That is funny. <grin>
>
> Unfortunately, it's true. I've seen so many problems caused by NAV,
> especially when the owner thinks that they've removed it from their
> system, there are bits and pieces remaining.
>

Just like the worst spy-ware that you are likely to have on your system is a
very nasty piece of malware known as Windows XP.

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:453f0a17_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:453e721f$0$88642$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:453e3912$0$88631$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
>>>> James Horn wrote:
>>>>> Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running
>>>>> in the background that you don't need. Symantec Antivirus takes
>>>>> about 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's
>>>>> running (right after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's
>>>>> horsepower, making the Toshiba terribly slow for a few minutes.
>>>>
>>>> Norton AV is its own virus.
>>>
>>> Hahahaha... That is funny. <grin>
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's true. I've seen so many problems caused by NAV,
>> especially when the owner thinks that they've removed it from their
>> system, there are bits and pieces remaining.
>
> Just like the worst spy-ware that you are likely to have on your
> system is a very nasty piece of malware known as Windows XP.

Oh no, I disagree. I have used many OS in my life and if I could find
one better and more useful than Windows 2000/XP, I would run it. <grin>

--
Bill

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:453f538f$0$1354$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:453f0a17_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:453e721f$0$88642$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:453e3912$0$88631$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
>>>>> James Horn wrote:
>>>>>> Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running
>>>>>> in the background that you don't need. Symantec Antivirus takes
>>>>>> about 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's
>>>>>> running (right after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's
>>>>>> horsepower, making the Toshiba terribly slow for a few minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Norton AV is its own virus.
>>>>
>>>> Hahahaha... That is funny. <grin>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it's true. I've seen so many problems caused by NAV,
>>> especially when the owner thinks that they've removed it from their
>>> system, there are bits and pieces remaining.
>>
>> Just like the worst spy-ware that you are likely to have on your
>> system is a very nasty piece of malware known as Windows XP.
>
> Oh no, I disagree. I have used many OS in my life and if I could find one
> better and more useful than Windows 2000/XP, I would run it. <grin>
>

You may think it's wonderful (and I can't stop you doing that). However,
that doesn't stop Windows XP reporting back to Microsoft every media file
that you open on it (unless you have a decent firewall that is (i.e. not the
one it comes with)).

While XP does on occasion "phone home", it doesn't report back every
media file that you open.

M.I.5¾ wrote:


>
> You may think it's wonderful (and I can't stop you doing that). However,
> that doesn't stop Windows XP reporting back to Microsoft every media file
> that you open on it (unless you have a decent firewall that is (i.e. not the
> one it comes with)).
>
>

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4545f43a$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:453f538f$0$1354$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
>> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:453f0a17_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net
>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:453e721f$0$88642$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:453e3912$0$88631$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net
>>>>>> James Horn wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, be *sure* that there's not a collection of programs running
>>>>>>> in the background that you don't need. Symantec Antivirus takes
>>>>>>> about 34 Megs of RAM *all the time* in mine. And when it's
>>>>>>> running (right after boot), it absorbs the entire CPU's
>>>>>>> horsepower, making the Toshiba terribly slow for a few minutes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Norton AV is its own virus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hahahaha... That is funny. <grin>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it's true. I've seen so many problems caused by NAV,
>>>> especially when the owner thinks that they've removed it from their
>>>> system, there are bits and pieces remaining.
>>>
>>> Just like the worst spy-ware that you are likely to have on your
>>> system is a very nasty piece of malware known as Windows XP.
>>
>> Oh no, I disagree. I have used many OS in my life and if I could find one
>> better and more useful than Windows 2000/XP, I would run it. <grin>
>>
>
> You may think it's wonderful (and I can't stop you doing that). However,
> that doesn't stop Windows XP reporting back to Microsoft every media file
> that you open on it (unless you have a decent firewall that is (i.e. not
> the one it comes with)).
>

Not sure what you are claiming here...the option is available in WMP to not
send any information to MS. Even when the option is not selected, it does
not send a list of every media file you open.

Honu