Clean Up or Buy New PC?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Juniper

Seriously. This SUCKS. I've now taken AVG back off again. ... My computer is running slower than it was before I started messing with it.
...
YES I know I need more memory, but I'm not adding any if the machine isn't worthy of it, KWIM?

More labor wasted because, again, ignored is the best advise posted - three points in post 4. UT defined how cheap memory is. However had you done those three points long ago (stop wasting time with anti-virus games, etc), then you would have known how cheap memory was AND ... ignore point three at serious risk.

It is an eMachine. Some type of 1 gigabyte memory does not work in some eMachine systems. A problem that does not exist in machines from responsible manufacturers. Provided in post 4, point 3 was had a hperlink to crucial.com. Executed that immediately so that UT did not have to post a price and so that you don't get the wrong type of 1 Gb memory and so that ... you don't yet know how important that post was in getting a solution fast and the first time.

Be cautious with eMachine. It should be screaming fast and (if not eMachine) then would execute even faster. But eMachines is designed by cost a controller - not innovators - which is also why you must be extra careful (sometimes) when buying memory. That eMachine will only scream - not do what it really could have done.

How poor are eMachine designed? Minimum size for memory in any machine of that date especially when using XP - 512 Mb. Yours only has 256? Do you also buy GM cars? Appreciate why eMachines, on the bottom line, actually cost more money. However we have what we have. So stop stifling useful replies.

Post 4 has three points. Meet all if you want the next post to create results.

Second and third points in post 4 made most all previous posts unnecessary. How to get useful answers the next time. Post 4 point 2 describes using Task Manager. Since anything in Task Manger makes no sense to you, then it is probably THE fact that gets a solution, when posted here.

Described is what to look at and then post here. CPU time and Memory Delta. Had you done that, then wasting time with MacAfee, et al would have never happened.

Still not described: what software you want to execute. You want a fix? Three points in post 4 are about knowing what is wrong long before fixing anything. Trying to fix something on wild speculation, as you have been doing (which is why you are frustrated), is how to waste time AND sometimes makes problems even worse. Click on any underlined hyperlink such as post 4. Then report back what all three points are asking ... but only if you want the next post to be helpful, and if you want to stop wasting time, and if you want to avoid frustration.

Want frustration? Then don't execute that crucial.com hyperlink. I don't want to post "I told you so". You may need to know more than just buying that memory.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

point 2 describes using Task Manager. Since anything in Task Manger makes no sense to you, then it is probably THE fact that gets a solution, when posted here.

Described is what to look at and then post here. CPU time and Memory Delta.

If you think that Task Manager supplies the answer, then you should explain what Task Manager is, and how to find it. Perhaps the original poster (and the lurkers you often write for) don't know that you find Task Manager by holding down the Ctrl-Alt-Delete keys at the same time and selecting Task Manager from the options offered. It's not obvious. Either you happen to know it, or you don't. I can imagine someone browsing around the programs or the control panel, not seeing this so called "Task Manager" and thinking you are full of BS. Just out of curiosity, I opened my own Task Manager, and don't see anything called "CPU Time" or "Memory Delta." There is lots of CPU and Memory information there, but those specific terms don't exist in my version of XP.

If you are going to write a long post about the problem, why don't you write a long post with specific instructions? You said "Task Manger makes no sense to you," so you obviously believe that the person asking the question doesn't know a lot about computers. Make it a little easier. Pretend you are a teacher. Explain step by step what to do and why.

You devote a lot of time to answering these "computer help needed" threads, so I assume you are genuinely interesting in helping out. Those of us with limited computer knowledge love to have this stuff explained with detailed instructions and explanations.

Instead of your post 4

What is the objective? To make it faster? First, most of what you did does not address that objective.

Not stated is what needs more power. Second, two bottlenecks are CPU and memory. To alleviate stress on both, find and eliminate as many other processes as possible. Start with Task Manager. Two important numbers are CPU time and Memory Delta. Any process that is consuming too much CPU time might be eliminated. Any unnecessary process with numerous Memory Deltas, when eliminated, should permit that main program to run faster.

And finally, third, go to www.crucial.com to run the memory scanner. Learn how much memory can be installed, how much more might be purchased, memory type, and prices.

You might have tried something like this instead:

The next time you experience this slowness, hold down the Ctrl, Alt, and Delete keys at the same time. Select "Task Manager" from the options. In Task Manager, click on the "Processes" tab and look at the list of processes there. This list shows everything that your computer is doing, and how much memory is devoted to each one. Look down the list at the memory used for each process, and make note of anything using over, say, 10,000K of memory. Report those results back to us. Next, click on the Task Manager tab for "Performance." Look at the box at the bottom for "Physical Memory" and tell us what the "total" and "available" amounts are. Also at the left is a fluctiating bar that shows CPU usage as a percentage. What value does that show?

After you give us this information, we can help you find unnecessary processes that can be eliminated to speed up your machine.

You should also go to www.crucial.com to run the memory scanner. Learn how much memory can be installed, how much more might be purchased, memory type, and prices.

Of course, I'm not a computer guru, so some of that suggested quote may be bad advice, but you get the idea.

[dar512]

Very nice, glatt. That's a good example of how to give directions.

[lookout123]

advice not taken by the poster is in evidence clearly throughout the cellar. if not so stupid as to buy GM and support GW point would already be common knowledge. 85% $20 says TW is the posts what he thinks is a scathing indictment of glatt's intelligence in the next 30 minutes.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

If you think that Task Manager supplies the answer, then you should explain what Task Manager is, and how to find it.

I did not intend to provide every little detail. I intended only three paragraphs that provide massive information. And that did not waste time with solutions. Solutions come later. Requested was information that means almost nothing to most, but creates useful replies without "it could be this or could be that".

The next time you experience this slowness ...

completely misses the point #1. Your example ignored the most important question.

What is the objective? To make it faster?

I am still only guessing to that objective. Long before trying to fix a problem, first define the objective. Something about optimizing a computer to run some undefined software?

Your example also asks for irrelevant facts such as "available memory". Third point executes a crucial.com scanner to answer that and numerous other questions. Why would anyone know that? I was not going to list 15 possible anwers provided by that scanner. 'Why' (and learning from the experience) gets answered _after_ each point is performed. Then only relevant answers are posted.

The purpose of Task Manager is to obtain CPU time and Memory Delta - important parameters. I never asked for 'total available memory"? Why did you? I asked for CPU time and Memory Delta (also called Mem Delta or Memory Useage Delta) because those numbers answer numerous relevant questions.

Problem I have with your example is also what I recently encountered with software descriptions. Each routinely forgot to cite its purpose or objective. But its text was so user friendly with all those "I", "you", and irrelevant "they" words that it was easy to read and provided near zero useful information.

First and foremost is point one: what is the objective. What is that program that runs too slow? I now assume it was FireFox or IE. But then even 600 Mhz computers runs that software sufficiently fast - at least the ones I have configured or supported. (Computer that has most difficulty also executes apparently 'less efficient' AVG software.)

Finally, the computer was defined by manufacturer and other numbers. Therefore a useful reply was possible - ie UT's memory link. Why do we fix things? To learn this stuff. No numbers means replies tend to be useless, subjective, and speculative. To obtain useful answers means one must post numbers. When numbers mean nothing to one, then those numbers often are the only reason why others will provide a useful reply.

Post 4 was the outline on how to obtain a solution quickly. Three simple paragraphs chock full of useful information. Key nouns provided so that questions could be asked or answered, or confusion eliminated using a long list of other sources. Anwers easily obtained in Windows' Help and Support, or entering "Task Manager" in Wikipedia, or entering "Task Manager" in Google, or searching for "Task Manager" in Micrsoft.com, or clicking on Help in Task Manager, or asking the question here, or ... because key nouns were provided.

Also eliminated in your example was each step numbered, so that questions could referenced the appropriate paragraph and so that each task was defined separately. There was point 1, and point 2, and point 3. Each required responses.

Finally, this is the worst English:

The next time you experience this slowness, ...

Wordy. Vague. And introduces a word that is avoided in good directions - "you".

Slowness is ..... {then defined - or the objective stated}
First identify reasons for slowness by performed all of three following tasks.

My previous complaint remains. Frustration and wasted labor is due to not answering each of the three paragraphs in Post 4.

It is an eMachine. Extra care should be observed when selecting memory. A problem also learned by spending too much time with their tech support. Just another warning.

That machine should be screaming. If the machine is as slow as subjectively implied, then it has more problems than just insufficient memory. How slow is it? Just another in a long list of question answered if all three points in Post 4 been performed or answered.

What indicates that Post 4 provides a best solution? It demands numbers. Especially numbers that mean so little to most people. Been doing this stuff for too many generations. Not decades. Generations. At the age of 13, how many televisions had you repaired? Post 4 was written using grammar and structure similar to what was read in the best instructions and service manuals. Been doing this stuff too long to be anything but blunt and honest.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Problem I have with your example is also what I recently encountered with software descriptions. Each routinely forgot to cite its purpose or objective. But its text was so user friendly with all those "I", "you", and irrelevant "they" words that it was easy to read and provided near zero useful information.

..

Been doing this stuff too long to be anything but blunt and honest.

You admit that my post was easy to read and user friendly. That's the point. If the writing style of your post makes it so difficult to read that nobody gets information out of it, then it's pointless to post it.

I freely admitted that I don't know much about computers and that my example might contain flawed information. Perhaps you missed that. It was the last line of my post. The purpose of my example was to show you a writing style that is more accessible to the reader. After all, that's the whole point, isn't it?

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

You admit that my post was easy to read and user friendly. That's the point. If the writing style of your post makes it so difficult to read that nobody gets information out of it, then it's pointless to post it.

As a kid, I obtained service manuals for all Ford automobiles. I read every one of those manuals. What did I learn? Best written material required three to five readings. The stuff that is easily read the first time - that results in nothing new the second time - is some of the greatest trash.

To make post 4 easiest to read, I kept it short, numbered all three points, confirmed every keyword before posting it, and never confused people with things such as what Task Manager is.

One primary intent here - which is the #1 reason why we fix things - was to teach. Ever see the movie Paper Chase? What is necessary before going to class? Homework. Profession Kingfield required each to come to class with facts and numbers. Without numbers from Post 4 - if the homework is not first done - then I can teach nothing useful. IOW had numbers from post 4 been first provided, then I could have identified the suspects AND explained what and why is happening. No numbers? Nothing as required in post 4. Well then Juniper was struggling with wild speculation - it could be this or could be that.

Why am I "being a twit" as it was described? There is also a larger lesson here. "I" "You" "We" etc has no place here. I can only be a 'twit' if one personalizes what is only a technical discussion.

Numbers are always essential to solving technical problems. Never short your help of facts. Never add anything personal in what is only a technical solution. Never try to first solve a problem; always first collect facts and identify the suspects long before trying to fix anything. Follow the evidence; ignore wild speculation. And the best service manuals, technical solutions, science papers, etc require multiple rereads to comprehend - are that chock full of facts.

Post 4 was a perfect example of so much information in so few words. Post 4 would have avoided wasting time with McAfee / AVG solutions - also called wild speculation.

When do we move on the only problem here - that computer? When facts request by three point in post 4 are provided. Notice how many wasted posts and so many emotional people only because those numbers still are not provided.

(I am also entertained that so many got emotional over what is simply a technical problem. I did not even have to cry, “Fire” in a theater to create a riot. How easily so many let their emotions rage – and those numbers from post 4 still are not provided.)

[glatt]

tw, you forget that this is not a user manual. You are having a written conversation with a person.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

tw, you forget that this is not a user manual. You are having a written conversation with a person.

I am the technical manual. For all practical purposes in this thread, I am nothing more than an interactive service manual. My posts are nothing but technical responses to technical problems. Again, the reason why words such as "I", "You", etc must be eliminates as much as possible. If anyone sees anything different, well that is their personal biases being read into what I did not write.

But again, we are wasting time by avoiding the subject - that enemy of all mankind - a failed machine.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by tw

What did I learn? Best written material required three to five readings. The stuff that is easily read the first time - that results in nothing new the second time - is some of the greatest trash.

Well that's just total BS. I've read some very well written programming books and articles that did not require multiple readings to understand. I, for one, appreciate clear and straightforward prose.

Reread your posts, tw. If you can't hear how pompous they sound, then there's your problem.

[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

Reread your posts, tw. If you can't hear how pompous they sound, then there's your problem.

If you hear anything pompous, then you are entertaining your emotions. I don't care how they sound. I only care what the technical facts are. If you are reading what I am writing, you only see those facts. Pompous is an emotional perception - how you perceive something. If I wanted to be pompous or did not want to sound pompous, then I would worry about being politically correct. I don't. I am only posting facts with complete disregard for something irrelevant - how your emotions react to the sentence structure.

This is a technical discussion. A list of thing to do and to not do – how to solve a technical problem. “You” and “I” have no dog in this fight. “You” and “I” are irrelevant to the subject. If you perceive some hidden meaning in my post, that is you adding what I never stated or even intended.

“It sounds like” is the technical equivalent of wild speculation. Does it specifically state something pompous? Where does that post state a pompous intent? Only way something ‘sounds like’ is if you apply your perceptions – emotions.

I don't care how it sounds. Sounds have nothing to do with technical facts and numbers. A failed computer is the topic here. How to fix it. What is and is not known. What is needed to glean new facts. Pompous has no relevance, is not intended, is (by your own admission) what you perceive.

Worse, you say it 'sounds pompous' without example. In a technical discussion, a fact stated without the underlying whys has no merit. You don't even provide example meaning I can only wildly speculate why you achieved that conclusion. Not that it is relevant. The subject is Juniper's computer; not perceptions due to implied assumptions.

So, where is are your technical facts and objectives that contribute to a solution or the ultimate objective?