My friend has a 5 year old Dell PC that came with XP Home. It has
become painfully slow.
The Desktop comes up ok but then it takes a long time to bring up
programs like IE Explorer. He's on DSL and I tried it without DSL
connected and it made no difference. It's just generally slow no
matter what you do, on the net or not.
He has an 80 GB drive and 256 MB memory. I don't know the processor
speed yet. The swap file is managed by the system. The drive has
about 50 GB free.
The Startup Group is loaded with *.dll's. Both in Msconfig and
MSinfo32.
I searched the drive for *.tmp files and deleted them except for the
Windows\Temp folder which has 313 tmp files and 10 sub folders.
I'm planning to delete everything in the Windows\Temp folder hoping
that may speed it up. He has a Reg Cleaner he uses periodically,
don't know the name of it yet. He bought it.
Would appreciate any ideas.
Regards,
Bill Watt
Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
Slow PC. XP Home.
Moderators: DllAdmin, DLLADMIN ONLY
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
Sorry, wrong news group.
My apologies.
Regards,
Bill Watt
Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
My apologies.
Regards,
Bill Watt
Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
-
bob harris
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 17 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
First, run the XP task manager to find out what is running. Click on the
process tab, then click the CPU tab once or twice to get things sorted based
on CPU usage. Is anything, other than "system idle process" using over 50%
of the CPU? If so, note its name and try to detemrine what it is and why it
is running. Try a web search on the file name to learn about it.
Sometimes antivirus software gets into a perpetual scan mode or scanning
with too high a priority. If that is the problem, check for some option to
do "scan on demand" instead of "continuous scan", or to set the priority
lower. Note that most antivirus software can not be terminated from the XP
task manager, nor can its priority be set from there. To be effective,
antivirus software has to be resistant to tampering. However, many do offer
some control over how they work from a system tray icon, or possibly from
the control panel.
I have had a couple of instances in which two programs would fight each
other, chewing up CPU. If you have more than one program running
significantly above zero percent, think about turning one of them off and
seeing whether the other behaves better.
To control what starts when windows starts, Microsoft offers a free tool
called AUTORUNS. It can control the startup of almost anything. But, for
safety, use the mode in which Microsoft processes are not reported, or you
might accidentally turn off something important, such as one of the parts of
product activation. (That would render your PC unactivated, and if not
fixed, would stop working in about 3 days.)
Finally, realize that 256 Meg is not much RAM, when running XP. Use the
task manager to check RAM usage and swap file usage. If the PC is using all
of its RAM, then any data that spills over into the swap file will be
accessed at about 1/10 the speed of the RAM, maybe slower. With that little
RAM you may be forced to run only XP and one or two other programs. If RAM
usage is the issue, then use the task manager to see how much RAM each
process is taking. You may not be able to afford a lot of background
processes, such as "helpers" asssociated with iTunes, download managers,
scanners, toolbars, bandwidth meters, defraggers, etc. Most of these can be
set to activate on-demand. Or, you can kill them via the task manager, then
reboot to restart them, if they are needed.
"Bill Watt" <nobwatt@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:bcsvr45qn60s3hnk1dilhfqp8i4q83u1ka@4ax.com...
>
> My friend has a 5 year old Dell PC that came with XP Home. It has
> become painfully slow.
>
> The Desktop comes up ok but then it takes a long time to bring up
> programs like IE Explorer. He's on DSL and I tried it without DSL
> connected and it made no difference. It's just generally slow no
> matter what you do, on the net or not.
>
> He has an 80 GB drive and 256 MB memory. I don't know the processor
> speed yet. The swap file is managed by the system. The drive has
> about 50 GB free.
>
> The Startup Group is loaded with *.dll's. Both in Msconfig and
> MSinfo32.
>
> I searched the drive for *.tmp files and deleted them except for the
> Windows\Temp folder which has 313 tmp files and 10 sub folders.
>
> I'm planning to delete everything in the Windows\Temp folder hoping
> that may speed it up. He has a Reg Cleaner he uses periodically,
> don't know the name of it yet. He bought it.
>
> Would appreciate any ideas.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Watt
> Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
>
process tab, then click the CPU tab once or twice to get things sorted based
on CPU usage. Is anything, other than "system idle process" using over 50%
of the CPU? If so, note its name and try to detemrine what it is and why it
is running. Try a web search on the file name to learn about it.
Sometimes antivirus software gets into a perpetual scan mode or scanning
with too high a priority. If that is the problem, check for some option to
do "scan on demand" instead of "continuous scan", or to set the priority
lower. Note that most antivirus software can not be terminated from the XP
task manager, nor can its priority be set from there. To be effective,
antivirus software has to be resistant to tampering. However, many do offer
some control over how they work from a system tray icon, or possibly from
the control panel.
I have had a couple of instances in which two programs would fight each
other, chewing up CPU. If you have more than one program running
significantly above zero percent, think about turning one of them off and
seeing whether the other behaves better.
To control what starts when windows starts, Microsoft offers a free tool
called AUTORUNS. It can control the startup of almost anything. But, for
safety, use the mode in which Microsoft processes are not reported, or you
might accidentally turn off something important, such as one of the parts of
product activation. (That would render your PC unactivated, and if not
fixed, would stop working in about 3 days.)
Finally, realize that 256 Meg is not much RAM, when running XP. Use the
task manager to check RAM usage and swap file usage. If the PC is using all
of its RAM, then any data that spills over into the swap file will be
accessed at about 1/10 the speed of the RAM, maybe slower. With that little
RAM you may be forced to run only XP and one or two other programs. If RAM
usage is the issue, then use the task manager to see how much RAM each
process is taking. You may not be able to afford a lot of background
processes, such as "helpers" asssociated with iTunes, download managers,
scanners, toolbars, bandwidth meters, defraggers, etc. Most of these can be
set to activate on-demand. Or, you can kill them via the task manager, then
reboot to restart them, if they are needed.
"Bill Watt" <nobwatt@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:bcsvr45qn60s3hnk1dilhfqp8i4q83u1ka@4ax.com...
>
> My friend has a 5 year old Dell PC that came with XP Home. It has
> become painfully slow.
>
> The Desktop comes up ok but then it takes a long time to bring up
> programs like IE Explorer. He's on DSL and I tried it without DSL
> connected and it made no difference. It's just generally slow no
> matter what you do, on the net or not.
>
> He has an 80 GB drive and 256 MB memory. I don't know the processor
> speed yet. The swap file is managed by the system. The drive has
> about 50 GB free.
>
> The Startup Group is loaded with *.dll's. Both in Msconfig and
> MSinfo32.
>
> I searched the drive for *.tmp files and deleted them except for the
> Windows\Temp folder which has 313 tmp files and 10 sub folders.
>
> I'm planning to delete everything in the Windows\Temp folder hoping
> that may speed it up. He has a Reg Cleaner he uses periodically,
> don't know the name of it yet. He bought it.
>
> Would appreciate any ideas.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Watt
> Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
>
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
Thanks for the replies and offer to help here. I hope to get over to
his house tomorrow and I'll post back with results. I'll start with
a clean boot. The drive runs almost all the time so it looks like
the swap file is overworked and really slowing it down. He also has
a lot of stuff loaded that he really doesn't need, like the Google
Tool Bar. He does Defrag regularly.
When I realized I posted to the 98 group I also posted to the
Microsoft.public.windowsxp.general group.
Thanks
Bill Watt
Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
__________________________________________________________________
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:28:15 -0500, "Bob Harris"
<rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>First, run the XP task manager to find out what is running. Click on the
>process tab, then click the CPU tab once or twice to get things sorted based
>on CPU usage. Is anything, other than "system idle process" using over 50%
>of the CPU? If so, note its name and try to detemrine what it is and why it
>is running. Try a web search on the file name to learn about it.
>
>Sometimes antivirus software gets into a perpetual scan mode or scanning
>with too high a priority. If that is the problem, check for some option to
>do "scan on demand" instead of "continuous scan", or to set the priority
>lower. Note that most antivirus software can not be terminated from the XP
>task manager, nor can its priority be set from there. To be effective,
>antivirus software has to be resistant to tampering. However, many do offer
>some control over how they work from a system tray icon, or possibly from
>the control panel.
>
>I have had a couple of instances in which two programs would fight each
>other, chewing up CPU. If you have more than one program running
>significantly above zero percent, think about turning one of them off and
>seeing whether the other behaves better.
>
>To control what starts when windows starts, Microsoft offers a free tool
>called AUTORUNS. It can control the startup of almost anything. But, for
>safety, use the mode in which Microsoft processes are not reported, or you
>might accidentally turn off something important, such as one of the parts of
>product activation. (That would render your PC unactivated, and if not
>fixed, would stop working in about 3 days.)
>
>Finally, realize that 256 Meg is not much RAM, when running XP. Use the
>task manager to check RAM usage and swap file usage. If the PC is using all
>of its RAM, then any data that spills over into the swap file will be
>accessed at about 1/10 the speed of the RAM, maybe slower. With that little
>RAM you may be forced to run only XP and one or two other programs. If RAM
>usage is the issue, then use the task manager to see how much RAM each
>process is taking. You may not be able to afford a lot of background
>processes, such as "helpers" asssociated with iTunes, download managers,
>scanners, toolbars, bandwidth meters, defraggers, etc. Most of these can be
>set to activate on-demand. Or, you can kill them via the task manager, then
>reboot to restart them, if they are needed.
>
>"Bill Watt" <nobwatt@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:bcsvr45qn60s3hnk1dilhfqp8i4q83u1ka@4ax.com...
>>
>> My friend has a 5 year old Dell PC that came with XP Home. It has
>> become painfully slow.
>>
>> The Desktop comes up ok but then it takes a long time to bring up
>> programs like IE Explorer. He's on DSL and I tried it without DSL
>> connected and it made no difference. It's just generally slow no
>> matter what you do, on the net or not.
>>
>> He has an 80 GB drive and 256 MB memory. I don't know the processor
>> speed yet. The swap file is managed by the system. The drive has
>> about 50 GB free.
>>
>> The Startup Group is loaded with *.dll's. Both in Msconfig and
>> MSinfo32.
>>
>> I searched the drive for *.tmp files and deleted them except for the
>> Windows\Temp folder which has 313 tmp files and 10 sub folders.
>>
>> I'm planning to delete everything in the Windows\Temp folder hoping
>> that may speed it up. He has a Reg Cleaner he uses periodically,
>> don't know the name of it yet. He bought it.
>>
>> Would appreciate any ideas.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill Watt
>> Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
>>
>
his house tomorrow and I'll post back with results. I'll start with
a clean boot. The drive runs almost all the time so it looks like
the swap file is overworked and really slowing it down. He also has
a lot of stuff loaded that he really doesn't need, like the Google
Tool Bar. He does Defrag regularly.
When I realized I posted to the 98 group I also posted to the
Microsoft.public.windowsxp.general group.
Thanks
Bill Watt
Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
__________________________________________________________________
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:28:15 -0500, "Bob Harris"
<rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>First, run the XP task manager to find out what is running. Click on the
>process tab, then click the CPU tab once or twice to get things sorted based
>on CPU usage. Is anything, other than "system idle process" using over 50%
>of the CPU? If so, note its name and try to detemrine what it is and why it
>is running. Try a web search on the file name to learn about it.
>
>Sometimes antivirus software gets into a perpetual scan mode or scanning
>with too high a priority. If that is the problem, check for some option to
>do "scan on demand" instead of "continuous scan", or to set the priority
>lower. Note that most antivirus software can not be terminated from the XP
>task manager, nor can its priority be set from there. To be effective,
>antivirus software has to be resistant to tampering. However, many do offer
>some control over how they work from a system tray icon, or possibly from
>the control panel.
>
>I have had a couple of instances in which two programs would fight each
>other, chewing up CPU. If you have more than one program running
>significantly above zero percent, think about turning one of them off and
>seeing whether the other behaves better.
>
>To control what starts when windows starts, Microsoft offers a free tool
>called AUTORUNS. It can control the startup of almost anything. But, for
>safety, use the mode in which Microsoft processes are not reported, or you
>might accidentally turn off something important, such as one of the parts of
>product activation. (That would render your PC unactivated, and if not
>fixed, would stop working in about 3 days.)
>
>Finally, realize that 256 Meg is not much RAM, when running XP. Use the
>task manager to check RAM usage and swap file usage. If the PC is using all
>of its RAM, then any data that spills over into the swap file will be
>accessed at about 1/10 the speed of the RAM, maybe slower. With that little
>RAM you may be forced to run only XP and one or two other programs. If RAM
>usage is the issue, then use the task manager to see how much RAM each
>process is taking. You may not be able to afford a lot of background
>processes, such as "helpers" asssociated with iTunes, download managers,
>scanners, toolbars, bandwidth meters, defraggers, etc. Most of these can be
>set to activate on-demand. Or, you can kill them via the task manager, then
>reboot to restart them, if they are needed.
>
>"Bill Watt" <nobwatt@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:bcsvr45qn60s3hnk1dilhfqp8i4q83u1ka@4ax.com...
>>
>> My friend has a 5 year old Dell PC that came with XP Home. It has
>> become painfully slow.
>>
>> The Desktop comes up ok but then it takes a long time to bring up
>> programs like IE Explorer. He's on DSL and I tried it without DSL
>> connected and it made no difference. It's just generally slow no
>> matter what you do, on the net or not.
>>
>> He has an 80 GB drive and 256 MB memory. I don't know the processor
>> speed yet. The swap file is managed by the system. The drive has
>> about 50 GB free.
>>
>> The Startup Group is loaded with *.dll's. Both in Msconfig and
>> MSinfo32.
>>
>> I searched the drive for *.tmp files and deleted them except for the
>> Windows\Temp folder which has 313 tmp files and 10 sub folders.
>>
>> I'm planning to delete everything in the Windows\Temp folder hoping
>> that may speed it up. He has a Reg Cleaner he uses periodically,
>> don't know the name of it yet. He bought it.
>>
>> Would appreciate any ideas.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill Watt
>> Win98 Computer Help & Other Information http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
>>
>
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:17:51 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:
>Bill Watt wrote:
>
>> My friend has a 5 year old Dell PC that came with XP Home.
>>
>> It has become painfully slow.
>>
>> Would appreciate any ideas.
>
>Install windows 98 on it.
>
>That's why you're posting here, isin't it?
>
>If you want Windows 98se, then download it here:
>
>http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/ ... %2B-CD-Key
>
>84 seeders at the moment.
>
>You have a torrent client installed, right?
OK, I got to ask......
I went to the link you put on here. I clicked on it and got the
webpage. Since I have Win98se, I have no reason to download it, but
for the heck of it, I clicked on the file and got a 45K file called
Windows-98-Second-Edition-Full-Bootable-CD + CD-Key.torrent
What the heck do you do with that?
I opened it with notepad and it's got a lot code, but it means
nothing....
Just curious!
I wish they had a small easy to use CD burner software on there, but I
suppose I'd not get the program either.
And what is a torrent client?
LM
>Bill Watt wrote:
>
>> My friend has a 5 year old Dell PC that came with XP Home.
>>
>> It has become painfully slow.
>>
>> Would appreciate any ideas.
>
>Install windows 98 on it.
>
>That's why you're posting here, isin't it?
>
>If you want Windows 98se, then download it here:
>
>http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/ ... %2B-CD-Key
>
>84 seeders at the moment.
>
>You have a torrent client installed, right?
OK, I got to ask......
I went to the link you put on here. I clicked on it and got the
webpage. Since I have Win98se, I have no reason to download it, but
for the heck of it, I clicked on the file and got a 45K file called
Windows-98-Second-Edition-Full-Bootable-CD + CD-Key.torrent
What the heck do you do with that?
I opened it with notepad and it's got a lot code, but it means
nothing....
Just curious!
I wish they had a small easy to use CD burner software on there, but I
suppose I'd not get the program either.
And what is a torrent client?
LM
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
letterman@invalid.com wrote
[snip]
> Unless XP is different, EVERYTHING in the Temp folder
> should be deleted regularly. I have a MSdos batch file that deletes
> everything in the TEMP folder, as well as all browser cache for all my
> browsers, and removes the swap file when I bootup, and before Windows
> loads. (I dont think XP can use a batch file).
If you have your batch file delete everything in the Temp folder before
Windows starts, how do you install programs that require a reboot to finish
and tht put their files in the Temp folder to finish the install upon
reboot?
Doesn't that cause problems?
Curious.
Buffalo
[snip]
> Unless XP is different, EVERYTHING in the Temp folder
> should be deleted regularly. I have a MSdos batch file that deletes
> everything in the TEMP folder, as well as all browser cache for all my
> browsers, and removes the swap file when I bootup, and before Windows
> loads. (I dont think XP can use a batch file).
If you have your batch file delete everything in the Temp folder before
Windows starts, how do you install programs that require a reboot to finish
and tht put their files in the Temp folder to finish the install upon
reboot?
Doesn't that cause problems?
Curious.
Buffalo
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:50:45 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
wrote:
>
>
>letterman@invalid.com wrote
>[snip]
>> Unless XP is different, EVERYTHING in the Temp folder
>> should be deleted regularly. I have a MSdos batch file that deletes
>> everything in the TEMP folder, as well as all browser cache for all my
>> browsers, and removes the swap file when I bootup, and before Windows
>> loads. (I dont think XP can use a batch file).
>
>If you have your batch file delete everything in the Temp folder before
>Windows starts, how do you install programs that require a reboot to finish
>and tht put their files in the Temp folder to finish the install upon
>reboot?
>Doesn't that cause problems?
>Curious.
>Buffalo
>
My batch file is not automatic. I once had it load off autoexec,bat.
Now I have to type 2 keys to activate it. I always boot into dos. To
start windows I have to type WIN. I do this because of that batch
file and because I use a dos database for my local personal phonebook.
That way I can load that phonebook in seconds rather than wait for
Windows to load. Besides that the database records cant be
transferred to a windows database. If I am instyalling something, I
do not use the batch file. (I learned that the hard way).
PS. I can run that batch file at shutdown too, or even inside of
windows, except in Windows I get an error "can not delete the swap
file", which I just ignore. I normally run it inside windows to get
rid of my browser cache in all 3 browsers I use. IE FF and Opera.
LM
wrote:
>
>
>letterman@invalid.com wrote
>[snip]
>> Unless XP is different, EVERYTHING in the Temp folder
>> should be deleted regularly. I have a MSdos batch file that deletes
>> everything in the TEMP folder, as well as all browser cache for all my
>> browsers, and removes the swap file when I bootup, and before Windows
>> loads. (I dont think XP can use a batch file).
>
>If you have your batch file delete everything in the Temp folder before
>Windows starts, how do you install programs that require a reboot to finish
>and tht put their files in the Temp folder to finish the install upon
>reboot?
>Doesn't that cause problems?
>Curious.
>Buffalo
>
My batch file is not automatic. I once had it load off autoexec,bat.
Now I have to type 2 keys to activate it. I always boot into dos. To
start windows I have to type WIN. I do this because of that batch
file and because I use a dos database for my local personal phonebook.
That way I can load that phonebook in seconds rather than wait for
Windows to load. Besides that the database records cant be
transferred to a windows database. If I am instyalling something, I
do not use the batch file. (I learned that the hard way).
PS. I can run that batch file at shutdown too, or even inside of
windows, except in Windows I get an error "can not delete the swap
file", which I just ignore. I normally run it inside windows to get
rid of my browser cache in all 3 browsers I use. IE FF and Opera.
LM
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:32:39 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:
>Full Quoter letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>
>> OK, I got to ask......
>>
>> Windows-98-Second-Edition-Full-Bootable-CD + CD-Key.torrent
>>
>> What the heck do you do with that?
>>
>> And what is a torrent client?
>
>For the past, oh, 6 or 7 years, there's been this thing you can do on
>the internet called "file sharing". It's more technically known as p2p
>(peer to peer). Ever heard of something called Napster? Gnutella?
>Kazaa? eMule? eDonkey? They all implimented a form of peer to peer
>file sharing.
>
>The most common form of file sharing today uses the BitTorrent protocal,
>also known simply as BT or just torrent. Detailed info about BT:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)
>
>There are two dozen, maybe more, BT client software, a popular one being
>uTorrent (micro-torrent):
>
>http://www.utorrent.com/
>
>The latest version (1.8.2) is fully compatible with win-98 (and even
>win95).
>
>When you have a BT client installed, and you want something (a movie, a
>music CD, a piece of software), then you just fire up google and enter
>the search term and just throw the word "torrent" at the end.
>
>Say, I want to download the Beatles White Album. In google, I'll enter
>this:
>
>Beatles White Album torrent (no quotes).
>
>You will see hits from:
>
> - thepiratebay
> - torrentreactor
> - torrentz
> - isohunt
> - torrentbox
>
>And others. Those are tracking websites. They have the .torrent files
>that you'll need in order to join the p2p network. They don't actually
>contain or host the material to be downloaded. Think of them like a
>card catalog in a library. You go to the catalog to find out where a
>specific book is by finding it's card in the catalog.
>
>Lets look at the link from torrentreactor.net:
>
>http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/ ... hite-Album
>
>We're told that the torrent size is 129 mb. When you click the download
>link, your browser will probably ask you if you want to download the
>.torrent file or open it with your installed BT client. So I choose
>"open with uTorrent". uTorrent is started, and I get a window showing
>me the structure of the torrent (directories and files). If I don't
>want some of the files or directories, I can de-select them, or
>(usually) I want them all. I click OK, and then the P2P process starts.
>
>There are 65 seeders (people that have 100% of the torrent or
>set-of-files) and 18 peers (or "leachers") - people who are in the
>process of downloading the torrent. I can see that this is a 2-cd set,
>and can see all the names of the tracks. Also included are scanned .jpg
>files of the album covers, inlays, looks like even a scan of the album
>itself. It's common to also get a .txt file or two, which contains
>information about how the .mp3 files were encoded, information about the
>artist, etc. So far, in the time it's taken me to type this paragraph,
>I've downloaded 51% of the 128 mb of this torrent. My download speed is
>445 kb/sec. uTorrent is also uploading from my computer to the other
>peers. I've uploaded about 3 mb of the torrent to 3 peers that I'm
>connected to.
>
>Most BT clients will, by default, begin sharing (uploading) what you
>download (as it's being downloaded) immediately with others who are also
>downloading the same torrent.
>
>Ah, I see that I'm done. I'm now a "seed" - I have 100% of the torrent
>and I'm one of 60-odd computers providing it to others. But at this
>point I will change that by stopping the service. I'm looking at the
>files now, and I've double-clicked on "Revolution", and it's playing
>now. It's 5 mb in size, and has been encoded at 414 kb/s (an odd rate,
>and probably way higher than needed given the spectral content of the
>original source material). High quality mp3's are usually recorded at
>320 kb/s.
>
>This torrent was downloaded very fast, but that's because it's popular
>and there were lots of peers. If you're into other types of music (less
>popular) it's more common for there to be only 2 or 3 peers for a given
>album, and it might take 8 hours, or even 1 or 2 days to download the
>entire album.
>
>One final note about p2p downloading is that it's probably a good idea
>to also run a program called "Peer Guardian". It's basically an
>out-bound firewall, but it's been customized to prevent your torrent
>client from communicating with IP addresses that have been flagged by
>others as being, well, being someone you don't want to communicate
>with. Such as the RIAA, or entities that like to see who is downloading
>what.
>
>During the time I was downloading the Beatles White Album, Peer Guardian
>blocked an entity called "Hightower Systems Management" and
>"Oversee.net". Those entities or organizations will know that I was
>listed as being a peer or seed for that torrent, but because their
>communication with me was blocked by peer guardian, they have no
>concrete proof that I was acting as either an uploader or downloader for
>this torrent.
>
>In order to use a torrent client, you'll have to modify your NAT-router
>(if you have one, and you should have one). You'll have to forward or
>open up a port so that external connections can be made to you on that
>port. Some ISP's are doing funny things with torrent traffic (like
>throttling, traffic shaping, etc) and there are whole coversations, web
>sites, forums, etc, devoted to which ISP's are doing exactly what, and
>how to get around it.
>
>And that is the thumbnail sketch of p2p aka filesharing.
Thanks for the info. I learned something new. I did use Napster
before they went pay. I recall having to use their own software.
I dont know how much I could do with being on dialup, but for smaller
files it might work.
By the way, if I can find a torrent, or some freeware to use my CD
burner for burning, what can I get that will work on 98 and is small
enough to DL? Prefer EASY to use....
Thanks
LM
>Full Quoter letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>
>> OK, I got to ask......
>>
>> Windows-98-Second-Edition-Full-Bootable-CD + CD-Key.torrent
>>
>> What the heck do you do with that?
>>
>> And what is a torrent client?
>
>For the past, oh, 6 or 7 years, there's been this thing you can do on
>the internet called "file sharing". It's more technically known as p2p
>(peer to peer). Ever heard of something called Napster? Gnutella?
>Kazaa? eMule? eDonkey? They all implimented a form of peer to peer
>file sharing.
>
>The most common form of file sharing today uses the BitTorrent protocal,
>also known simply as BT or just torrent. Detailed info about BT:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)
>
>There are two dozen, maybe more, BT client software, a popular one being
>uTorrent (micro-torrent):
>
>http://www.utorrent.com/
>
>The latest version (1.8.2) is fully compatible with win-98 (and even
>win95).
>
>When you have a BT client installed, and you want something (a movie, a
>music CD, a piece of software), then you just fire up google and enter
>the search term and just throw the word "torrent" at the end.
>
>Say, I want to download the Beatles White Album. In google, I'll enter
>this:
>
>Beatles White Album torrent (no quotes).
>
>You will see hits from:
>
> - thepiratebay
> - torrentreactor
> - torrentz
> - isohunt
> - torrentbox
>
>And others. Those are tracking websites. They have the .torrent files
>that you'll need in order to join the p2p network. They don't actually
>contain or host the material to be downloaded. Think of them like a
>card catalog in a library. You go to the catalog to find out where a
>specific book is by finding it's card in the catalog.
>
>Lets look at the link from torrentreactor.net:
>
>http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/ ... hite-Album
>
>We're told that the torrent size is 129 mb. When you click the download
>link, your browser will probably ask you if you want to download the
>.torrent file or open it with your installed BT client. So I choose
>"open with uTorrent". uTorrent is started, and I get a window showing
>me the structure of the torrent (directories and files). If I don't
>want some of the files or directories, I can de-select them, or
>(usually) I want them all. I click OK, and then the P2P process starts.
>
>There are 65 seeders (people that have 100% of the torrent or
>set-of-files) and 18 peers (or "leachers") - people who are in the
>process of downloading the torrent. I can see that this is a 2-cd set,
>and can see all the names of the tracks. Also included are scanned .jpg
>files of the album covers, inlays, looks like even a scan of the album
>itself. It's common to also get a .txt file or two, which contains
>information about how the .mp3 files were encoded, information about the
>artist, etc. So far, in the time it's taken me to type this paragraph,
>I've downloaded 51% of the 128 mb of this torrent. My download speed is
>445 kb/sec. uTorrent is also uploading from my computer to the other
>peers. I've uploaded about 3 mb of the torrent to 3 peers that I'm
>connected to.
>
>Most BT clients will, by default, begin sharing (uploading) what you
>download (as it's being downloaded) immediately with others who are also
>downloading the same torrent.
>
>Ah, I see that I'm done. I'm now a "seed" - I have 100% of the torrent
>and I'm one of 60-odd computers providing it to others. But at this
>point I will change that by stopping the service. I'm looking at the
>files now, and I've double-clicked on "Revolution", and it's playing
>now. It's 5 mb in size, and has been encoded at 414 kb/s (an odd rate,
>and probably way higher than needed given the spectral content of the
>original source material). High quality mp3's are usually recorded at
>320 kb/s.
>
>This torrent was downloaded very fast, but that's because it's popular
>and there were lots of peers. If you're into other types of music (less
>popular) it's more common for there to be only 2 or 3 peers for a given
>album, and it might take 8 hours, or even 1 or 2 days to download the
>entire album.
>
>One final note about p2p downloading is that it's probably a good idea
>to also run a program called "Peer Guardian". It's basically an
>out-bound firewall, but it's been customized to prevent your torrent
>client from communicating with IP addresses that have been flagged by
>others as being, well, being someone you don't want to communicate
>with. Such as the RIAA, or entities that like to see who is downloading
>what.
>
>During the time I was downloading the Beatles White Album, Peer Guardian
>blocked an entity called "Hightower Systems Management" and
>"Oversee.net". Those entities or organizations will know that I was
>listed as being a peer or seed for that torrent, but because their
>communication with me was blocked by peer guardian, they have no
>concrete proof that I was acting as either an uploader or downloader for
>this torrent.
>
>In order to use a torrent client, you'll have to modify your NAT-router
>(if you have one, and you should have one). You'll have to forward or
>open up a port so that external connections can be made to you on that
>port. Some ISP's are doing funny things with torrent traffic (like
>throttling, traffic shaping, etc) and there are whole coversations, web
>sites, forums, etc, devoted to which ISP's are doing exactly what, and
>how to get around it.
>
>And that is the thumbnail sketch of p2p aka filesharing.
Thanks for the info. I learned something new. I did use Napster
before they went pay. I recall having to use their own software.
I dont know how much I could do with being on dialup, but for smaller
files it might work.
By the way, if I can find a torrent, or some freeware to use my CD
burner for burning, what can I get that will work on 98 and is small
enough to DL? Prefer EASY to use....
Thanks
LM
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:25:02 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:
>Full-quoter letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>
You're right about the quoting !!!! Sorry....
>
>The size of any torrent client will likely be far larger then any
>torrent you're likely to download.
>
Torrent Client ???????
You lost me......
You mean I cant just download a piece of software or mp3 file once I
got the software to run it?
>What do you mean by "freeware to use my CD burner for burning" ?
>
>Do you want to find stuff to burn on your CD burner, or you want to find
>freeware cd-burning software?
I mean freeware cd-burning software?
I got the drive, never used it to burn. Never even burned any CD. I
have no idea how. I need software that is easy to use and gets the
job done.
>Full-quoter letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>
You're right about the quoting !!!! Sorry....
>
>The size of any torrent client will likely be far larger then any
>torrent you're likely to download.
>
Torrent Client ???????
You lost me......
You mean I cant just download a piece of software or mp3 file once I
got the software to run it?
>What do you mean by "freeware to use my CD burner for burning" ?
>
>Do you want to find stuff to burn on your CD burner, or you want to find
>freeware cd-burning software?
I mean freeware cd-burning software?
I got the drive, never used it to burn. Never even burned any CD. I
have no idea how. I need software that is easy to use and gets the
job done.
Re: Slow PC. XP Home.
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:35:50 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:
>> > I dont know how much I could do with being on dialup, but for
>> > smaller files it might work.
>>
>> The size of any torrent client will likely be far larger then any
>> torrent you're likely to download.
>
>Strike that.
>
>The size of any torrent you're likely to download will be far larger
>than the client itself.
I'm still confused and lost !!!!
I get the idea that I'd be better to go to download.com or tucows and
find some freeware for Win98 (which might be difficult these days).
I get the idea that torrent is now able to be used on dialup.
LM
>> > I dont know how much I could do with being on dialup, but for
>> > smaller files it might work.
>>
>> The size of any torrent client will likely be far larger then any
>> torrent you're likely to download.
>
>Strike that.
>
>The size of any torrent you're likely to download will be far larger
>than the client itself.
I'm still confused and lost !!!!
I get the idea that I'd be better to go to download.com or tucows and
find some freeware for Win98 (which might be difficult these days).
I get the idea that torrent is now able to be used on dialup.
LM