Solved: Powerdown Problem--Stumped!

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
Bob Cerelli said:
WhitPhil,

It's amazing how much a Defrag and this MFT Padding is being used as the cause of just about everything lately. If this was so common, there should have been tons of prior posts that this ever solved so many diverse problems. Just can't find that many. I mean it's a good idea, but let's not lose sight of all the other, far more likely causes for all these issues.
In fact it is very common. It is just that it has not come to light before.

Frag-Shield was developed to overcome this very problem.
 

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
Summary on General Performance Issues

How much RAM does the system have? 512Mb is good and more might be better, depending on what you are using the computer for.

How big is the drive, is it partitioned, how big are the partitions, have they been FULL formatted, (rather than quick formatting, which is pretty much useless), are they employing the FAT32 or the NTFS file system? If on NTFS did the format achieve 4096 bytes in each allocation unit? (If only 512 bytes in each allocation unit it is better to re-format to 4096)

Has the drive been properly defragmented, have the Master File Tables(s) and Paging file(s) been properly defragmented? Are the MFT(s) big enough? They can sometimes be too small and severely affect performance. What is the drive speed, (5,400/7,200/10,000 rev/min) and how big is the drive-cache, 2Mb, 8Mb, or bigger? Defrag will run four times faster if the drive-cache is four times bigger.

If partitioned is there enough free-space? You need a minimum of 15% free-space, per partition, to run properly and to be able to run defrag.

All of these considerations affect performance. A badly prepared drive will not run well, and may have all manner of problems starting up. See links below. It is also a good idea to have the paging file cleared on shutdown so that you get a clean one on start up. (There is a program, called Eraser 5·7, which erases the paging file on shutdown.)(Takes a bit longer, but is worthwhile.)

What was the problem beforehand?

Do the RAM modules need to be re-seated, are all other cards properly in place, is the power supply big enough, are all fans running properly, what are the CPU temperatures like, what is the ambient temperature (and humidity)? (Very important this one, as the ambient (surrounding) temperature affects the running temperature, and the computer needs to be kept in a cool place free from air-borne moisture and dust.)

(Many computers are kept in carefully controlled ambient surroundings in industry.)

Read this PDF file before handling electronics. Avoid electric shock and component damage due to static electricity.

INSTALL.PDF
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
Warthog1:

Now that you have run the SPyware removals, post back another HiJackThis log to see if NewDotNet has been removed or not.

As well, get rid of that thing called "Memoptimizer". Anything that purports to "optimize" or "manage" memory is useless.

Before we start doing anything else, let's ensure you have a spyware-free PC.

Rampage:
You indicate that FragShield was developed to "overcome this very problem". In this case the "very problem" is a slow shutdown. I would appreciate a link that documents the fixing of shutdown problems.

As you have already seen in the benchmark that was performed, there was zero performance difference with/without MFT padding. The need for doing this is very dependant on the number and size of files on a particular partition, and if required, should manifest itself as general system slowness. There is nothing from this poster that indicates this is an issue.
 

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
Well that is one less issue to resolve. The very fact that a memory optimiser is in use usually indicates that there is an insufficiency of RAM for the programs in use.

You took the comment out of context.

"It's amazing how much ... this MFT Padding is being used."

MFTs often do need adjusting, and Frag-Shield was designed to do just this. I rather doubt that Executive Software needs any lessons in drive maintenance from any of us, so I choose to listen to - their -expert view.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
RAM-PAGE said:
Well that is one less issue to resolve. The very fact that a memory optimiser is in use usually indicates that there is an insufficiency of RAM for the programs in use.

You took the comment out of context.

"It's amazing how much ... this MFT Padding is being used."

MFTs often do need adjusting, and Frag-Shield was designed to do just this. I rather doubt that Executive Software needs any lessons in drive maintenance from any of us, so I choose to listen to - their -expert view.
Now, you're "assuming" again. (and yes, you did say usually). Any PC that is SpyWare infected, is going to demonstrate "sluggishness". Most posters that I have seen, seem to assume that the reason a machine is slow, is because it needs more ram. Specifically, it requires more FREE ram. Windows never requires free ram. And, many people seem to want to run these "memory managers" in order to create more free ram, in order to make windows run faster.
They're junk!

As for FragShield, I am not arguing that there is sometimes a need to try and protect the MFTs. BUT, because of the sizing of the MFT zone, the need to do this, is dependant on the number and size of the files on a particular partition. Arbitrarily padding the zone has no affect on performance. (as was adequately demonstrated in the benchmark that was done).
 

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
WhitPhil said:
Any PC that is SpyWare infected, is going to demonstrate "sluggishness". Most posters that I have seen, seem to assume that the reason a machine is slow, is because it needs more ram. Specifically, it requires more FREE ram. Windows never requires free ram. And, many people seem to want to run these "memory managers" in order to create more free ram, in order to make windows run faster.
They're junk!

As for FragShield, I am not arguing that there is sometimes a need to try and protect the MFTs. BUT, because of the sizing of the MFT zone, the need to do this, is dependant on the number and size of the files on a particular partition. Arbitrarily padding the zone has no affect on performance. (as was adequately demonstrated in the benchmark that was done).
I think that most people are aware of the Spyware issue, but then most people put their computers to just about any use other than computing and are not involved in computer use at a Professional, Business or Engineering level. These machines have become just another child's toy rather than a serious attempt at educating people and have compounded social problems rather than easing them.

It depends how one goes about providing free RAM If a system *needs* 512Mb there is no point in freeing it with one of these optimisers, so it is better to add more in order to provide free RAM which does not need an optimiser.

Nobody is arbitrarily padding the MFT zone. I had to type the figures in manually on one occasion to get Frag-Shield to report that the MFT was now big enough. As I showed in a screen shot the system has now re-computed the size of the MFT and set it accordingly.

The only time I have used a memory optimiser was whan using ME with 256Mb of RAM and using a burning program.

Then it actually produced the desired result. It was called RAM-Page 1·6, I seem to remember. I uninstalled it when using more than 256Mb of RAM as it was then unnecessary.

So, we agree, the answer is not to use an optimiser but to add more RAM.

Making sure that the system is free from spyware is a separate issue, but one which undoubtedly affects system performance.

I stay away from dubious sites and don't download any junk that happens to come along, and I do not like the way that computers and pornography are being used to demoralise the general public.

This is just another one of Big Brother & the three monkeys evil dirty tricks campaigns, where monkey is a play on words with monk & key, and it is well known to be too.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
RAM-PAGE said:
It depends how one goes about providing free RAM If a system *needs* 512Mb there is no point in freeing it with one of these optimisers, so it is better to add more in order to provide free RAM which does not need an optimiser.
Just a "subtle" clarification. You do not want to "add more" in order to provide free ram. You would add more only when the applications you are running can actually take advantage of the additional ram.
Free ram is wasted ram.

ram-page said:
So, we agree, the answer is not to use an optimiser but to add more RAM.
Re: Adding Ram. Not necessarily. You've put words in my mouth. If the running applications can make use of more ram, then one may see a difference. If they can't, then adding more ram will have no affect.

ram-page said:
Nobody is arbitrarily padding the MFT zone.
My use of the word arbitrary, is in relation to your continual recommendation that padding the MFT will have a positive affect. As we all now know, this padding is NOT for everyone and depends on their particular configuration. Yes it won't hurt but doing so will not necessarily resolve any performance issues they are having.

ram-page said:
This is just another one of Big Brother & the three monkeys evil dirty tricks campaigns, where monkey is a play on words with monk & key, and it is well known to be too.
A complete non-sequitur.
 

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
"Free RAM is wasted RAM" is an old cliché from days long gone. Many XP systems are sold with 1024Mb and it is better to have RAM available, than not to have enough.

Checking the MFT is for all those whose systems have an MFT. Padding it (making it bigger) is only necessary if the program recommends it to be done, as they say ... in accordance with Microsoft's guidelines.

Your second statement is a rather obvious one. However using 512Mb plus gives generally better performance when using XP.

As Microsoft is involved with the company in question, I would rather take their word for it that anyone else's.

"A complete non-sequitur."

But the real truth of the matter.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
RAM-PAGE said:
"Free RAM is wasted RAM" is an old cliché from days long gone. Many XP systems are sold with 1024Mb and it is better to have RAM available, than not to have enough.
Sorry, but Free Ram on any system, is wasted ram. Yes, many systems may be sold with a GB, but if it continues to run with around 512 free, than you didn't really need the GB to start with.

ram-page said:
Checking the MFT is for all those whose systems have an MFT. Padding it (making it bigger) is only necessary if the program recommends it to be done, as they say ... in accordance with Microsoft's guidelines.
Yes, you are correct in that you would only need to "consider" padding if the existing zone is approaching "fullness".
My point is that you continue to recommend MFT padding to resolve performance issues, when there is no indication as to whether there is a need or not.

ram-page said:
Your second statement is a rather obvious one. However using 512Mb plus gives generally better performance when using XP.
I hope that it is rather obvious. But again, you continue to recommend adding ram without even attempting to determine the existing running environment. Yes, it won't hurt. But to the user who is just running a few apps at a time, it will have minimal (if any) affect.

ram-page said:
"A complete non-sequitur."

But the real truth of the matter.
Well, this would make 2 non-sequiturs in a row. Instead of beating around the bush, say what you mean.
 

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
Sorry, but free RAM is there as and when you need it. If there is no free RAM then it cannot be used when it is needed.

Why wait until the MFT is full and fragmentation becomes exacerbated? Might as well get it set right to begin with, and then use the "Set it and Forget it Feature" of the main program to automatically defragment the drive.

Again an obvious statement. Those only using a few programs will still get better performance using 512Mb of RAM instead of struggling along with only 256Mb and spending a lifetime "tweaking" their systems. Better to fit more RAM then becoming a tweaking "geek" or a computer "nerd".

"Instead of beating around the bush, say what you mean."

The "religious" community is using sexual favours and sexual entrapment to deliberately cause disruption within society.

The all-knowing, all-seeing, know that people are viewing pornography and the robbers amongst them are just sitting in the side-lines waiting to rip you off, so that they may keep themselves in business.

This is a process termed entrapment, and is considered to be illegal amongst civilised peoples.

"Civilians" were never very good at managing global society properly.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
RAM-PAGE said:
Sorry, but free RAM is there as and when you need it. If there is no free RAM then it cannot be used when it is needed.
You are misunderstanding memory management.

ram-page said:
Why wait until the MFT is full and fragmentation becomes exacerbated. Might as well get it set right to begin with,
Why? Because it may never, ever happen.
And, again my point was that you are recommending this to resolve existing performance problems, when it is not necessarily true.

ram-page said:
Again an obvious statement. Those only using a few programs will still get better performance using 512Mb of RAM instead of struggling along with only 256Mb.
If the user currently runs with available ram, and you add more ram, they will then be running with even more available ram. And, with no affect on performance.

ram-page said:
"Instead of beating around the bush, say what you mean."

The "religious" community is using sexual favours and sexual entrapment to deliberately cause disruption within society.

The all-knowing, all-seeing, know that people are viewing porngraphy and the robbers amongst them are just sitting in the side-lines waiting to rip you off, so that they may keep themselves in business.

This is a process termed entrapment, and is considered to be illegal amongst civilised peoples.
Well, I guess this would be three non-sequiturs.
 

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
Unnecessary memory management (paging) takes up processor time and impedes the proper functioning of the system.

I listen to the experts and still prefer the expertise of the program makers.

But is has - happened - so there is no possibility of saying that it might never happen.

With 256Mb of RAM I was running with available RAM. Adding another 256Mb of RAM improved performance. Dramatically.

Not three non-sequiturs, just the one.

Guessing is not good enough.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
RAM-PAGE said:
Unnecessary memory management (paging) takes up processor time and impedes the proper functioning of the system.
Memory management is not (just) paging. And, not all paging has any detrimental affect on performance.

ram-page said:
But is has - happened - so there is no possibility of saying that it might never happen.
I am certainly not arguing that it hasn't happened.
And I'm certainly not arguing that it might in fact happen.

My point, which I will repeat one last time, is that recommending the padding of the MFTs to resolve a performance issue, when the MFTs are not completely allocated, does nothing.

ram-pge said:
Guessing is not good enough.
??? What guessing? And in relation to what?
 

RAM-PAGE

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2,355
WhitPhil said:
My point, which I will repeat one last time, is that recommending the padding of the MFTs to resolve a performance issue, when the MFTs are not completely allocated, does nothing.

??? What guessing? And in relation to what?
If you don't check the MFTs you'll never know.

So you would be guessing.

Using Frag-Shield removes the guesswork for you.
 

WhitPhil

Gone but never forgotten
Trusted Advisor
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
8,684
Just run Defrag with the analyze option. Then there is no need to install (and perhaps buy) another program needlessly.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Top