Solved Old OS, Powerful computer = Still slow?

January 14, 2013 at 08:07:48
Specs: Windows 98 SP1, 1.33 Ghz / 256 MB
Hello. I have got a Acer Travelmate 225XC. I have uninstalled Windows XP cause it was too slow on the computer. So now I have Windows 98 on the machine. I did not have Windows 2000 at home, so I only found my old Windows 98 setup disc.

But now to the problem... When I often have used this computer, the CPU goes up to 100%, this is often when i browse the web, or simillar (With Mozilla old version). Even if I close the browser, the CPU is still on 100%. What should I do? I don´t want to go back to XP.

By the way... This is just a computer that I have fun with. I don´t use this computer for serious things.


See More: Old OS, Powerful computer = Still slow?

Report •


✔ Best Answer
January 14, 2013 at 14:05:51
I think there is some confusion here.
This computer should be powerful enough as it stands for Windows 98 (but not XP).

If you are staying with W98 then Avast free virus checker will run on it BUT it must be the old Version 4. See server 1 and 2 links here:
http://www.brothersoft.com/avast-4-...
Some years ago Avast said support was due to stop but so far it is updating fine on my old W98 using their manual update website here:
http://www.avast.com/download-update
For all I know it might still update automatically too.
It has to be re-registered annually (free) - mine re-registered fine a few weeks ago.

I am using Opera 10.3 which was their last browser to run on W98 but is still much later than the old Firefox versions that last ran on W98.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks



#1
January 14, 2013 at 09:41:38
The Travelmate 225XC is not a "powerful computer" & 256MB isn't enough memory for XP. If had you upgraded to 1GB, it probably would have run XP reasonably well.

As for what's wrong with the Win98 installation, we have no idea what you did or what you installed. Did you manage to find all the drivers? What about all the Windows Updates? (I haven't work with 98 in a long time so I'm not sure if Microsoft offers the updates anymore or not) Which anti-virus program & other software did you install? Did you look to see which process is hogging the CPU?

http://support.acer.com/acerpanam/n...


Report •

#2
January 14, 2013 at 10:34:01
I thought this computer was powerful for Windows 98, but it seems like it is not.
I have 20 GB of harddrive. 1 GB is used. McAfee Vshield is my antivirus. I have SP1 for Windows 98. But I don't have Internet Explorer 6 becuause i can't find it on Swedish. I also want to find a better anti-virus if that is avalble

Report •

#3
January 14, 2013 at 10:55:17
I agree with riider. WinXP should be OK if you have 1GB of RAM. You probably have 256MB now. Also, lose Mcafee, it is a resource hog.

As far as the CPU being at 100% goes, that is probably normal. You have a netbook which runs on battery power. Intel throttles the processor (CPU) to save battery power. So, the processor only runs as fast as is necessary to perform the task at hand.

Windows Security Essentials will run on WinXP with SP3 installed. I suggest you use it for your AntiVirus/malware program.

I am wondering how you got Win98 to install and run myself.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
January 14, 2013 at 11:48:01
"This is just a computer that I have fun with. I don´t use this computer for serious things"

could try this and see how it runs

http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=07153

larry


Report •

#5
January 14, 2013 at 14:05:51
✔ Best Answer
I think there is some confusion here.
This computer should be powerful enough as it stands for Windows 98 (but not XP).

If you are staying with W98 then Avast free virus checker will run on it BUT it must be the old Version 4. See server 1 and 2 links here:
http://www.brothersoft.com/avast-4-...
Some years ago Avast said support was due to stop but so far it is updating fine on my old W98 using their manual update website here:
http://www.avast.com/download-update
For all I know it might still update automatically too.
It has to be re-registered annually (free) - mine re-registered fine a few weeks ago.

I am using Opera 10.3 which was their last browser to run on W98 but is still much later than the old Firefox versions that last ran on W98.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#6
January 14, 2013 at 17:37:34
"McAfee Vshield is my antivirus."

There's probably you're biggest resource hog. As mentioned, dump Mcafee for something lighter like Avast (and as Derek mentions, it still should work on '98---at least older versions):

http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivi...

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Report •

#7
January 15, 2013 at 05:00:15
"I have SP1 for Windows 98"

Microsoft didn't release service packs for Win98. Whatever you installed is unofficial.


Report •

#8
January 15, 2013 at 08:00:18
Yes, SP1 is incorrect terminology but MS did issue a CD for users, which included all updates up to and including 5 Feb 2004. I missed mine but got a copy of it from a contact. There were more "individual" updates after that, up to and including 13 June 2006. I have all of these too.

Anything after 13 June 2006 was not from MS. There are "unofficial updates" after this (still around on a website), which I avoided because I felt they were questionable.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#9
January 15, 2013 at 08:10:04
But is it important to get the latest updste for Windows 98?
Does it make any difference on preformance or simillar?

Report •

#10
January 15, 2013 at 08:32:41
Well, if you mean the official MS ones you might have a job to get them anyway - no harm trying tho. They are unlikely to help performance, but it does mean that your security is patched up to that date.

I doubt the unofficial ones would help performance either but also I think there is a risk because whoever produces them cannot have tested them against a wide base of different computers.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#11
January 15, 2013 at 08:35:13
@riider

Sure about that? lol

http://web.archive.org/web/20050312...


@AKDOS

The "latest updates" for Windows 98 are probably irrelevant for what you want to use it for. There are some unofficial updates worth checking out though.


Report •

#12
January 15, 2013 at 09:00:56
Re #11.
The updates referred to were to ensure that the clock would update properly after year 2000. Seems they did use the general term "Service Pack" but this was a one off update and not a numbered SP thing. This update was part of those given in my #8 which covered Win 98 up to mid 2006.

AKDOS
As said, whether you take a chance on unofficial updates is up to you.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#13
January 15, 2013 at 09:10:08
Actually it WAS numbered. Or at least numbered at that time, and in such a way to give rise to the "SP1" terminology.

See the end of the URL in this link (win98sp1.mspx - old link, has now been changed when you get there) and the reference on that page to a folder named \win98\win98sp1.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/ar...


Report •

#14
January 15, 2013 at 09:17:36
Somewhat confusing of them then, unless this was the first and there is another one planned for year 3000 LOL. I'll watch out for it.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#15
January 15, 2013 at 09:54:52
Hey, it's Microsoft, what did you expect? LOL

Report •

#16
January 15, 2013 at 12:03:48
Aha, from MS - not a lot LOL.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#17
January 15, 2013 at 12:37:45
Win98 is 15 years old. I suggest you go back to WinXP. Acer would not have put WinXP on the netbook if it wouldn't run OK. You need to add RAM and it should run XP fine.


Report •

#18
January 15, 2013 at 13:43:23
If I would go back to Windows XP, It would take 7 minutes for it to start each time, instead of 1,5 min. To start Internet explorer i have to wait more than 1min. Beleve me, I have tried to have XP on this computer. I have switched to a light antivirus (microsoft own antivirus) and i have defrag the harddrive, uninstalled over 10 programs and more. Why should I go back? Ok, i admited, there is some chrash, on Windiws 98 but that error is easy fixed. I have a high standard on computers. If it takes more than a minute to load something, i do something about it.

Report •

#19
January 15, 2013 at 13:51:51
IMO, that machine is barely "fast" enough for Windows 9x. Hardly a suitable machine for XP, regardless of what the manufacturer decided to put on it. The manufacturer put Windows XP on it because Microsoft wanted them to, not because it was a good system or a good choice for the end user.

So 98 is 15 years old. WinXP is 13 years old. Wow, big difference there!


Report •

#20
January 15, 2013 at 13:56:34
Windows XP has made big step in hardware on 13 years. If you look up the system requirements, you will be quite shocked that Windows Xp will run on a machine with 64 mb of ram. Today you can't run windows XP if you have less than 1 GB.

Report •

#21
January 15, 2013 at 13:58:38
"barely "fast" enough for Windows 9x"

Have a job with that. My W98SE originally had 256MB of RAM and ran quite nicely. When I put it up to 512MB of RAM (max for W98 without fiddles) it didn't really make a great deal of difference.

I agree XP would need much more, although I'm surprised to see 7 minutes load time.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#22
January 15, 2013 at 14:04:16
That was before i installed the light antivirus snd defrag the harddrive, it was 30% fragmented! When it was finished and i had installed the light antivirus, it took 4 minutes for it to load

Report •

#23
January 15, 2013 at 14:09:31
Sure.. Windows XP "will run" with very low system specs. If you want to click on something and walk away for a while each time until it decides to work. There's a big difference between "will run" and "will run well."

@Derek
I have many older 9x machines that I'm very fond of, all the way back to my second computer, a HP Pavilion 2266 desktop with a P1 233 MHz processor and 95B. And they all ran fine in their time and for the things I needed them to do. But you have not experienced Windows 9x until you run it on high-end P4 hardware. Hardware gets faster, and the software gets slower. By the time hardware catches up to a current OS, Microsoft releases a new one.


Report •

#24
January 15, 2013 at 14:40:14
Re #23
Agree entirely with this:
"By the time hardware catches up to a current OS, Microsoft releases a new one".
Even my Vista runs quite well (relatively modern hardware) but on inception Vista was rubbish on all but high end hardware.

My W98SE now has a P4+ Athlon with 512MB RAM, very nippy on all the software I have onboard. The RAM type/speed with a more modern mobo helped too, when the original mobo died.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#25
January 15, 2013 at 14:51:23
Lone, the specs of the netbook in question are 3 or 4 generations newer than the original requirements to run XP. The OP has stated this is primarily a fun machine. Probably to surf the web.

McAfee was installed and may have been performing a scan on each new session. That bloatware is reason enough for things to run slowly.

I couldn,t care less what the OP runs but if they are concerned about viewing internet sites as they are intended to be viewed they need a modern browser that runs under the OS.


Report •

#26
January 15, 2013 at 19:52:56
I agree the antivirus program may have badly affected the machine's speed. I personally don't like or use antivirus software simply for that reason - it comes with some of the same effects as the very things it attempts to prevent.

I also agree the laptop exceeds the "requirements" for XP, but it falls far short of what would be necessary to have a "fun" time using XP on it.

It all depends on what the OP means by "fun machine." If the OP does want to use the machine for the internet, Firefox 2.0.0.20 and Opera 10.xx?? (unsure, don't use Opera) will run under 98 without KernelEx or other modifications. Granted, they are becoming dated now, but still viable and miles ahead of IE6.


Report •

#27
January 16, 2013 at 00:43:10
So, what you all saying is that I should uninstall McAfee and intall AVAST. And I should try to run Opera as default browser? I found this site that has a lot of tips for getting your 9x machine faster:

http://www.angelfire.com/la/freerep...

Do you aggree with the site or is it al wrong?


Report •

#28
January 16, 2013 at 00:47:21
I have also found this site there is says that you should do some changes in the reg if you have more than 128 mb of RAM.

http://www.netdigix.com/windows-98-...

Should I modify the reg or should I just don't care about it? Cause the pagefile is often using more that 30 mb when i browse the web


Report •

#29
January 16, 2013 at 06:20:46
Some folk say Conservative Swap File helps, others don't really see any change.
I have mine set but it's really up to you - no big deal.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#30
January 16, 2013 at 08:22:26
What do you mean by conservative swap file? How do I tey this? Should I inactivate it or what do you mean?

Report •

#31
January 16, 2013 at 08:24:31
If you went back to WinXP with SP3 and installed 1GB of RAM you could use Microsoft Security Essentials, which is easy on resources and should provide you with adequate AV/malware protection. Security Essentials is free.

You could then use the latest version of FireFox, which is also free. Better than the latest version of Internet Explorer that will run on XP.

Without more RAM the system will be slow. If you don't wan't to install more RAM then I suggest you consider a version of Linux. Win98 is over the hill, just like me.


Report •

#32
January 16, 2013 at 08:26:49
It's given in that website but there is a bit more here:
http://smallvoid.com/article/win9x-...
Most things of that nature have already been explained if you search Google.

Whether you add that entry or not is up to you but I doubt you will notice much difference either way.

Your main decision is whether you stick to Win98 which, as already stated is very outdated, or re-install XP and invest in some more RAM which would seem to be the better option.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#33
January 16, 2013 at 09:23:33
Yes, but I usaly don't care what it is for operating system, And I don't want to spend any money on this machine. It is just used for fun. And when it give up, I think i could get a other old machine cheap.

Report •

#34
January 16, 2013 at 09:25:37
I think that I should limit the swap file to 100 mb, and make the minumum size 12 mb, sounds that ok? Or shall i have a little bit bigger limit? Maybe 150 for big programs?

Report •

#35
January 16, 2013 at 09:31:52
I is best to let Windows handle the swap file. Especially when you don't have enough RAM to start with.


Report •

#36
January 16, 2013 at 10:12:45
I agree entirely with #35 and we have generally discussed what is best throughout this thread.

However, if you just want to "play" then tweak whatever settings you fancy and compare the results. You need to take note of timings using a stop watch, otherwise you will never know if things are getting better or worse. Any comparisons need to be done several times, with Windows running different tasks, in order for you to come to any meaningful conclusions. Be prepared to re-install Windows if you get anything wrong.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#37
January 16, 2013 at 15:10:36
Why run a 15 year old version of Windows when you can run a modern version of Linux? If it's just a "fun machine" & you don't care which OS you run, dump Windows altogether & install Lucid Puppy or some other lightweight version of Linux.

http://jponline.hubpages.com/hub/Be...

http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06850


Report •

#38
January 18, 2013 at 07:12:08
Thanks guys, both Opera 10.x is working fine with turbo mode on. Avast! is working fine too, just a little problem there, how do I get a free version and register. It is saying that trialware is expiering in 59 days? Can I install flash on Opera?

Report •

#39
January 18, 2013 at 08:03:38
Looks like that was an Avast trial rather than the free version.

Uninstall it and go here instead:
http://www.filehippo.com/download_a...

This is the version I am using on W98SE so I know it works.

Once installed register it and they should send a key by email.
Update it with the second link I gave in #5.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#40
January 18, 2013 at 08:33:01
Thanks, I have the CPU on 100% sometimes, but that is only because I update AVAST, Loading a page or simillar.

Windows 98 dosen't freeze like Windows XP does when the CPU goes up to 100% and I am very happy for all help. Thanks.

I guess this problem is solved. One more thing, I recommend all users to make Windows handle the pagefile in Windows 95/Windows 98, cause I have seen that it is hard to set a limit. Sometimes the pagefile goes up to 150 or more, and if I don't do so much, the pagefile is staying on 5 mb or less. (cause I have 256 mb ram)


Report •

#41
January 18, 2013 at 09:02:11
Glad to hear you are OK with the current situation.

I know it might prove difficult but if you can somehow select a Best Answer from all of the responses it will mark this thread as solved.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#42
January 18, 2013 at 19:56:32
@AKDOS

Here is a ZIP with the last version of Flash Player that is compatible with Windows 98\98SE\ME. (9.0.289.0) (Both IE and Firefox/Opera versions inside)

http://www2.zshare.ma/2gunsmzsf63h

And, here's a link to the last version of Java that works as well if you need it.

http://www.mdgx.com/files/JAVA_6U7.MSI

You may have to right-click and "Save As" to download this one. Ignore the "Unsupported Operating System" message and it will work fine.

Requires Windows Installer to be already installed, get it here:

http://download.microsoft.com/downl...


Report •


Ask Question