Vista Machine Randomly Freezes for a Few Seconds
NoSpamm
I have Vista installed on an HP 8440p laptop with 70gigs free on my HD and 4
gigs of RAM installed. This is a work computer so I am connected to a
network. I am also not playing any games or doing high resolution graphics
or playing any audio.
The issue is that while typing, going on the Internet, calculating a
spreadsheet, opening a network drive, etc., the machine freezes for just a
few seconds. It happens pretty randomly and not for very long. If I am
typing, I can continue to type even though the machine appears to be frozen.
When it comes back, everything I typed, "catches up" so I didn't actually
lose anything.
I appears as if some process is quickly polling something which causes this
freeze. I've watched the Task Manager but nothing seems to spike. I've also
tried to remove whatever Services were unnecessary.
This is extremely annoying and IT cannot seem to figure out what the issue
is.
Any ideas on what I could try to diagnose this issue?
Thank you for the help.
-Gummy
p.s. I had Vista on an older machine before and this never occurred.
Meat Plow
> NoSpamm "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
> Open the case and disconnect the CD drive(s) to see if the problem goes
> away. I've seen this behaviour in occasions where one of the optical
> drives went bad. Windows has a habit to look into the drives to see if
> there's a CD injected (autoplay function) and on a bad drive, windows
> keeps trying for a while to connect. During this time, depending on your
> hardware, the system may freeze for a few seconds.
Might wanna try the event log for an app-hang while at it.
--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
NoSpamm
It looks like AutoPlay was already disabled. Meaning that 'Turn off
Autoplay' was set to 'Enabled'. I found this under Computer Configuration ->
Administrative Templates -> Windows Components -> AutoPlay Policies.
So which log(s) would should I search through and what should I be looking
for?
Thank you.
"Meat Plow" <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol...
Meat Plow
> Meat Plow "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
> Could be. Let's see what the OP's reply is to this one.
Meant Event Viewer BTW. Must be a linux thing :)
Meat Plow
> Thank you for all the replies.
>
> It looks like AutoPlay was already disabled. Meaning that 'Turn off
> Autoplay' was set to 'Enabled'. I found this under Computer
> Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components ->
> AutoPlay Policies.
>
> So which log(s) would should I search through and what should I be
> looking for?
>
That be in the Control Panel - Administrative Tools - Event Viewer -
Applications. That is if I recall correctly. In Win 7 it's /Adminstrative
Tools - Event Viewer - Windows Logs - Applications.
Don't have a Vista to boot into to check.
Meat Plow
BTW you are looking for an application hang.
chuckcar
news:WOednaguZ5OEzzbR...@bestweb.net:
First, obviously something is slowing down the computer. That implies
directly that some other program is running. Since you have a name brand
consumer laptop (which are typically loaded with bundled software) that
means the first thing to check is startup. Disable *all* you can. None
are needed for windows to run. At best you *may* have a AV suite that
checks incoming emails. That requires no entry at all, it's a context
menu. In other words, it's only needed and activated when you actually
right click on an email.
Read more here. Note MS *never* says these can cause problems as that
would be biting the hand that feeds them - third party software
developers. Despite the fact that it is the single most problem causing
area in MS windows since windows 95 hit the market.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/270035
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
chuckcar
news:vh4oa6dfsgl91kk8a...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 05:43:23 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
>>First, obviously something is slowing down the computer. That implies
>>directly that some other program is running. Since you have a name
>>brand consumer laptop (which are typically loaded with bundled
>>software) that means the first thing to check is startup. Disable
>>*all* you can. None are needed for windows to run.
>
> But some are likely required for the OP's WORK and doing so could
> likely get the OP fired.
>
Not a chance.
> Shit, you've never worked a day in tech support have you?
Sure I have, Mr want to be rent a cop that can't even get a job.
Meat Plow
> "NoSpamm" <now...@somplace.dontknow> wrote in
> news:WOednaguZ5OEzzbR...@bestweb.net:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have Vista installed on an HP 8440p laptop with 70gigs free on my HD
>> and 4 gigs of RAM installed. This is a work computer so I am connected
>> to a network. I am also not playing any games or doing high resolution
>> graphics or playing any audio.
>>
>> The issue is that while typing, going on the Internet, calculating a
>> spreadsheet, opening a network drive, etc., the machine freezes for
>> just a few seconds. It happens pretty randomly and not for very long.
>> If I am typing, I can continue to type even though the machine appears
>> to be frozen. When it comes back, everything I typed, "catches up" so I
>> didn't actually lose anything.
>>
>> I appears as if some process is quickly polling something which causes
>> this freeze. I've watched the Task Manager but nothing seems to spike.
>> I've also tried to remove whatever Services were unnecessary.
>>
>> This is extremely annoying and IT cannot seem to figure out what the
>> issue is.
>>
>> Any ideas on what I could try to diagnose this issue?
>>
> First, obviously something is slowing down the computer. That implies
> directly that some other program is running.
<slaps self in the face> DAMN! I am awake!
chuckcar
So something running then. Funny you mention that...
Meat Plow
If you are trying to 'put words in my mouth' it ain't gunna happen.
NoSpamm
The only thing that seems to occur at the time when I get these lock-ups is
under the Security Log. It was the following:
The Windows Filtering Platform has allowed a connection.
Application Information:
Process ID: 4
Application Name: System
Network Information:
Direction: Inbound
I did see that the Bonjour (I hate iTunes) was also occuring around that
time, but I killed that and am still getting the issue.
Thanks again for the help.
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
news:Xns9E09BA0...@127.0.0.1...
chuckcar
news:P_adnXQSmPdGEDHR...@bestweb.net:
> OK, here's what I found, but I don't know if it's useful...
>
> The only thing that seems to occur at the time when I get these
> lock-ups is under the Security Log. It was the following:
>
> The Windows Filtering Platform has allowed a connection.
>
> Application Information:
> Process ID: 4
> Application Name: System
>
> Network Information:
> Direction: Inbound
>
>
> I did see that the Bonjour (I hate iTunes) was also occuring around
> that time, but I killed that and am still getting the issue.
>
> Thanks again for the help.
>
Get a *proper* firewall such as Zone Alarm or Outpost. The one that
comes with windows is what's *causing* your problem. No proper firewall
allows incoming connections at *all*. And scan *all* your computer for
malware - both trojans and spyware.
chuckcar
I don't have to. application means *exactly* that.
Zu Arsschlaark!
"NoSpamm" <now...@somplace.dontknow> wrote in message
news:WOednaguZ5OEzzbR...@bestweb.net...
try 'cleanmem'
p.s. you can find it on google.
chuckcar
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:34:13 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
>>No proper firewall allows incoming connections at *all*.
>
> Going to be hard to surf the net with no incoming connections at
> *all*.
Nonsence. It's *all* outgoing. If you knew *anything* at all, you'd know
that.
Meat Plow
> Meat Plow <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:15:20 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>>
>>> Meat Plow <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:04:06 +0000, Meat Plow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:47:05 -0400, NoSpamm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for all the replies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like AutoPlay was already disabled. Meaning that 'Turn off
>>>>>> Autoplay' was set to 'Enabled'. I found this under Computer
>>>>>> Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components ->
>>>>>> AutoPlay Policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So which log(s) would should I search through and what should I be
>>>>>> looking for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That be in the Control Panel - Administrative Tools - Event Viewer -
>>>>> Applications. That is if I recall correctly. In Win 7 it's
>>>>> /Adminstrative Tools - Event Viewer - Windows Logs - Applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't have a Vista to boot into to check.
>>>>
>>>> BTW you are looking for an application hang.
>>>>
>>> So something running then. Funny you mention that...
>>
>> If you are trying to 'put words in my mouth' it ain't gunna happen.
>>
> I don't have to. application means *exactly* that.
WHAT a REVELATION! Chucktard says applications are running.
<boggle>
Meat Plow
So I guess Microsoft can do away with temporary internet files.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> chuckTard wrote:
>> Evan Platt wrote:
>>> chuckTard wrote:
>>>> No proper firewall allows incoming connections at *all*.
>>>
>>> Going to be hard to surf the net with no incoming connections at
>>> *all*.
>>
>> Nonsence.
Fix your damn spellchecker. The word is *nonsenSe*. There is no "c" in
the word. Ever. Not even in Canada.
>> It's *all* outgoing. If you knew *anything* at all, you'd know that.
>
> How does the content of a web page get to your display?
Y'know, with such a stupid answer like chuckTard gave there, a statement
in direct conflict with one of the most basic Internet usages that even
a rank beginner would know was wrong, more or less proves that chuckTard
is a blatant troll. Nobody can be that wrong, unless on purpose.
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
chuckcar
news:a68ra61kbo399p0a1...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 03:38:11 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
>>Evan Platt <ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in
>>news:q9eqa6l4tj2jikt1f...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:34:13 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No proper firewall allows incoming connections at *all*.
>>>
>>> Going to be hard to surf the net with no incoming connections at
>>> *all*.
>>
>>Nonsence. It's *all* outgoing. If you knew *anything* at all, you'd
>>know that.
>
> How does the content of a web page get to your display?
>
>
The browser sends a request for a web page. Specifically, it logs onto
the DNS for the web page and then does what amounts to an ftp. The browser
then runs the retrieved html or whatever and it proceeds from there.
chuckcar
Yes. Several. In startup. Finally you see the light. Well, as much as
you can that is.
Meat Plow
Look chucktard, you know less about any Windows OS than just about anyone
posting here. If you are going to match wits with me you first; A. Need
wit. B. Need to know more about Windows OS than I do. C. Need to think
about what you are going to post 'before' you hit SEND.
Your ASSumption the OP has several programs in whatever the fuck you mean
by "startup" is incomplete and absurd.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> [snip irrelevant parts to this response]
>>> chuckTard wrote:
>>>> Nonsence.
>>
>> Fix your damn spellchecker. The word is *nonsenSe*. There is no "c"
>> in the word. Ever. Not even in Canada.
>
> Fix your reading ability. I didn't write the above.
I know you didn't. Note the quoting levels.
>> Y'know, with such a stupid answer like chuckTard gave there, a
>> statement in direct conflict with one of the most basic Internet
>> usages that even a rank beginner would know was wrong, more or less
>> proves that chuckTard is a blatant troll. Nobody can be that wrong,
>> unless on purpose.
>
> Fix your grammar!
What's wrong with my grammer?
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: [snip irrelevant parts to this
>>> response]
>>>>> chuckTard wrote:
>>>>>> Nonsence.
>>>>
>>>> Fix your damn spellchecker. The word is *nonsenSe*. There is no
>>>> "c" in the word. Ever. Not even in Canada.
>>>
>>> Fix your reading ability. I didn't write the above.
>>
>> I know you didn't. Note the quoting levels.
>
> Note that you wrongly corrected something by another poster in a post
> dorected as a reply to ME. Quoting levels are entirely irrelevent. If
> you wanted to ciorrect someone elses spelling,
"dorected" ? "ciorrect" ? <LOL!> It always happens in a spelling
flame, doesn't it?
> you should have done it in a reply to THEIR post, not mine.
Replying to multiple levels of a post is quite accepted, sir.
>>>> Y'know, with such a stupid answer like chuckTard gave there, a
>>>> statement in direct conflict with one of the most basic Internet
>>>> usages that even a rank beginner would know was wrong, more or
>>>> less proves that chuckTard is a blatant troll. Nobody can be that
>>>> wrong, unless on purpose.
>>>
>>> Fix your grammar!
>>
>> What's wrong with my grammer?
>
> It's no worse than your spelling.
You are inciorrect, Billy, and I'm sorry you've lost your humor gene....
freemont
> Bill <BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com> wrote in
> news:a68ra61kbo399p0a1...@4ax.com:
>> How does the content of a web page get to your display?
>>
> The browser sends a request for a web page. Specifically, it logs onto
> the DNS for the web page and then does what amounts to an ftp. The
> browser then runs the retrieved html or whatever and it proceeds from
> there.
Ho - lee - JEEsus! lol...
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
⁂ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
⁂ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
freemont
And cookies are useless...
freemont
> Y'know, with such a stupid answer like chuckTard gave there, a statement
> in direct conflict with one of the most basic Internet usages that even
> a rank beginner would know was wrong, more or less proves that chuckTard
> is a blatant troll. Nobody can be that wrong, unless on purpose.
Ya know, I have to disagree. I think the bonehead really believes
(believed?) what he wrote. He's just 1) foolish as hell, and 2) too
immature to admit it. He knows everything, after all.
Meat Plow
> chuckcar "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
> OMFG, I just can't believe I just read that.
Believe it when the From: line says chucktard.
freemont
> Poster: I have a flat tire
>
> Chucktard: It's only flat on the bottom. Simply rotate it a bit, and
> continue driving on the good part that is remaining.
You forgot to translate into Chuckspeak:
Poster: I have a flat tire.
Chucktard: Perhaps if we *knew* what kind of tire it was we could *offer*
some advise. Have you *tried* changing the tire at all? Do you even
*know* what changing a tire *is*? You're blatent leaving out of essential
information is ludicrious in essense perhaps. Try changing the tire if
you can at all avoid hurting you'reself. *Otherwise* you will have to pay
for such.
Meat Plow
That strangely enough also reeks of Mike Easter.
freemont
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:45:54 +0000, freemont
> <freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote:
>
>>You forgot to translate into Chuckspeak:
>>
>>Poster: I have a flat tire.
>>
>>Chucktard: Perhaps if we *knew* what kind of tire it was we could
>>*offer* some advise. Have you *tried* changing the tire at all? Do you
>>even *know* what changing a tire *is*? You're blatent leaving out of
>>essential information is ludicrious in essense perhaps. Try changing the
>>tire if you can at all avoid hurting you'reself. *Otherwise* you will
>>have to pay for such.
>
> LOL... That's pretty accurate but you spelled too many words correctly,
> so it's a bad 'representation' of chucktard. :)
Nonsence.
/me bows
Aardvark
>> Chucktard: Perhaps if we *knew* what kind of tire it was we could
>> *offer* some advise. Have you *tried* changing the tire at all? Do you
>> even *know* what changing a tire *is*? You're blatent leaving out of
>> essential information is ludicrious in essense perhaps. Try changing
>> the tire if you can at all avoid hurting you'reself. *Otherwise* you
>> will have to pay for such.
>
> That strangely enough also reeks of Mike Easter.
At least what Mike writes indicates a modicum of research and thought.
Meat Plow
Mike is smart. But he is obsessive and probably impulsive. Chucktard is
just impulsive. If you are going to get serious get to the point as
quickly as you can. Try to have some people skills and teach, not preach.
Aardvark
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:55:48 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:51:09 +0000, Meat Plow wrote:
>>
>>>> Chucktard: Perhaps if we *knew* what kind of tire it was we could
>>>> *offer* some advise. Have you *tried* changing the tire at all? Do
>>>> you even *know* what changing a tire *is*? You're blatent leaving out
>>>> of essential information is ludicrious in essense perhaps. Try
>>>> changing the tire if you can at all avoid hurting you'reself.
>>>> *Otherwise* you will have to pay for such.
>>>
>>> That strangely enough also reeks of Mike Easter.
>>
>> At least what Mike writes indicates a modicum of research and thought.
>
> Mike is smart.
Can't escape that.
> But he is obsessive and probably impulsive.
I think you mean COM-pulsive, and I agree. I always read all of his posts
because of the detail he goes into. I can't think of anyone else here who
so carefully measures the words he writes.
> Chucktard is
> just impulsive.
LOL. He is, isn't he?
> If you are going to get serious get to the point as
> quickly as you can.
If it's in your nature, yeah.
> Try to have some people skills and teach, not
> preach.
I don't think Mike preaches as much as, say, Vanguard. At least Mike can
laugh at himself. Self-deprecation is a positive quality IMO.
Mike Yetto
>On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:18:14 +0000, Meat Plow wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:55:48 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:51:09 +0000, Meat Plow wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Chucktard: Perhaps if we *knew* what kind of tire it was we could
>>>>> *offer* some advise. Have you *tried* changing the tire at all? Do
>>>>> you even *know* what changing a tire *is*? You're blatent leaving out
>>>>> of essential information is ludicrious in essense perhaps. Try
>>>>> changing the tire if you can at all avoid hurting you'reself.
>>>>> *Otherwise* you will have to pay for such.
>>>>
>>>> That strangely enough also reeks of Mike Easter.
>>>
>>> At least what Mike writes indicates a modicum of research and thought.
>>
>> Mike is smart.
>Can't escape that.
>> But he is obsessive and probably impulsive.
>I think you mean COM-pulsive, and I agree. I always read all of his posts
>because of the detail he goes into. I can't think of anyone else here who
>so carefully measures the words he writes.
Mike Easter is *not* impulsive. I wouldn't categorize him as
preachy either, but he can be pedantic. Unless, of course, the
answer concerns me and then it's thorough.
>> Chucktard is
>> just impulsive.
>LOL. He is, isn't he?
>> If you are going to get serious get to the point as
>> quickly as you can.
>If it's in your nature, yeah.
Quick answers aren't a perfect fit with precise and
comprehensive.
>> Try to have some people skills and teach, not
>> preach.
>I don't think Mike preaches as much as, say, Vanguard. At least Mike can
>laugh at himself. Self-deprecation is a positive quality IMO.
To make a long story short (too late) Mike is pedantic when I'm
not interested and precise and comprehensive when I am.
Mike "freelance research assistant?" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
Meat Plow
>>> If you are going to get serious get to the point as quickly as you
>>> can.
>
>>If it's in your nature, yeah.
>
> Quick answers aren't a perfect fit with precise and comprehensive.
It's a skill to be precise and to the point. No it's not a perfect fit
either but what is? It's a balance between pertinent information and
comprehensive analysis.
So yes and while not perfect (I don't look for perfection it's elusive)
one can be pertinent, informative, and comprehensive without a long and
drawn out reply.
Mike Yetto
Agreed, and for each reader the answer is longer and more drawn
out when he's not interested. There doesn't seem to be a precise
definition of "pertinent, informative, and comprehensive without
a long and drawn out reply."
Mike "we *demand* rigid areas of uncertainty and doubt" Yetto
Meat Plow
> Meat Plow "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
> Not even then, this is far beyond stupidity.
Maybe he was just having a bad day?
chuckcar
news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:30:18 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>
>> Meat Plow <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:34:19 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't have a Vista to boot into to check.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW you are looking for an application hang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So something running then. Funny you mention that...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are trying to 'put words in my mouth' it ain't gunna
>>>>> happen.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't have to. application means *exactly* that.
>>>
>>> WHAT a REVELATION! Chucktard says applications are running.
>>>
>> Yes. Several. In startup. Finally you see the light. Well, as much as
>> you can that is.
>
> Look chucktard, you know less about any Windows OS than just about
> anyone posting here. If you are going to match wits with me you first;
> A. Need wit. B. Need to know more about Windows OS than I do. C. Need
> to think about what you are going to post 'before' you hit SEND.
>
LOL. You massive ego
> Your ASSumption the OP has several programs in whatever the fuck you
> mean by "startup" is incomplete and absurd.
>
Of course it isn't. I defy you do get any name brand consumer PC that's
just been restored with at least 15 running entires in startup.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
chuckcar
news:4cb34554$0$2128$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 02:02:05 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>
>> Meat Plow <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol:
>>
>>>
>>> Your ASSumption the OP has several programs in whatever the fuck you
>>> mean by "startup" is incomplete and absurd.
>>>
>> Of course it isn't. I defy you do get any name brand consumer PC
>> that's just been restored with at least 15 running entires in
>> startup.
>
> Dell PW690, 3.2GHz Xeon dual-core, 4GB D-Ram
>
> 26 (count 'em) programs running in what you like to call "startup",
> chucktard. Did one 'system restore', one time, quite a while ago &
> haven't needed it since.
>
Yeah, And on a good day you may even beat a 1Ghz computer. I said at
*least* 15. Thanks for the backup.
Meat Plow
> Dell PW690, 3.2GHz Xeon dual-core, 4GB D-Ram
>
> 26 (count 'em) programs running in what you like to call "startup",
> chucktard. Did one 'system restore', one time, quite a while ago &
> haven't needed it since.
I like to refer to things that start during boot as tasks running in
background or processes. Without user interaction. Not programs or
entries in "startup" whatever the chucktard means by that. I think the
chucktard is trying to incorrectly infer that I'm saying nothing runs
when you start an operating system. In reality I'm trying to get to the
bottom of this mystical, magical "things in startup" he refers to.
chuckcar
news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:11:48 -0700, anyone wrote:
>>>> Your ASSumption the OP has several programs in whatever the fuck
>>>> you mean by "startup" is incomplete and absurd.
>>>>
The mere fact that you phrase it that way shows only that you know
absolutely about the relevant topic or point.
>>> Of course it isn't. I defy you do get any name brand consumer PC
>>> that's just been restored with at least 15 running entires in
>>> startup.
>>
>> Dell PW690, 3.2GHz Xeon dual-core, 4GB D-Ram
>>
>> 26 (count 'em) programs running in what you like to call "startup",
>> chucktard. Did one 'system restore', one time, quite a while ago &
>> haven't needed it since.
>
> I like to refer to things that start during boot as tasks running in
> background or processes. Without user interaction. Not programs or
> entries in "startup" whatever the chucktard means by that. I think the
> chucktard is trying to incorrectly infer that I'm saying nothing runs
> when you start an operating system. In reality I'm trying to get to
> the bottom of this mystical, magical "things in startup" he refers to.
>
>
Well, then try *reading* something about it. There's loads of
information on the web both about these wastes of processor power and
disabling them.
Anyone
Good luck... I haven't yet seen him adequately explain any of his claims.
Anyone
whutta surprise...
Anyone
> OK, here's what I found, but I don't know if it's useful...
>
> The only thing that seems to occur at the time when I get these lock-ups
> is under the Security Log. It was the following:
>
> The Windows Filtering Platform has allowed a connection.
>
> Application Information:
> Process ID: 4
> Application Name: System
>
> Network Information:
> Direction: Inbound
>
>
> I did see that the Bonjour (I hate iTunes) was also occuring around that
> time, but I killed that and am still getting the issue.
>
> Thanks again for the help.
Earlier you wrote that you're using a work machine connected to an
office network. Are you using remote apps, or is all of your work
launched and saved on your local drive?
Meat Plow
> Meat Plow <mhy...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2010.10...@lmao.lol.lol:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:11:48 -0700, anyone wrote:
>
>>>>> Your ASSumption the OP has several programs in whatever the fuck you
>>>>> mean by "startup" is incomplete and absurd.
>>>>>
> The mere fact that you phrase it that way shows only that you know
> absolutely about the relevant topic or point.
>
>>>> Of course it isn't. I defy you do get any name brand consumer PC
>>>> that's just been restored with at least 15 running entires in
>>>> startup.
>>>
>>> Dell PW690, 3.2GHz Xeon dual-core, 4GB D-Ram
>>>
>>> 26 (count 'em) programs running in what you like to call "startup",
>>> chucktard. Did one 'system restore', one time, quite a while ago &
>>> haven't needed it since.
>>
>> I like to refer to things that start during boot as tasks running in
>> background or processes. Without user interaction. Not programs or
>> entries in "startup" whatever the chucktard means by that. I think the
>> chucktard is trying to incorrectly infer that I'm saying nothing runs
>> when you start an operating system. In reality I'm trying to get to the
>> bottom of this mystical, magical "things in startup" he refers to.
>>
>>
> Well, then try *reading* something about it.
The 'it' is 'you', Imbecile. It's plain as day now, that your cooperation
in this matter will not be given.