• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

IE6 Issues after cleaning out malware

B

Bill in Co

Flightless Bird
BillW50 wrote:
> In news:-OC7vuW2HLHA.5668@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
> Randem typed on Fri, 9 Jul 2010 02:53:12 -1000:
>> Any reason you are still on IE6 instead of IE8?

>
> Well for me personally, I've used IE7 and IE8 for over a year and I
> cannot take them anymore. Websites like titantv.com are just super slow
> under IE7/8. Can't scroll or page for many seconds and it takes forever.
> Even always slow Firefox beats loading webpages far faster than IE7/8
> can.


I think there is something else going on here, as I hadn't noticed that with
IE8 (or IE7), and haven't heard of many such reports. It might be due to
the settings (maybe you need to customize the settings). You could also
bring up Task Manager and see if there are some other resource hogging apps
being loaded.

For me, the most noticeable difference in browsers has been with Firefox,
which *initially* takes noticeably longer to load, but otherwise works fine.
But I use IE8 for most work. And I'm only running a 1.6 GHz computer here,
with 1 GB of RAM. But I usually just single task, or minimally multitask,
when I'm on the computer (meaning - I don't run ten other apps in the
background, which can create such problems)
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:kKCdnVedc5nSNOzRnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com,
Bill in Co typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:48:46 -0600:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:eOednZAj0oWd8-zRnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink.com,
>> Bill in Co typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:35:41 -0600:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:-OC7vuW2HLHA.5668@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
>>>> Randem typed on Fri, 9 Jul 2010 02:53:12 -1000:
>>>>> Any reason you are still on IE6 instead of IE8?
>>>>
>>>> Well for me personally, I've used IE7 and IE8 for over a year and I
>>>> cannot take them anymore. Websites like titantv.com are just super
>>>> slow under IE7/8. Can't scroll or page for many seconds and it
>>>> takes forever. Even always slow Firefox beats loading webpages far
>>>> faster than IE7/8 can.
>>>>
>>>> But things are totally different under IE6! It is so fast that it
>>>> beats Firefox and Opera hands down. And I always preferred IE6
>>>> running under a Maxthon v1.x interface. Which has far more features
>>>> than IE7/8, Firefox, or Opera will ever have. So this is why I
>>>> switched back to IE6. As there is nothing out there that beats it
>>>> yet. ;-)
>>>
>>> I've always liked (and preferred) the IE6 (and Maxthon 1.x)
>>> interface too, but unfortunately there are some websites now that
>>> won't work with IE6.

>>
>> Glad to hear it! And the biggest problem I have seen is just
>> cosmetic. Sometimes the text is skewed off to the left a bit. But
>> otherwise I haven't seen too much of a problem. Most of the websites
>> I go to are still perfect under IE6. So I remain very happy about it.

>
> As I recall, some of the banking sites wouldn't accept it (I'm
> thinking it might have been BofA, but I can't recall).


Oh that would do it. My sister just called me and said her bank made her
upgrade from IE7 to IE8 and now her computer runs slow. She is running
Vista btw. That same bank used to require MS Money and wanted the latest
version as well before. I always heard about the trouble from her about
the latest versions of MS Money too. My favorite was MS Money 2000. The
later versions I didn't like much.

>> And I am not a big fan of other browsers like FireFox or Opera. But
>> if you use IE6, it doesn't hurt to have them installed for the times
>> that IE6 just won't work well with. So I see this as an acceptable
>> solution myself. Is this how you handle it? Or did you replace IE6
>> with IE7 or IE8?

>
> Well, due to a couple of websites I was using (I think for online
> banking), I was kinda forced to "upgrade", and first went to IE7, but
> eventually went to IE8.


Oh ok. I was just curious and that is why I did it. ;-)

> However, I still have GreenBrowser, SlimBrowser, and Maxthon 1.6
> installed, which look just like IE6, so I can have the best of both
> worlds. :) But I've gotten used to IE8 now, so at this point, I
> mostly use IE8, and occasionally, Firefox.


I sort of got use to IE7 and IE8 too, but IE6 is so darn fast! I knew it
was fast before, but after using IE7 and IE8 for a long time and then
going back to IE6, it is really super fast! I do occasionally use
FireFox and Opera as well.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:-Oxi0cxtQLHA.716@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
Unknown typed on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:01:04 -0500:
> 1) No I don't use other browsers. There is no need to, and I won't
> clutter up my system with unneeded items. I am very happy with IE8.


Nice, although IE7 and IE8 is too slow for me. And IE6 is super speedy.

> 2) I am using Windows XP with SP3 and have 3 gigs of memory.
> I am using (and only will use) Intel P4 at 3.2 GHz.


Sounds nice. How are you installing 3GBs? I use laptops and netbooks and
they either have one or two slots and I can't get 3GB from that. You
must have four slots, eh? All of mine have 2GB and I don't even use 1GB
of it.

> Your systems should run faster than what you indicate. I suggest you
> investigate the amount of programs you are loading and anything
> running in the background.


I have:

Process Explorer
Explorer
Maxthon 1.5.6 (with 5 tabs opened) using IE6 engine
Windows Media Player v10
OE6 with OE-QuoteFix

In the tray I have:

OE-QuoteFix
Windows Wireless
Sticky Password
Process Explorer
Paragon CD emulator
BattStat v0.98
Speaker
Smart Type Assistant
PureText
Dimension 4 (time sync program)

> What type and speed internet connection do you have? I use ATT's
> slowest DSL connection and that is the speed determining item.


I have 900kb DSL service. Although slow by most standards, IE6 beating,
IE7, IE8, FireFox, and Opera shouldn't matter even on a super slow
dialup connection. One browser faster than another on the same
connection is what really matters.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:KqKdnZiLcaIvVO_RnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@earthlink.com,
Bill in Co typed on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:19:13 -0600:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:-OC7vuW2HLHA.5668@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
>> Randem typed on Fri, 9 Jul 2010 02:53:12 -1000:
>>> Any reason you are still on IE6 instead of IE8?

>>
>> Well for me personally, I've used IE7 and IE8 for over a year and I
>> cannot take them anymore. Websites like titantv.com are just super
>> slow under IE7/8. Can't scroll or page for many seconds and it takes
>> forever. Even always slow Firefox beats loading webpages far faster
>> than IE7/8 can.

>
> I think there is something else going on here, as I hadn't noticed
> that with IE8 (or IE7), and haven't heard of many such reports. It
> might be due to the settings (maybe you need to customize the
> settings). You could also bring up Task Manager and see if there
> are some other resource hogging apps being loaded.


I did and it is IE7 or IE8 hogging the CPU.

> For me, the most noticeable difference in browsers has been with
> Firefox, which *initially* takes noticeably longer to load, but
> otherwise works fine.


Same here if you have IE7 or IE8 installed. Although even with Firefox
loaded, it is so slow compared to IE6. Pretty close to IE7 and IE8 with
most websites though.

> But I use IE8 for most work. And I'm only running a 1.6 GHz computer
> here, with 1 GB of RAM. But I usually just single task, or minimally
> multitask, when I'm on the computer (meaning - I don't run ten other
> apps in the background, which can create such problems)


1.6GHz what? I mean what kind of processor? I use 900Mhz (underclocked
to 633MHz), 1.5GB, and 1.7GB Celerons. And I use 2GB on my laptops and
netbooks here. But I don't even use 1GB of them. And I do use other
stuff, but they are totally just idling. Things like:

Process Explorer
Explorer
Maxthon 1.5.6 (with 5 tabs opened) using IE6 engine
Windows Media Player v10
OE6 with OE-QuoteFix

In the tray I have:

OE-QuoteFix
Windows Wireless
Sticky Password
Process Explorer
Paragon CD emulator
BattStat v0.98
Speaker
Smart Type Assistant
PureText
Dimension 4 (time sync program)

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
B

Bill in Co

Flightless Bird
BillW50 wrote:
> In news:KqKdnZiLcaIvVO_RnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@earthlink.com,
> Bill in Co typed on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:19:13 -0600:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:-OC7vuW2HLHA.5668@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
>>> Randem typed on Fri, 9 Jul 2010 02:53:12 -1000:
>>>> Any reason you are still on IE6 instead of IE8?
>>>
>>> Well for me personally, I've used IE7 and IE8 for over a year and I
>>> cannot take them anymore. Websites like titantv.com are just super
>>> slow under IE7/8. Can't scroll or page for many seconds and it takes
>>> forever. Even always slow Firefox beats loading webpages far faster
>>> than IE7/8 can.

>>
>> I think there is something else going on here, as I hadn't noticed
>> that with IE8 (or IE7), and haven't heard of many such reports. It
>> might be due to the settings (maybe you need to customize the
>> settings). You could also bring up Task Manager and see if there
>> are some other resource hogging apps being loaded.

>
> I did and it is IE7 or IE8 hogging the CPU.
>
>> For me, the most noticeable difference in browsers has been with
>> Firefox, which *initially* takes noticeably longer to load, but
>> otherwise works fine.

>
> Same here if you have IE7 or IE8 installed. Although even with Firefox
> loaded, it is so slow compared to IE6. Pretty close to IE7 and IE8 with
> most websites though.
>
>> But I use IE8 for most work. And I'm only running a 1.6 GHz computer
>> here, with 1 GB of RAM. But I usually just single task, or minimally
>> multitask, when I'm on the computer (meaning - I don't run ten other
>> apps in the background, which can create such problems)

>
> 1.6GHz what? I mean what kind of processor?


1.6 GHz Celeron. But is there really much practical difference between
that and a std Intel CPU, or an AMD CPU? What I had heard before is that
AMD CPU's could sometimes be a bit problematic for some apps or
customizations, but I can't recall now under what conditions.

> I use 900Mhz (underclocked
> to 633MHz), 1.5GB, and 1.7GB Celerons. And I use 2GB on my laptops and
> netbooks here. But I don't even use 1GB of them. And I do use other
> stuff, but they are totally just idling. Things like:
>
> Process Explorer
> Explorer
> Maxthon 1.5.6 (with 5 tabs opened) using IE6 engine
> Windows Media Player v10
> OE6 with OE-QuoteFix
>
> In the tray I have:
>
> OE-QuoteFix
> Windows Wireless
> Sticky Password
> Process Explorer
> Paragon CD emulator
> BattStat v0.98
> Speaker
> Smart Type Assistant
> PureText
> Dimension 4 (time sync program)


That doesn't sound like a lot, or anything really too excessive.
I also have Process Explorer and WMP10, but not running in the background (I
just bring them up, when needed), etc.

So I guess you've checked out all of these (selective disables and all that)
and found none of them to be the issue, and that for some reason IE8 just
runs slower on your system. To be fair, I haven't done a direct A/B
comparison test however, but I will tell you that if I noticed a really
significant difference, I think I would have seen it. I sure do notice the
diff when bringing up Firefox!

Oh, and I upgraded to XP-SP3 at one time as a matter of "convenience" (I was
having some occasional (and weird) svchost-related issues, and doing that
finally fixed that problem, which was driving me nuts in my debugging tests)
 
U

Unknown

Flightless Bird
As a test, have you run msconfig and remove check from all items not needed
and tested?
Appears to me you are loading so muck in memory that virtual memory is in
constant use.
Using virtual memory takes a great deal of time reading and writing to
disk..
"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:i4v0oi$jnf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:-Oxi0cxtQLHA.716@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> Unknown typed on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:01:04 -0500:
>> 1) No I don't use other browsers. There is no need to, and I won't
>> clutter up my system with unneeded items. I am very happy with IE8.

>
> Nice, although IE7 and IE8 is too slow for me. And IE6 is super speedy.
>
>> 2) I am using Windows XP with SP3 and have 3 gigs of memory.
>> I am using (and only will use) Intel P4 at 3.2 GHz.

>
> Sounds nice. How are you installing 3GBs? I use laptops and netbooks and
> they either have one or two slots and I can't get 3GB from that. You must
> have four slots, eh? All of mine have 2GB and I don't even use 1GB of it.
>
>> Your systems should run faster than what you indicate. I suggest you
>> investigate the amount of programs you are loading and anything
>> running in the background.

>
> I have:
>
> Process Explorer
> Explorer
> Maxthon 1.5.6 (with 5 tabs opened) using IE6 engine
> Windows Media Player v10
> OE6 with OE-QuoteFix
>
> In the tray I have:
>
> OE-QuoteFix
> Windows Wireless
> Sticky Password
> Process Explorer
> Paragon CD emulator
> BattStat v0.98
> Speaker
> Smart Type Assistant
> PureText
> Dimension 4 (time sync program)
>
>> What type and speed internet connection do you have? I use ATT's
>> slowest DSL connection and that is the speed determining item.

>
> I have 900kb DSL service. Although slow by most standards, IE6 beating,
> IE7, IE8, FireFox, and Opera shouldn't matter even on a super slow dialup
> connection. One browser faster than another on the same connection is what
> really matters.
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
>
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:A56dnRI5O-Sit-7RnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@earthlink.com,
Bill in Co typed on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:11:09 -0600:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:KqKdnZiLcaIvVO_RnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@earthlink.com,
>> 1.6GHz what? I mean what kind of processor?

>
> 1.6 GHz Celeron. But is there really much practical difference
> between that and a std Intel CPU, or an AMD CPU? What I had heard
> before is that AMD CPU's could sometimes be a bit problematic for
> some apps or customizations, but I can't recall now under what
> conditions.


Well the story that I had heard was that early chipsets usually didn't
work well with AMD processors. And I could confirm that this was true in
my case. As I bought four ADM desktops back in 2001. And they were total
pieces a junk. You had to baby them just to make them work partly.

Although I heard this isn't the case anymore. As other manufactures have
learned how to make their products work with AMD processors. But since I
got burned badly once, I avoid AMD machines since. They could be fine
machines nowadays for all I know.

Well Celeron processors don't score well on benchmark tests. But they do
work well, just a bit slower than other types. I have ran high powered
graphic games like The Sims 2, The Sims 3, RealFlight 2 through 5, MS FS
2002, FS 2004, etc. And they are all playable and do better than what
the benchmark tests suggests that they would have. So I think they are
all right. Although true gamers might want something a bit more high
powered. But for most other users, Celerons probably would be fine.

>> I use 900Mhz (underclocked
>> to 633MHz), 1.5GB, and 1.7GB Celerons. And I use 2GB on my laptops
>> and netbooks here. But I don't even use 1GB of them. And I do use
>> other stuff, but they are totally just idling. Things like:
>>
>> Process Explorer
>> Explorer
>> Maxthon 1.5.6 (with 5 tabs opened) using IE6 engine
>> Windows Media Player v10
>> OE6 with OE-QuoteFix
>>
>> In the tray I have:
>>
>> OE-QuoteFix
>> Windows Wireless
>> Sticky Password
>> Process Explorer
>> Paragon CD emulator
>> BattStat v0.98
>> Speaker
>> Smart Type Assistant
>> PureText
>> Dimension 4 (time sync program)

>
> That doesn't sound like a lot, or anything really too excessive.
> I also have Process Explorer and WMP10, but not running in the
> background (I just bring them up, when needed), etc.


Yeah the CPU usage is almost 5% or less under these conditions and this
is very acceptable. And WMP10 I usually have playing audio files and it
doesn't use hardly CPU either.

And as a side note: Process Explorer can't be running when you start The
Sims 2. It has to do with the copy protection and The Sims 2 I guess
refuses to run because it thinks you are trying to crack the copy
protection or something. Also I have to uninstall Paragon CD emulator
(closing it down isn't good enough) for playing The Sims as well.
Luckily it is very easy to uninstall and reinstall.

> So I guess you've checked out all of these (selective disables and
> all that) and found none of them to be the issue, and that for some
> reason IE8 just runs slower on your system. To be fair, I haven't
> done a direct A/B comparison test however, but I will tell you that
> if I noticed a really significant difference, I think I would have
> seen it. I sure do notice the diff when bringing up Firefox!


I have six laptops and four netbooks. So I can have side to side
comparisons and IE7 and IE8 are definitely slower. Without paying a lot
of attention, you might not notice the difference.

> Oh, and I upgraded to XP-SP3 at one time as a matter of "convenience"
> (I was having some occasional (and weird) svchost-related issues, and
> doing that finally fixed that problem, which was driving me nuts in
> my debugging tests)


Yes lots of hotfixes in SP3 for sure. And I used to do the same as well.
But now I am going the other way. As now I am going back to the earliest
version (usually what's on the recovery DVD). And then only installing
the hotfixes that actually fixes a problem I have. And I avoid hotfixes
that doesn't do anything for my systems. They seem to run faster and
more stable that way.

I do have one problem with my netbooks. That is the DPCs eat too much
CPU power at times. This slows them down and affects the bandwidth of my
WiFi as well. It sees to be coming too close to other computers that
cause this problem. AFAIK there is no software fix for this problem at
all.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
Top