Is Windows 10 faster with more memory even if much is unused?

[Simon97]

I'm helping someone with a computer issue. They are complaining about a slow performing computer. It has 4GB of ram and a little less than half is free. Hard drive is mostly empty. I did some basic checks such as a virus scan and it seems okay.

I wonder if there is any significant benefit to increasing the memory? User is not in a position to upgrade to a new machine at this point.

 

[Austinian]

i would bet its a celeron e3500. if it doesnt get fast enough with maintenance, you could try using windows 7 or linux.

Recommending usage of an unsupported, insecure OS is in no one's best interest. Stop using Windows 7.

its that or having to learn a completely new system.

I've had to do that several times over the years; it's no big deal, and many things haven't changed. Classic Shell and similar programs can ease the transition.

the metro interface is not a completely new system. try using microsoft office, adobe photoshop and, dunno, a CAD program in linux. this is what i am talking about

besides, if the users in question are not clicking on every download button they see, they are going to be fine. such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

Not necessarily. There's a reason to keep up with updates and patches. Vulnerabilities like WannaCry don't require user error to wreak havoc.

"In May 2017, around a quarter of a million computers around the world running Microsoft Windows were attacked and infected with malware that would later be named "WannaCry." Victims found their computers locked and unusable, but could free them if the victims transferred Bitcoin—typically an amount equivalent to $300-600 USD—to the people behind the attack.

It turned out, the attack could have been avoided if people had applied a software update Microsoft had issued just weeks before the attack. The update fixed the vulnerability that the attackers had exploited, but many chose to delay implementing it."

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-03-people-software.html

it could also be avoided by not executing the package that contained the virus, which is entirely the user's fault.

Wrong. Not all exploits require a virus to work; that's the point of patching.

"A typical ransomware attack begins with a phishing email loaded with a malicious attachment or link, which the user is tricked into opening. But, SophosLabs has resolved that the WannaCry attack probably didn’t start this way."

"As we’ve noted previously, the attack exploited a Windows vulnerability Microsoft had released a patch for in March."

Loading…

news.sophos.com

 

[supersargas]

1. Austinian wrote:

such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

What you think is the top source for malware ?

the user.

"The recipe for a malware infection calls for a long list of ingredients. Topmost are the two most common ways that malware accesses your system—the Internet and email."

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malware/

connecting to the internet or using your email will not spawn viruses in your computer. viruses are commonly disguised as download pop ups or as links inside an email, both downloading an executable file that activates the virus.

by the way, getting information about the dangers of the internet from a company website that depends on that danger to make money is not a good idea.

Yes, it is 100% possible and a well known method of being infected by just browsing the internet....no user action needed.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

clicking on a website link named www.install-microsoft-word.com is an action performed by the user lmao

 

[supersargas]

1. Austinian wrote:

such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

What you think is the top source for malware ?

the user.

"The recipe for a malware infection calls for a long list of ingredients. Topmost are the two most common ways that malware accesses your system—the Internet and email."

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malware/

connecting to the internet or using your email will not spawn viruses in your computer. viruses are commonly disguised as download pop ups or as links inside an email, both downloading an executable file that activates the virus.

by the way, getting information about the dangers of the internet from a company website that depends on that danger to make money is not a good idea.

Complacency about unpatched vulnerabilities is a worse idea.

say, if you needed a computer to type text with, but all you have is a pentium iii machine, would you just resign and do nothing or install windows 2000 instead?

its not about complacency, its about working with what you have at hand.

 

[Ho72]

say, if you needed a computer to type text with, but all you have is a pentium iii machine, would you just resign and do nothing or install windows 2000 instead?

its not about complacency, its about working with what you have at hand.

It's a given that you won't be online with it so use whatever OS best compliments your hardware. I know a guy who still uses a 386 for word processing so join the club.

 

[Austinian]

say, if you needed a computer to type text with, but all you have is a pentium iii machine, would you just resign and do nothing or install windows 2000 instead?

its not about complacency, its about working with what you have at hand.

You only have a PIII? Maybe you could find a museum that wants it.

It's a given that you won't be online with it so use whatever OS best compliments your hardware.

Right. If the computer isn't online it doesn't matter what OS you use.

 

[Austinian]

1. Austinian wrote:

such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

What you think is the top source for malware ?

the user.

"The recipe for a malware infection calls for a long list of ingredients. Topmost are the two most common ways that malware accesses your system—the Internet and email."

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malware/

connecting to the internet or using your email will not spawn viruses in your computer. viruses are commonly disguised as download pop ups or as links inside an email, both downloading an executable file that activates the virus.

by the way, getting information about the dangers of the internet from a company website that depends on that danger to make money is not a good idea.

Yes, it is 100% possible and a well known method of being infected by just browsing the internet....no user action needed.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

clicking on a website link named www.install-microsoft-word.com is an action performed by the user lmao

Turning on your PC is an action performed by the user. So anything bad that happens then is automatically your fault no matter what.

 

[supersargas]

1. Austinian wrote:

such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

What you think is the top source for malware ?

the user.

"The recipe for a malware infection calls for a long list of ingredients. Topmost are the two most common ways that malware accesses your system—the Internet and email."

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malware/

connecting to the internet or using your email will not spawn viruses in your computer. viruses are commonly disguised as download pop ups or as links inside an email, both downloading an executable file that activates the virus.

by the way, getting information about the dangers of the internet from a company website that depends on that danger to make money is not a good idea.

Yes, it is 100% possible and a well known method of being infected by just browsing the internet....no user action needed.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

clicking on a website link named www.install-microsoft-word.com is an action performed by the user lmao

Turning on your PC is an action performed by the user. So anything bad that happens then is automatically your fault no matter what.

hahahah come on now

 

[Austinian]

1. Austinian wrote:

such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

What you think is the top source for malware ?

the user.

"The recipe for a malware infection calls for a long list of ingredients. Topmost are the two most common ways that malware accesses your system—the Internet and email."

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malware/

connecting to the internet or using your email will not spawn viruses in your computer. viruses are commonly disguised as download pop ups or as links inside an email, both downloading an executable file that activates the virus.

by the way, getting information about the dangers of the internet from a company website that depends on that danger to make money is not a good idea.

Yes, it is 100% possible and a well known method of being infected by just browsing the internet....no user action needed.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

clicking on a website link named www.install-microsoft-word.com is an action performed by the user lmao

Turning on your PC is an action performed by the user. So anything bad that happens then is automatically your fault no matter what.

hahahah come on now

One silly comment deserved another.

 

[supersargas]

1. Austinian wrote:

such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

What you think is the top source for malware ?

the user.

"The recipe for a malware infection calls for a long list of ingredients. Topmost are the two most common ways that malware accesses your system—the Internet and email."

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malware/

connecting to the internet or using your email will not spawn viruses in your computer. viruses are commonly disguised as download pop ups or as links inside an email, both downloading an executable file that activates the virus.

by the way, getting information about the dangers of the internet from a company website that depends on that danger to make money is not a good idea.

Yes, it is 100% possible and a well known method of being infected by just browsing the internet....no user action needed.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

clicking on a website link named www.install-microsoft-word.com is an action performed by the user lmao

Turning on your PC is an action performed by the user. So anything bad that happens then is automatically your fault no matter what.

hahahah come on now

One silly comment deserved another.

it wasnt silly. such a method would appear in sites you shouldnt trust in the first place, like that one. you wont see it at your home banking page or at facebook.

 

[supersargas]

say, if you needed a computer to type text with, but all you have is a pentium iii machine, would you just resign and do nothing or install windows 2000 instead?

its not about complacency, its about working with what you have at hand.

It's a given that you won't be online with it so use whatever OS best compliments your hardware. I know a guy who still uses a 386 for word processing so join the club.

i revived a 2012 netbook with archlinux. its about as powerful as the latest pentium 4. it runs the latest rawtherapee quite smoothly actually

 

[supersargas]

i would bet its a celeron e3500. if it doesnt get fast enough with maintenance, you could try using windows 7 or linux.

Recommending usage of an unsupported, insecure OS is in no one's best interest. Stop using Windows 7.

its that or having to learn a completely new system.

I've had to do that several times over the years; it's no big deal, and many things haven't changed. Classic Shell and similar programs can ease the transition.

the metro interface is not a completely new system. try using microsoft office, adobe photoshop and, dunno, a CAD program in linux. this is what i am talking about

besides, if the users in question are not clicking on every download button they see, they are going to be fine. such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

Not necessarily. There's a reason to keep up with updates and patches. Vulnerabilities like WannaCry don't require user error to wreak havoc.

"In May 2017, around a quarter of a million computers around the world running Microsoft Windows were attacked and infected with malware that would later be named "WannaCry." Victims found their computers locked and unusable, but could free them if the victims transferred Bitcoin—typically an amount equivalent to $300-600 USD—to the people behind the attack.

It turned out, the attack could have been avoided if people had applied a software update Microsoft had issued just weeks before the attack. The update fixed the vulnerability that the attackers had exploited, but many chose to delay implementing it."

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-03-people-software.html

it could also be avoided by not executing the package that contained the virus, which is entirely the user's fault.

Wrong. Not all exploits require a virus to work; that's the point of patching.

"A typical ransomware attack begins with a phishing email loaded with a malicious attachment or link, which the user is tricked into opening. But, SophosLabs has resolved that the WannaCry attack probably didn’t start this way."

"As we’ve noted previously, the attack exploited a Windows vulnerability Microsoft had released a patch for in March."

https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2017/05/19/wannacry-how-the-attack-happened/

-that same company made an advertisement by blocking an exe file that activated the virus

-that virus was designed to start as an executable file, and then spread over an internal network. the chaos was probably unchained by people clicking stuff in their mail that they shouldnt have. this is why companies that are mildly competent in information security put messages like "dont open suspicious emails" in their worker's screensavers.

 

[Austinian]

i would bet its a celeron e3500. if it doesnt get fast enough with maintenance, you could try using windows 7 or linux.

Recommending usage of an unsupported, insecure OS is in no one's best interest. Stop using Windows 7.

its that or having to learn a completely new system.

I've had to do that several times over the years; it's no big deal, and many things haven't changed. Classic Shell and similar programs can ease the transition.

the metro interface is not a completely new system. try using microsoft office, adobe photoshop and, dunno, a CAD program in linux. this is what i am talking about

besides, if the users in question are not clicking on every download button they see, they are going to be fine. such a computer wont be used for much more than mails and general internet browsing.

Not necessarily. There's a reason to keep up with updates and patches. Vulnerabilities like WannaCry don't require user error to wreak havoc.

"In May 2017, around a quarter of a million computers around the world running Microsoft Windows were attacked and infected with malware that would later be named "WannaCry." Victims found their computers locked and unusable, but could free them if the victims transferred Bitcoin—typically an amount equivalent to $300-600 USD—to the people behind the attack.

It turned out, the attack could have been avoided if people had applied a software update Microsoft had issued just weeks before the attack. The update fixed the vulnerability that the attackers had exploited, but many chose to delay implementing it."

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-03-people-software.html

it could also be avoided by not executing the package that contained the virus, which is entirely the user's fault.

Wrong. Not all exploits require a virus to work; that's the point of patching.

"A typical ransomware attack begins with a phishing email loaded with a malicious attachment or link, which the user is tricked into opening. But, SophosLabs has resolved that the WannaCry attack probably didn’t start this way."

"As we’ve noted previously, the attack exploited a Windows vulnerability Microsoft had released a patch for in March."

https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2017/05/19/wannacry-how-the-attack-happened/

-that same company made an advertisement by blocking an exe file that activated the virus

What I'd be interested in knowing is which antimalware products did (or did not) block that malware .exe at the very first, zero-day attacks. If the detection and blocking came later--well, that wouldn't help the first victims. :-(

Only having patched the OS would.

-that virus was designed to start as an executable file, and then spread over an internal network. the chaos was probably unchained by people clicking stuff in their mail that they shouldnt have. this is why companies that are mildly competent in information security put messages like "dont open suspicious emails" in their worker's screensavers.

Without the exploit, only the original user would have been affected. As it was, because of the unpatched systems, many others were infected without any action on their part.

WannaCry is only an example; what other vulnerabilities may exist that are ripe for perhaps even remote exploitation are as yet unknown, but patches are released frequently for the OSs I'm familiar with (Windows and Linux) as vulns are discovered.

We can't fix the unknown vulns. But if we patch the discovered vulns before they can be exploited by malware, we'll be that much safer.

That is the whole point of my comments in this thread. That is all.

 

[cnyphotoguy]

Yes, it is 100% possible and a well known method of being infected by just browsing the internet....no user action needed.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

clicking on a website link named www.install-microsoft-word.com is an action performed by the user lmao

Clearly you aren't in the technology field. As outlined in the link a perfectly legitimate website could have been hacked and setup to host malware. Many many websites sell off their ad space to third parties who will be the typical vector of attack too.

In the hay day of drive by attacks we saw many instances of users going to normal mainstream news sites that picked up malware with zero clicks due to browser/third party add-in or OS vulnerabilities.

User behavior is very important, but not the be all that decides if you're safe from being compromised. All internet connected devices which remain vulnerable can make everyone else unsafe too.

 

[Sean Nelson]

Clearly you aren't in the technology field. As outlined in the link a perfectly legitimate website could have been hacked and setup to host malware. Many many websites sell off their ad space to third parties who will be the typical vector of attack too.

Yeah, you go to a trusted web site and a plethora of untrusted stuff comes along for the ride. It's like inviting a good, trusted friend into your house - does he have COVID19? How would you know if he doesn't know?

This is why I use Firefox's NoScript plug-in - it lets me grant permissions to the web site I'm visiting without granting them to all the cr@p that comes with them.