| |  WindowsXP: What do you think?
| 
10-16-2001, 03:46 PM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Somewhere beyond the sea
Posts: 4,989
| |
Okay, it's coming up. Whether you love it or loathe it, we can't escape from Microsoft. So, what do you think/expect?
I am no computer expert, and just want to know what will change and improve (or not) in understandable English. I mean, not English in manuals. 
__________________
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."
A word to the wise is sufficient
Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
| | |
10-16-2001, 03:59 PM
|  | Super Moderator | | Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Posts: 30,316
| | |
A friend of mine who makes and repairs computers (in fact, he made the one I'm using now, oh n@#OIJF)(#)*(U!!!!!!!!...
Just joking. (cough) Anyway, he did make it, and recently he told me that Windows XP was wonderful. Why, says I. Because if you crash, you only crash in that one, discrete window, says he. But I run a memory manager as a TSR and don't crash much, says I. Well, it's also faster by about 15%, says he.
End result: if that's all I can gain, I'm really not going to move over. Yet. However, with a 100 GB hard drive, his suggestion of a duo-load isn't out of the question.
__________________
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe. | | |
10-16-2001, 04:06 PM
|  | Banned | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Titan Castle Throne Room
Posts: 4,288
| |  Quote:
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>But I run a memory manager as a TSR</STRONG>
| Could you elaborate on what that means, please?
| | |
10-16-2001, 04:16 PM
| | Super Moderator | | Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Posts: 30,316
| | Quote:
Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Could you elaborate on what that means, please?</STRONG>
| (This references memory managers, and TSRs.) TSR's are terminate-stay-resident programs. They began back in the DOS days. They perform tasks that use (hopefully) small bits of memory in the background, unattended, while you work on your foreground tasks. As an example, I've got AfterDark running as a TSR. Because I'm typing now, it's quiescent. But if I stop for seven minutes, it'll trigger a screensaver. Other TSRs are more sophisticated. Anti-virus TSRs, for example, will watch for anything that comes off the net, no matter what you're doing: they're always active.
Windows itself has a memory manager, but it's not the last word in sophistication. There are some very good shareware memory managers out there, such as Memokit. Not only does it free up memory that Windows overlooks for your use, but it lets you reset the priority of any given Windows task. So that, while Windows may have five internet windows you've opened set to "low priority" (which means they don't absorb much in the way of CPU), you may want to reset that to "no priority," since you're only using 'em as reference material for a paper you're writing in Word; and if you're not planning to update the information being displayed on those five internet windows, why have them use any CPU, at all? Redistributing priorities means you run the ones you need faster, and they update a lot quicker.
Hope that helps.
__________________
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe. | | |
10-16-2001, 04:20 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 1,355
| | |
I heard there's more cons than pros.
XP = XP (if ya know what the XP smiley means)
__________________
This little box at the end of my post is MY happy place. NOW BUG OFF! 
But if you have cookies... the welcome mat's at your feet  | | |
10-16-2001, 04:24 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Titan Castle Throne Room
Posts: 4,288
| | Quote:
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>(This references memory managers, and TSRs.) TSR's are terminate-stay-resident programs. They began back in the DOS days. They perform tasks that use (hopefully) small bits of memory in the background, unattended, while you work on your foreground tasks. As an example, I've got AfterDark running as a TSR. Because I'm typing now, it's quiescent. But if I stop for seven minutes, it'll trigger a screensaver. Other TSRs are more sophisticated. Anti-virus TSRs, for example, will watch for anything that comes off the net, no matter what you're doing: they're always active.</STRONG>
| *nods in understanding* Quote:
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Windows itself has a memory manager, but it's not the last word in sophistication. There are some very good shareware memory managers out there, such as Memokit. Not only does it free up memory that Windows overlooks for your use, but it lets you reset the priority of any given Windows task. So that, while Windows may have five internet windows you've opened set to "low priority" (which means they don't absorb much in the way of CPU), you may want to reset that to "no priority," since you're only using 'em as reference material for a paper you're writing in Word; and if you're not planning to update the information being displayed on those five internet windows, why have them use any CPU, at all? Redistributing priorities means you run the ones you need faster, and they update a lot quicker.
Hope that helps. </STRONG>
| Wow. Would that type of thing help with a computer who's resources gradually diminish?
 | | |
10-16-2001, 04:28 PM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Titan Castle Throne Room
Posts: 4,288
| | Quote:
Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>Okay, it's coming up. Whether you love it or loathe it, we can't escape from Microsoft. So, what do you think/expect?</STRONG>
| From what I've read about it, I don't think I'll like it. I'll check it out when my dad installs it on his computer, but I plan on sticking with Win98SE(once I can get an upgrade disc to upgrade my desktop PC from 98 to 98SE). I have 98SE on my laptop and I like it better than all the other versions of Windows.
Personally, I think someone should design a new OS called Doors. I mean, who in their right mind enters rooms through windows?  | | |
10-16-2001, 04:33 PM
| | Super Moderator | | Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Posts: 30,316
| | Quote:
Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Wow. Would that type of thing help with a computer who's resources gradually diminish?</STRONG>
| On Windows 95/98/Me systems, resources can't be freed up, unfortunately, by memory managers. However, a good memory manager--Memokit comes to mind, again--will report exactly how much in the way of resources you have at the moment. This also tells you which of your programs are "resource hogs," really stealing all the resources they can get, right to the point of crashing you. There's one very good Windows tweaking program, for instance, called WinBooster 2001. I like it a lot, but the thing consumes 40% of my resources when I run it. Consequently, I only run it when very little else is open; else, I'll get the Blue Screen of Death.
On Windows 2000/XT systems, when resources grow low, the used portion is automatically moved to your hard drive, just as Windows handles it when you over-use memory. This slows down things a lot, but at least your computer doesn't crash. 
Here's Memokit's website: http://www.memokit.com/
__________________
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe. | | |
10-16-2001, 04:34 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Home of the straw men
Posts: 907
| | Quote:
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Because if you crash, you only crash in that one, discrete window, says he. But I run a memory manager as a TSR and don't crash much, says I. Well, it's also faster by about 15%, says he.</STRONG>
| Hey, wait, wasn't this what they said about NT, oh I mean NT4, oops sorry W2K, ah I get it, _IT_ is finally here - protected memory management under Windows Sorry for being sarcastic, but considering the fact that even Mac's have had this for about ten years does limit my enthusiasm. No standing ovations, I'm afraid. Preemptive multitasking hasn't quite made it into the M$ paradigm. By design fubar.
An operating system built by a McDonalds slogan, that is, "It's bigger and better", gives me the creeps. More undocumented features, more passive code that no one really knows what it does, but things stop working when you remove it, etc, etc. I can rant on this subject continuously for some weeks without end...
Unfortunately, I'll be running it within a year or so, because this and that game requires it, or this and that application that I have to run won't run on anything else. The first I can live with, the second just reeks. Evil empire marketing fluff gets us once again.
__________________
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman | | |
10-16-2001, 04:36 PM
| | Super Moderator | | Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Posts: 30,316
| | Quote:
Originally posted by Silur:
<STRONG>Hey, wait, wasn't this what they said about NT, oh I mean NT4, oops sorry W2K, ah I get it, _IT_ is finally here - protected memory management under Windows Sorry for being sarcastic, but considering the fact that even Mac's have had this for about ten years does limit my enthusiasm. No standing ovations, I'm afraid. Preemptive multitasking hasn't quite made it into the M$ paradigm. By design fubar. </STRONG>
| DOS had it, too, in a great multitasker, Desqview. One of its biggest selling points was its discretely loaded windows, which never crashed the entire system.
__________________
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe. | | |
10-16-2001, 04:37 PM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Home of the straw men
Posts: 907
| | Quote:
Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Wow. Would that type of thing help with a computer who's resources gradually diminish?</STRONG>
| Sometimes, but most of the time there's a resource hole in some application - that is it allocates a resource, but doesn't return it when it's done.
__________________
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman | | |
10-16-2001, 04:42 PM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Home of the straw men
Posts: 907
| | Quote:
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>DOS had it, too, in a great multitasker, Desqview. One of its biggest selling points was its discretely loaded windows, which never crashed the entire system.</STRONG>
| I know. Like so many others, they didn't make it when the marketing division started rolling out the "M$ lateral integration strategy".
__________________
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman | | |
10-16-2001, 11:11 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Springfield
Posts: 4,855
| |
Everything I've read points to a win2k OS with little interface improvements here and there. Right now, windows 2000 is certainly the way to go, so I would XPEK XP to be solid as well. The only OS of MS I am disappointed in is the one I know best, NT4.0. It is stable but it is a bear to work with when adding/removing hardware/software. Windows 2000 combined the best of both OS'es (device managers, functioning disk utilities, task manager) while providing a massive hardware compatability list. The only problem is win2000 is a resource hog and it appears winXP is going to demand even more out of your system. I believe the recommended I saw was 500 MHz CPU with 128 MB RAM. So, in the real world, double the recommended power to get any reliable performance out of the OS. Does anyone know if you can use a NTFS formatted drive for winXP home edition. Now that would be cool. A ways and means to further lock down the kiddies on the home network. 
__________________
Crush enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women.
| | |
10-17-2001, 09:21 AM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 1,355
| | |
XP is, in my opi
__________________
This little box at the end of my post is MY happy place. NOW BUG OFF!
But if you have cookies... the welcome mat's at your feet | | |
10-17-2001, 09:22 AM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 1,355
| |  Oops... Heheheheh... ^_^;;
Anyways...
...nion, not worth purchasing.
__________________
This little box at the end of my post is MY happy place. NOW BUG OFF!
But if you have cookies... the welcome mat's at your feet | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | |
