GameBanshee Forums

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.

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.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>But I run a memory manager as a TSR</STRONG>

Could you elaborate on what that means, please?

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.

I heard there's more cons than pros.

XP = XP (if ya know what the XP smiley means)

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*

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?

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?

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: [url="http://www.memokit.com/"]http://www.memokit.com/[/url]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

XP is, in my opi

Oops... Heheheheh... ^_^;;

Anyways...

...nion, not worth purchasing.

XP rocks. Don't ask me how I know, I just do

Your system runs faster (faster load times),
Built in restore feature allows you to recover from bad things man. EX: You install a program, and it crashes your system. no problem. Boot in safe mode, restore option, and choose to restore from the last succesful install PRIOR to the bad one. Takes all of 5 minutes.

Uninstalls rock. Complete rollback, meaning all those little disgusting files you normally can't uninstall are gone. removed from the registry.

Has the option to format NTFS, meaning you can lock your system down from anyone messing with it.(I.E. real security, not some password screen that you can just cancel out of)

Built in firewall, burning software,...man this rocks.

Originally posted by Bloodstalker:
<STRONG>XP rocks. Don't ask me how I know, I just do </STRONG>

I beg to differ

<STRONG>
Uninstalls rock. Complete rollback, meaning all those little disgusting files you normally can't uninstall are gone. removed from the registry.</STRONG>

A really nice feature available in OS/2 sometime 1995. How nice of M$ to catch up When will they disallow program installations to put .dll files in the system directories? That would be the next great improvement IMO.

<STRONG>

Has the option to format NTFS, meaning you can lock your system down from anyone messing with it.(I.E. real security, not some password screen that you can just cancel out of)
</STRONG>

'fraid not There are plenty of programs available to read and write NTFS file systems (even from good old DOS). Physical access to ANY (with very few exceptions) system means that its only a matter of time before it's broken into. Not even mainframes are safe in this respect.

<STRONG>

Built in firewall, burning software,...man this rocks. </STRONG>

This is an improvement, although someone missed something somewhere. The firewall is fine, but there are a number of ports (netbios, rpc, to name a few) that cannot be closed down entirely without crippling the system. You can stop traffic to them with the firewall, but they're still vulnerable to denial of service attacks. Since some of these were used by the Nimda worm, I'd expect a fix to show up at some point.

What M$ _does_ have is the largest installbase, the largest number of applications, more games than all other systems together (including playstation and the like) and it runs on fairly cheap hardware with support for the weirdest assortment of trinkets imaginable. No one can argue with that. What galls me is that they try to shove market fluff that simply isn't true down my throat.

Still like it though dude...it's....pretty.

LOL

Originally posted by Bloodstalker:
<STRONG>Still like it though dude...it's....pretty.

LOL</STRONG>

Can't argue with that Thats emotional, and no amount of logic will help

Originally posted by Silur:
<STRONG>What M$ _does_ have is the largest installbase, the largest number of applications, more games than all other systems together (including playstation and the like)...</STRONG>

Although it's dead, let's not forget PC-based DOS. It arguably had more applications and more games than any other system. I still have an old PC Magazine (kept for nostalgia purposes) from 1988 that featured more than 30 word processors in a group review. There were clearly at least a dozen separate "tracks" for those wp's, each aimed at a different kind of user. Arguably this both produced more products, and gave a better fit between the user and the product than the "Word is everything" approach.

If you want an overview of the sheer variety and quantity of DOS-based games, check out [url="http://www.mobygames.com/"]http://www.mobygames.com/[/url]