Re: Windows XP optimization tricks - Hardware

This is a discussion on Re: Windows XP optimization tricks - Hardware ; In article , kony says... > The bottom line is that *Joe Average* just uses the system, > it wouldn't necessarily matter that much what OS was > installed so long as it was PRE-Installed, had the various > drivers ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 83

Thread: Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

  1. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article , kony says...

    > The bottom line is that *Joe Average* just uses the system,
    > it wouldn't necessarily matter that much what OS was
    > installed so long as it was PRE-Installed, had the various
    > drivers and software ready to use.


    Exactly. I've put Linux on laptops for a few people. With one, as long
    as he could download porn, MP3's and sync with his iPod, he was happy
    so I set it up to do that.



    --
    Conor

    It arrived at their repair center last week so only another month or so
    to wait

  2. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article <46ab406b$0$15209$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Trevor Best
    says...

    > Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
    > browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
    > been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)


    Can't remember the last time my PC has crashed. IE hasn't for a very
    long time either but Firefox 2.0.0.4 and 2.0.0.5 seem to want to on a
    weekly basis - usually when there's some MM content involved.



    --
    Conor

    It arrived at their repair center last week so only another month or so
    to wait

  3. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article , Synapse Syndrome
    says...

    > I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from Vista.
    > It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the desktop.
    >

    Apparently, a major Linux contributor thinks so as well mainly because
    the kernel developers seem hell bent on putting in features to support
    massive SMP and other corporate requirements.

    http://apcmag.com/6735/interview_con_kolivas





    --
    Conor

    It arrived at their repair center last week so only another month or so
    to wait

  4. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    Oldtech wrote:
    > Faster service, if you do it this way:
    >> http://www.inspirated.com/wordpress/...ized-on-linux/


    I have a couple of VMs in VirtualBox under Linux and some under Virtual
    PC 2007 in Windows. IMHO it's ok for a lot of things, but you (Oldtech
    in particular) may be aware of a similar discussion in aolu vis-a-vis
    "VMs vs Dual Boot" (well, 2 discussions since some idiot started a new
    thread in answer to the original) where I don't think you're going to
    get the best out a decent video card in a VM.

    I do like Beryl though, 'tis the dog's bollocks.

    --
    Trev
    '95 900SS

  5. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:10:20 +0100, Conor
    wrote:

    >In article <46ab406b$0$15209$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Trevor Best
    >says...
    >
    >> Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
    >> browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
    >> been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)

    >
    >Can't remember the last time my PC has crashed. IE hasn't for a very
    >long time either but Firefox 2.0.0.4 and 2.0.0.5 seem to want to on a
    >weekly basis - usually when there's some MM content involved.



    IE's propensity to crash has a lot to do with whether the
    particular 'sites you visit have coding errors, and/or
    whether there are poorly written BHOs/etc malfunctioning.

  6. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    Conor wrote:
    > In article <46ab406b$0$15209$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Trevor Best
    > says...
    >
    >> Don't forget the Windows users usually go to sites more times as their
    >> browsers and/or Pcs crash so they have to try again or the browsers have
    >> been hijacked so go to the same place over and over again. :-)

    >
    > Can't remember the last time my PC has crashed. IE hasn't for a very
    > long time either but Firefox 2.0.0.4 and 2.0.0.5 seem to want to on a
    > weekly basis - usually when there's some MM content involved.


    Do you have an example URL that makes it (firefox) crash? Maybe a dodgy
    add-in you have installed?

    --
    Trev
    '95 900SS

  7. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Conor wrote:
    > In article , bealoid says...
    >> Conor wrote in
    >> news:MPG.2114303fbc5df09c98a33c@news.individual.ne t:
    >>
    >> [snip]
    >>
    >> > Ok, ****wit. I've been building PCs for 17 years.
    >> >
    >> > Better?

    >>
    >> Not really, if you can't get wifi working in Ubuntu.
    >>

    > Wifi works for a small number of cards but not the chipsets on the type
    > Joe Average is likely to pick up from Pissy World. Sure he could use
    > ndiswrapper but it's a bit of ****ing about beyond Joe Averages level.


    This is one of the few remaining porblems when people put Linux
    on their own machines, instead of buying machines with Linux
    already installed. My guess is that this problem will go away
    within the next few years, when people start to complain about
    missing driver support. Also the ''driver in userspace'' model
    (when it can do DMA) may solve this.

    Arno


  8. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Trevor Best wrote:
    > Oldtech wrote:
    >> Faster service, if you do it this way:
    >>> http://www.inspirated.com/wordpress/...ized-on-linux/


    > I have a couple of VMs in VirtualBox under Linux and some under Virtual
    > PC 2007 in Windows. IMHO it's ok for a lot of things, but you (Oldtech
    > in particular) may be aware of a similar discussion in aolu vis-a-vis
    > "VMs vs Dual Boot" (well, 2 discussions since some idiot started a new
    > thread in answer to the original) where I don't think you're going to
    > get the best out a decent video card in a VM.


    I also find that interactive responsiveness unter VMware at
    least is bad. My vserver also has notably worse commanline
    responsiveness, but that ,ay in part be the netwrk latency, since
    it is in another country.

    Arno

  9. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Conor wrote:
    > In article , Synapse Syndrome
    > says...


    >> I am not particularly anti-Linux, BTW, and I expected a lot more from Vista.
    >> It's just that Linux is far from being useful for me on the desktop.
    >>

    > Apparently, a major Linux contributor thinks so as well mainly because
    > the kernel developers seem hell bent on putting in features to support
    > massive SMP and other corporate requirements.


    > http://apcmag.com/6735/interview_con_kolivas


    I read that and I can say that this guy is not too technologically
    competent. Most of his arguments cannot hold water.

    All thers enterprise features do not make the kernel slower or more
    sluggish. In particular movinf the scheduler to 1ms resolution (from
    10ms) did help multimedia performance tremenduously.

    However the kernel developers are unwilling to do some things. For
    example if the buffer cache is in emergency flush-to-disk, then
    everything else is slowed down or halts. This is the right thing to
    do IMO, as evewn on the desktop data integrity is worth a lot more
    than responsiveness.

    Arno

  10. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:<5h158kF3i1djcU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    > What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.? Does
    > it count or not? And how does it count? Per suer? Per installation?
    > Per CPU? You cannot really put Windows onto these things, so is it
    > fair if it counts?


    MS would have you believe that Windows CE was a viable OS platform for
    embedded applications ... so -- as long as CE is included in the figures --
    yes, I think it counts.

    > Vista is the first time (unless you count ME), that a new OS from
    > Redmont tries to replace something that is adequate (XP).


    Win2k was adequate. XP brought a few security fixes and built-in driver
    support for USB2, firewire, and SATA (in SP2) -- but nothing that couldn't
    have been put into a service pack. More significantly XP brought the
    inconvenience of activation and a cartload of pointless screen-bling.

    > Then there is Dell with its continued XP offers (obviously direcly
    > in opposition to MS's wishes) and their Linux offers (which are
    > sort of a revolution and certainly also against MS's wishes).


    Credit and kudos to Dell ... though they don't exactly push preinstalled
    linux outside the US.

    > I have not identified any other reason to move to Vista yet ...


    In fairness, the security of Vista *is* better than XP. The fact that a
    default install does not set all users up as administrators is a definite
    improvement, and the fact that UAC popups (annoying though they are) make
    it possible to operate the machine as an unprivileged user without having
    to log off and log back in as administrator every ten minutes or so is very
    welcome. UAC itself is a pain, though ... I hope they manage to fine-tune
    some usability into it in SP1 or SP2 ...

    > What I actually think could be happening at the moment is the
    > commodization (sp?) of the mainstream OS, ...


    You mean "commoditization". "commodization" would mean turning it into a
    piece of furniture that conceals a chamber-pot ... no, come to think of it,
    if that's what you meant you were right the first time

    > if MS wanted to make an actual server OS (no, they do not have
    > one now by all sane standards), then they would need to ...


    Word is that it will be possible to install Windows NT6 server ("Longhorn",
    if it's still called that) without the GUI ... which has to be a step in
    the right direction.

    Cheers,
    Daniel.



  11. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Daniel James wrote:
    > In article news:<5h158kF3i1djcU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.? Does
    >> it count or not? And how does it count? Per suer? Per installation?
    >> Per CPU? You cannot really put Windows onto these things, so is it
    >> fair if it counts?


    > MS would have you believe that Windows CE was a viable OS platform for
    > embedded applications ... so -- as long as CE is included in the figures --
    > yes, I think it counts.


    Good argument. I agree. Hmm. This would seem to give Linux a
    few 10 million or so additional installations...

    >> Vista is the first time (unless you count ME), that a new OS from
    >> Redmont tries to replace something that is adequate (XP).


    > Win2k was adequate. XP brought a few security fixes and built-in driver
    > support for USB2, firewire, and SATA (in SP2) -- but nothing that couldn't
    > have been put into a service pack. More significantly XP brought the
    > inconvenience of activation and a cartload of pointless screen-bling.


    I never used w2k, but you are right. OTOH, w2k was not the
    mass-market end-user product.

    >> Then there is Dell with its continued XP offers (obviously direcly
    >> in opposition to MS's wishes) and their Linux offers (which are
    >> sort of a revolution and certainly also against MS's wishes).


    > Credit and kudos to Dell ... though they don't exactly push preinstalled
    > linux outside the US.


    They are testing the waters, I think.

    >> I have not identified any other reason to move to Vista yet ...


    > In fairness, the security of Vista *is* better than XP. The fact that a
    > default install does not set all users up as administrators is a definite
    > improvement, and the fact that UAC popups (annoying though they are) make
    > it possible to operate the machine as an unprivileged user without having
    > to log off and log back in as administrator every ten minutes or so is very
    > welcome. UAC itself is a pain, though ... I hope they manage to fine-tune
    > some usability into it in SP1 or SP2 ...


    UAC is in fact a step backwards, since most people will click ''yes''
    without reading it after a few of those. The other question is the
    security improvement is really necessary. Operating XP with
    current patches and a virus scanner, Firefox or Opera as browser
    and not Outlook to read mail is pretty secure today.

    >> What I actually think could be happening at the moment is the
    >> commodization (sp?) of the mainstream OS, ...


    > You mean "commoditization". "commodization" would mean turning it into a
    > piece of furniture that conceals a chamber-pot ... no, come to think of it,
    > if that's what you meant you were right the first time


    Hehe. I was drunk when I tried to spell that. Your spelling
    is right.

    >> if MS wanted to make an actual server OS (no, they do not have
    >> one now by all sane standards), then they would need to ...


    > Word is that it will be possible to install Windows NT6 server
    > ("Longhorn", if it's still called that) without the GUI ... which
    > has to be a step in the right direction.


    Definitely. It will help bring the remote-administration capabilities
    a bit nearer to Unix, which has full remote admin capability (in fact
    as standard mode) for decades now. With Unix (or Linux) you can do
    practically everything over ssh (or historically rsh) and it is not
    more difficult. Then maybe in a decade or so MS will actually have
    something that is fit to put on a server.

    Arno

  12. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    "Daniel James" wrote in message
    news:VA.0000112b.0a60363c@nospam.aaisp.org...
    > In article news:<5h158kF3i1djcU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.? Does
    >> it count or not? And how does it count? Per suer? Per installation?
    >> Per CPU? You cannot really put Windows onto these things, so is it
    >> fair if it counts?

    >
    > MS would have you believe that Windows CE was a viable OS platform for
    > embedded applications ... so -- as long as CE is included in the figures --
    > yes, I think it counts.
    >

    Huh? WinCE is strictly for embedded apps.
    WinCE and WinNT are completely different products.

    >> Vista is the first time (unless you count ME), that a new OS from
    >> Redmont tries to replace something that is adequate (XP).

    >
    > Win2k was adequate. XP brought a few security fixes and built-in driver
    > support for USB2, firewire, and SATA (in SP2) -- but nothing that couldn't
    > have been put into a service pack. More significantly XP brought the
    > inconvenience of activation and a cartload of pointless screen-bling.


    Firewire was in 2K, SATA is supported by the 2K IDE driver.



  13. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:55:32 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    wrote:

    >"Daniel James" wrote in message
    >news:VA.0000112b.0a60363c@nospam.aaisp.org...
    >> In article news:<5h158kF3i1djcU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>> What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.? Does
    >>> it count or not? And how does it count? Per suer? Per installation?
    >>> Per CPU? You cannot really put Windows onto these things, so is it
    >>> fair if it counts?

    >>
    >> MS would have you believe that Windows CE was a viable OS platform for
    >> embedded applications ... so -- as long as CE is included in the figures --
    >> yes, I think it counts.
    >>


    >Huh? WinCE is strictly for embedded apps.
    >WinCE and WinNT are completely different products.
    >


    His point was, if the statistics for Windows "systems"
    includes anything deployed running WinCE, then likewise
    statistics for Linux "systems" would include embedded apps
    like the aforementioned devices.


    >>> Vista is the first time (unless you count ME), that a new OS from
    >>> Redmont tries to replace something that is adequate (XP).

    >>
    >> Win2k was adequate. XP brought a few security fixes and built-in driver
    >> support for USB2, firewire, and SATA (in SP2) -- but nothing that couldn't
    >> have been put into a service pack. More significantly XP brought the
    >> inconvenience of activation and a cartload of pointless screen-bling.

    >
    >Firewire was in 2K, SATA is supported by the 2K IDE driver.
    >


    As was USB

    There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
    once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
    person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
    introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista. Inbetween MS was
    just tacking on features and had decided to reserve many as
    line-items to promote their then-current OS sales for
    98/ME/XP.

  14. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage kony wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:55:32 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    > wrote:


    >>"Daniel James" wrote in message
    >>news:VA.0000112b.0a60363c@nospam.aaisp.org...
    >>> In article news:<5h158kF3i1djcU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>>> What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.? Does
    >>>> it count or not? And how does it count? Per suer? Per installation?
    >>>> Per CPU? You cannot really put Windows onto these things, so is it
    >>>> fair if it counts?
    >>>
    >>> MS would have you believe that Windows CE was a viable OS platform for
    >>> embedded applications ... so -- as long as CE is included in the figures --
    >>> yes, I think it counts.
    >>>


    >>Huh? WinCE is strictly for embedded apps.
    >>WinCE and WinNT are completely different products.
    >>


    > His point was, if the statistics for Windows "systems"
    > includes anything deployed running WinCE, then likewise
    > statistics for Linux "systems" would include embedded apps
    > like the aforementioned devices.


    And I was not even talking about embedded Linux. Many of these
    small devices run a full Linux kernel.

    >>>> Vista is the first time (unless you count ME), that a new OS from
    >>>> Redmont tries to replace something that is adequate (XP).
    >>>
    >>> Win2k was adequate. XP brought a few security fixes and built-in driver
    >>> support for USB2, firewire, and SATA (in SP2) -- but nothing that couldn't
    >>> have been put into a service pack. More significantly XP brought the
    >>> inconvenience of activation and a cartload of pointless screen-bling.

    >>
    >>Firewire was in 2K, SATA is supported by the 2K IDE driver.
    >>


    > As was USB


    > There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
    > once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
    > person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
    > introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista. Inbetween MS was
    > just tacking on features and had decided to reserve many as
    > line-items to promote their then-current OS sales for
    > 98/ME/XP.


    I don't agree that Vista has revolutionary changes.

    Arno

  15. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > And I was not even talking about embedded Linux. Many of these
    > small devices run a full Linux kernel.


    I'm not trying to jump into your on-going dispute/debate, but I'm
    curious as to what you mean by the statement above.

    Isn't "embedded Linux" a "full Linux kernel" running on a dedicated
    device? I thought that the footprint of such systems were reduced by
    paring away libraries, not the most basic part of the OS--the kernel.

    See this, possibly non-authoritative, remark from wikipedia:

    | Embedded Linux systems combine the Linux kernel with a
    | small set of free software utilities.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_Linux



  16. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:30:35 +0000, Grinder wrote:

    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> And I was not even talking about embedded Linux. Many of these
    >> small devices run a full Linux kernel.

    >
    > I'm not trying to jump into your on-going dispute/debate, but I'm
    > curious as to what you mean by the statement above.
    >
    > Isn't "embedded Linux" a "full Linux kernel" running on a dedicated
    > device? I thought that the footprint of such systems were reduced by
    > paring away libraries, not the most basic part of the OS--the kernel.
    >
    > See this, possibly non-authoritative, remark from wikipedia:
    >
    > | Embedded Linux systems combine the Linux kernel with a
    > | small set of free software utilities.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_Linux


    On an embedded device, you would compile your kernel with only the needed
    hardware configured. On a normal distro, the kernel is configured to enable
    as much hardware as possible, to serve a variety of users. Usually with
    modules that any one computer may never need. So, in my understanding, a
    full linux kernel is used for embedded, but only as full as needed to work
    on that type of device.

    stonerfish
    --
    Live freaky or die.

  17. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Grinder wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> And I was not even talking about embedded Linux. Many of these
    >> small devices run a full Linux kernel.


    > I'm not trying to jump into your on-going dispute/debate, but I'm
    > curious as to what you mean by the statement above.


    > Isn't "embedded Linux" a "full Linux kernel" running on a dedicated
    > device? I thought that the footprint of such systems were reduced by
    > paring away libraries, not the most basic part of the OS--the kernel.


    Well, it is gradual. For example, I can take my Linux-based
    router, add some storage and have a full Linux system with
    memory protection and everything. On the other hand, an
    embedded Linux system has a reduced kernel with features missing,
    typically no MMU, sometimes no filesystem write support, very
    limited communication channel or none at all, etc..

    > See this, possibly non-authoritative, remark from wikipedia:


    > | Embedded Linux systems combine the Linux kernel with a
    > | small set of free software utilities.


    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_Linux


    Well, with that definition if I delete most of my installation
    on my PC, I have an instant embedded system. Not really helpful.

    True, if you go at this from were it is being used, you will
    end up with such a definition. But to distinguish it from
    ordinary installations, you have to require the significantly
    reduced kernel functionality. After all WinCE is not a full
    Windows with just less software installed.

    Arno

  18. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:30:35 +0000, Grinder wrote:


    >> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>> And I was not even talking about embedded Linux. Many of these
    >>> small devices run a full Linux kernel.

    >>
    >> I'm not trying to jump into your on-going dispute/debate, but I'm
    >> curious as to what you mean by the statement above.
    >>
    >> Isn't "embedded Linux" a "full Linux kernel" running on a dedicated
    >> device? I thought that the footprint of such systems were reduced by
    >> paring away libraries, not the most basic part of the OS--the kernel.
    >>
    >> See this, possibly non-authoritative, remark from wikipedia:
    >>
    >> | Embedded Linux systems combine the Linux kernel with a
    >> | small set of free software utilities.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_Linux


    > On an embedded device, you would compile your kernel with only the needed
    > hardware configured. On a normal distro, the kernel is configured to enable
    > as much hardware as possible, to serve a variety of users. Usually with
    > modules that any one computer may never need. So, in my understanding, a
    > full linux kernel is used for embedded, but only as full as needed to work
    > on that type of device.


    Not at all. My kernel on my PC has only the needed drivers compiled
    in, as I roll my own. That does not make it an embedded system.

    Arno

  19. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:<13apej953uk0gb7@corp.supernews.com>, Eric Gisin wrote:
    > Huh? WinCE is strictly for embedded apps.


    My comment was made in reply to Arno Wagner's question:
    > What about Linux on routers, NAS, smartphones, v-servers, etc.?


    Routers and NAS devices are very definitely embedded apps. Smartphones are
    also arguably embedded apps -- and they're certainly things that use WinCE.

    > WinCE and WinNT are completely different products.


    Well, Duh ... I certainly didn't suggest that they weren't!

    > Firewire was in 2K, SATA is supported by the 2K IDE driver.


    Excellent ... so XP was a completely pointless upgrade too.

    Cheers,
    Daniel.





  20. Re: Windows XP optimization tricks

    In article news:, Kony wrote:
    > There were only 3 major revolutionary changes to Windows
    > once it had become popular enough to be used by the average
    > person buying a computer, IMO. These were marked by the
    > introduction of Win95, Win2k, and Vista.


    I's have said: NT 3.1, Win95, and XP64. All other changes have been
    evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I certainly don't see XP->Vista as
    a revolutionary change.

    There has also been a trend in that the more recent evolutionary upgrades
    have added less and less that is new and good, and more and more that is
    pointless (eye-candy) or unwanted (activation, DRM).

    Cheers,
    Daniel.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast