Making XP desktop look like Win98
in [Windows XP]
|
From: thanatoid on 9 Jun 2010 02:24 "dadiOH" <dadiOH(a)invalid.com> wrote in news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: <SNIP> > Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I > ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is > awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS > offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced > multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for > it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of > computer literacy. If they actually had to understand > anything, how many computers do you think would be sold? > And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced > operating systems. No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the sound of bleating... -- Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean, as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people, when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them. - Arthur Schopenhauer
From: thanatoid on 9 Jun 2010 02:27 Robert Macy <macy(a)california.com> wrote in <SNIP> (you should try it somtime!) > Thank you for the URL to litepc. Using a dial up modem, the > site opened in less than a second giving me much text to > read/review as the 'pretty' pictures were downloading and > filling in -- instead of the other way around! I'm really > tired of blank screens, until useless pictures appear > buried in the text, but litepc did things in the right > order! TEXT to read while images were forth coming > > Interestingly at this site, the first comment from a > satisfied customer referenced their own problem with WinXP. > Brought to mind the time I had problems with one of our > WinXP systems [booting slowly, and never recovering once on > the internet!, well almost, once in a while I regained > WinXP to do something] I posted to the WinXP users group > and was confronted with the most childish responses I've > seen in ?? years. Everything from "you did something > wrong", to "buy better hardware", to "make certain you > burden your system with excessive antimalware and antivirus > software"! I NEVER got an effective answer from the WinXP > group, nor even a response from any site they sent me to, > other than lists of hoops to jump through! I spent about 5 weeks at a few XP sites when I was putting XP on another partition because of a stupid piece of new hardware. The level of maturity and intelligence reminded me of primary schools in 'C' horror movies taking places in backwoods counties where inbreeding is encouraged. <SNIP> ped stuff I am too ignorant to understand. -- Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean, as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people, when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them. - Arthur Schopenhauer
From: Robert Macy on 9 Jun 2010 09:59 On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, "Tim Meddick" <timmedd...(a)o2.co.uk> wrote: > My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was > to begin by simply starting Task Manager. Then, in the "Processes" tab, > re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top, > to smallest). To try to discover if there are any loaded applications > "hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple" > Notepad-style apps takes ages). > > To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools : > > "Process Explorer" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip > > "AutoRuns" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip > > ...However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's > process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load > applications. > > == > > Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-) > Thanks Tim. Apologies for seemingly ignoring your excellent suggestions. I had already downloaded ProcessExplorer, and had used it, [I think it was that program that had found the huge hog, enabling me at that time to simply shut it off and go on] nice program. The other I downloaded, but have not moved to the WinXP - still haven't turned it back on in the last month. When using it, I just turn it on, run whatever, and shut down. Since been adequately getting by, it is hard to justify a long time and sustained effort at improving it. But when I do ... And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more effective, help than the WinXP group.
From: Robert Macy on 9 Jun 2010 10:04 On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" <gle...(a)spamindspring.com> wrote: ...snip.. > On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any newer > OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor, > chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'? > I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware. > > I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run > slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K > > -- > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 > A+http://dts-l.net/ True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows 7 !!!! Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using 'grotty' hardware.
From: glee on 9 Jun 2010 11:51
"Robert Macy" <macy(a)california.com> wrote in message news:6d4ceee9-e780-4d91-99c7-526cf27d8edc(a)q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" <gle...(a)spamindspring.com> wrote: >..snip.. >> On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any >> newer >> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor, >> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this >> 'evaluation'? >> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware. >> >> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run >> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K >> > >True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows >7 !!!! > >Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade >hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of >conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively >powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using >'grotty' hardware. My XP installation is not on the greatest hardware, yet it boots up as fast as my Win98 system. Only the shutdown takes a little longer. Again, it is your hardware. The point is, you are going through this thread bemoaning the slowness of XP, but you are running it on hardware not suited for it. It isn't an issue of XP being slower, it's an issue of your deficient hardware. Did you similarly complain because the bloated Win95 with all that eye candy GUI was so slow to boot on your machine upgraded from Win3.x, with a 200MB hard drive and 1MB RAM? Oh, excuse me, you could not have even installed with 1MB RAM....so did you increase it to 4MB at great cost and still have it crawl because it needed at least 8MB? Most newer operating systems use more resources, and require hardware upgrades, or even replacement. Is that your complaint? You could always buy a Mac.....then you would have NO control over what hardware you got, and pay a premium price for it too. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 A+ http://dts-l.net/ |