Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windows ME or 2000 instead of XP

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 26, 2004 3:18:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
celeron/128mb which is faster!)

I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.

We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
modern the os - the slower the result.

What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?

More about : windows 2000

May 26, 2004 3:18:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>
>
XP is fast enough, on the right PC and with enough memory.
On the PC you are talking about, I would run 2K. Personally I wouldn't touch
ME with a disinfected bargepole!

SteveH
May 26, 2004 3:18:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?


XP should run fine on a 450mhz machine..
the problem is with the RAM...you really should bump it up to 256 megs

neither Win2000 or ME will run that much faster on that machine...

so unless you add more RAM and stay with XP

I'd recommend using win98se. it should run well with 128 megs of RAM

but it will not be as stable as XP !
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 3:18:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

You might want to check out XPlite from LitePC.

See http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

BTW, a Celeron can be either P-III based or P-4 based. Either of
which, might be a LOT faster than an old P-II.

James wrote:
>
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
May 26, 2004 3:18:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Without reading much of these posts, I can tell you that Me is
NOT as Unreliable as the urban legends would like you to believe. Been
running it for years with minimal problems. It has a hand over 98 if
your into multimedia or digital pictures(thumbnail view, etc). I have
also been using it in a commercial environment for over 5 years with
no problems, doing all kinds of digital reproduction work and printing
on large media printers.




"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several
users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for
my needs?
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 3:42:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
> installed win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I
> have used a friends celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
> am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
> processor and spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option
> of several users (al la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
> the more modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
> needs?

Windows 2000 Pro is the more stable of the two options. If RAM can be
increased to 256MB it is the better choice by far..
May 26, 2004 3:46:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>

I use 2000 on a PII laptop with no problems, and good speed. Has most of the
features of XP as well.

Russell
May 26, 2004 4:02:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory usage
was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it still wasn't as
responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb of
memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available. Windows 2K
is similar to XP in its demands of a system and considering the type of use
that you indicate that it is for then Win98SE or even ME, although some
people do report stability issues, seems ideal.
Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS will
one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for "safe" Internet
use etc etc etc.
ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an indication
that even some hardware support might be dropping now.

--
Regards


Morgan

Hard Drive noise a problem....?

www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 4:13:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote in message
news:c91tfr$v65$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
> not
> > sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory usage
> was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it still wasn't as
> responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
> So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb of
> memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available. Windows
2K
> is similar to XP in its demands of a system and considering the type of
use
> that you indicate that it is for then Win98SE or even ME, although some
> people do report stability issues, seems ideal.
> Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS will
> one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for "safe"
Internet
> use etc etc etc.
> ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an
indication
> that even some hardware support might be dropping now.
>
> --
> Regards
>
>
> Morgan
>
Windows ME is the only flavour of Windows that I have not bothered with.

I run Windows 2000 on a Pentium II 266 laptop with 256Mb, and it's fine. I
have not tried XP on it.

If you want to stick with XP, give it some more RAM ( I normally use at
least 1Gb). I would consider 256Mb a minimum for XP.
--
Doug Ramage
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 4:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Morgan wrote:

>> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option
>> but am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory
> usage was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it
> still wasn't as responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
>

You are going to notice a significant difference between 98 and XP on
_any_ PC; the two are just too different to compare.

> So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb
> of memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available.
> Windows 2K is similar to XP in its demands of a system and
> considering the type of use that you indicate that it is for then
> Win98SE or even ME, although some people do report stability issues,
> seems ideal.
>

In my last job (I'm a s/w Engineer) I used a PII-450, 128Mbyte, W2K for
really heavyweight stuff - debug versions of a 3D CAD/CAM system and
Visual C++ simultaneously - and it was perfectly useable. I did get it
u/g to 256Mbyte which showed a marked performance improvement, but for
the intended use of the OP's machine 128Mbyte should be fine.

The problem is one of the _perception_ of performance, e.g. Word may
take 10 seconds to start under Win98 but 20 seconds under W2K, but ask
yourself how often you start Word? When you are typing into a dcoument
you won't notice any difference. Remember, the slowest part of any
computer is the muppet using the keyboard ;-)

> Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS
> will one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for
> "safe" Internet use etc etc etc.
>
> ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an
> indication that even some hardware support might be dropping now.
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 5:27:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc. If he can get away
with using Office 97 then that would help too.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 5:59:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
> jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
>> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>>
> You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
> trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
> menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc. If he can get away
> with using Office 97 then that would help too.

Don't forget to switch off Indexing too.

Parish
May 26, 2004 8:07:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
> installed win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I
> have used a friends celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
> am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
> processor and spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option
> of several users (al la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
> the more modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
> needs?

As others have said already, Win ME is not known for it's reliability, and
Windows 2000 uses similar resources to Win XP (at least in the same order of
magnitude).

An additional stick of RAM will not be much different in cost to buying
another OS. Even going to 256MB will make quite a difference to loading
times.

Win XP is actually a very good OS, and when Release Pack 2 comes out it will
be very secure (I am running the beta and it looks good).

Good luck.

Martin
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 9:08:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?
>
>
>
Win98 SE is the OS which suits best a PII-450 with 128MB RAM - even
better than ME!
W2K is nearly as resource hungry as XP (even if XP is run in 'best
performance' mode), it is slow with 128 MB and happy with 256+ MB.

Roy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 9:17:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <MPG.1b1e9d925cd7d8e1989b0e@news.individual.net>, from the
wonderful person Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> said
>In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
>jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
>> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>>
>You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
>trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
>menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc.

In particular turn off any un-needed services - if you are not on a LAN
then this turns out to be huge numbers of things. See
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
(among others) for help turning things off.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 26, 2004 11:51:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
>
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?

I run XP Prof on a 450 MHz PIII laptop with 288 MB. Never had any problems,
in fact it sometimes scrolls too fast in Office applications. I develop
& run numerical applications for engineering. A P4 1.7 GHz desktop machine
(256MB) only just doubled the speed.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 12:26:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?


I have a P3 450mhz system. It's setup to dual boot Win98 or Win2K. I use
Win98 very little. Haven't had a crash or seen Scan Disk at boot up in over
a year. If their is a speed difference, W2K's stability more than makes up
for it. It's very easy to setup the dual boot if you have the HD space.

I don't think ME is as bad as some let on but wouldn't pay money to
"upgrade" to it.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 12:54:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote:

>Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>celeron/128mb which is faster!)

Your main problem with be memory; Windows XP would probably be useable
if the machine had 256MB.

>I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
>sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

Windows 2000 is the better of the two but it's hardware requirements
and performance are very similar to Windows XP so you might find it
also too slow on that machine.

I wouldn't inflict Windows Me on ANY machine. It'll run slower and
less reliably than Windows 2000 or even Windows 98, regardless of
hardware spec.


--
>iv< Paul >iv<
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 2:29:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Howdy!

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)

err - You might want to consider upping that RAM a bit. 128K isn't
really enough even for the OS with XP ...

>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

More RAM, since even ME likes > 128M, and 2K works better with
>128M.

RwP
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 3:20:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On that older computer with a slow CPU and less than the recommended minimum
of 256 MB of RAM, no wonder you think XP is slow. XP was designed for
modern design computers and on current equipment is much faster and more
stable than ME or 2000.

--
DaveW



"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 3:56:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Paul Hopwood wrote:
> "James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>>win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>>celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
>
> Your main problem with be memory; Windows XP would probably be useable
> if the machine had 256MB.
>
>
>>I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
>>sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
>
> Windows 2000 is the better of the two but it's hardware requirements
> and performance are very similar to Windows XP so you might find it
> also too slow on that machine.
>
> I wouldn't inflict Windows Me on ANY machine. It'll run slower and
> less reliably than Windows 2000 or even Windows 98, regardless of
> hardware spec.
>
>
I run WinME on a machine, serving out dozens of GNU/Linux ISOs on
Limewire at 384KBS from two SCSI Cheetah 10,000 rpm drives.

I also run XP Pro on another machine on the network, and find that they
are almost equally stable and secure, with the WinME being more
reliable. Both lock up about once every month. The WinME on Duron
1.3Ghz system runs 24/7. The XP Pro on Athlon 1.4Ghz
system is only on for about 5 hours each day. Maintenance of the OSes,
with Spybot S&D, Adaware6, patches and updates, and the Anti-Viral
programs takes up about 30 minutes per day per machine.

The rest of the 24 machines all run GNU/Linux Debian, (On for 24/7/365
with no mysterious crashes in two continuous years). Debian installs in
about 20-40 minutes from a Knoppix LiveCD on each system... Daily
updates of 114,680 applications, take about 3 to 5 minutes per machine
per day, using APT-GET. http://knopper.net/knoppix
or http://linuxiso.org or search on Limewire.

Win98/ME support was extended only due to the pressure of Linux in the
marketplace, and, the fact that Microsoft didn't have a new OS ready to
sell. I am content to let my WinME and XPPro machines run for their
special antiquated applications, but, the majority of 21st Century
science is with GNU/Linux. Even Microsoft runs 15,000 Akamai web cache
servers on Linux, to protect it's servers.

GNU/Linux is so easy to load on the old machines, contains all the
configuration files for the hardware (except for a few winprinters, and
winmodems, all of which were designed to be operated by Microsoft
win98/ME (hard to find some drivers for XP!).

There are over 620 free Linux Users Groups worldwide.
http://lugww.counter.li.org
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 4:37:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In my last job (I'm a s/w Engineer) I used a PII-450, 128Mbyte, W2K for
> really heavyweight stuff - debug versions of a 3D CAD/CAM system and
> Visual C++ simultaneously - and it was perfectly useable. I did get it
> u/g to 256Mbyte which showed a marked performance improvement, but for
> the intended use of the OP's machine 128Mbyte should be fine.


Just found out the recommended specs for each os which is as follows.

Windows 98 486DX66 - 16MB
RAM
Windows ME Pentium 150 - 32MB
RAM
Windows 2K Pentium 133 - 64MB
RAM
Windows XP 300mhz (Pentium/K6/Duron etc) - 128MB RAM

Interestly ME requires less ram than 2K, but the opposite with the
processors.

With a PII-450 and 128mb you may be better off with ME as both processor and
ram are well inside spec, having said that most people here seem to
recommend 2K as being the better choice and you still have 2x the
recommended ram for the o/s
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 10:30:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In <u8atc.23718$0X2.751481@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Patrick <pberry26@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I run WinME on a machine, serving out dozens of GNU/Linux ISOs on
> Limewire at 384KBS from two SCSI Cheetah 10,000 rpm drives.

Why don't you run Linux on it? There is a Limewire client and other
gnutella clients.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 27, 2004 11:58:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Tony Houghton <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote:
>In <u8atc.23718$0X2.751481@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
>Patrick <pberry26@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I run WinME on a machine, serving out dozens of GNU/Linux ISOs on
>> Limewire at 384KBS from two SCSI Cheetah 10,000 rpm drives.
>
>Why don't you run Linux on it? There is a Limewire client and other
>gnutella clients.

Those drives seem like overkill for a 384kbps uplink too. I suppose
they're what you had lying around, and SCSI drives are generally
better suited for continuous operation, but I doubt the speed is
required :) 


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 1:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Tilley Meatkutter wrote:
....
> Just found out the recommended specs for each os which is as follows.
>
> Windows 98 486DX66 - 16MB
> RAM
> Windows ME Pentium 150 - 32MB
> RAM
> Windows 2K Pentium 133 - 64MB
> RAM
> Windows XP 300mhz (Pentium/K6/Duron etc) - 128MB RAM
....

Recommended? By whom? Ridiculous... Those values are, perhaps, minimal
ones - like 300MHz/128MB for WinXP.

Follow the other postings in the thread...

Roy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 1:46:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:46:05 +0200, Roy Coorne <rcoorne@hotmail.com>
wrote:

| > Just found out the recommended specs for each os which is as follows.
| >
| > Windows XP 300mhz (Pentium/K6/Duron etc) - 128MB RAM
| ...
|
| Recommended? By whom? Ridiculous... Those values are, perhaps, minimal
| ones - like 300MHz/128MB for WinXP.

XP practical minimum RAM = 256MB (less slows XP down too much)
XP "sweet spot" = 384MB (best performance/value combo)
XP really loves = 512MB (lets XP go all out)

More RAM than 512MB isn't a good value return for XP itself — although
it will use more on occasion — but RAM-intensive programs such as
Photoshop will deeply appreciate it.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 3:46:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ Larc's ]|= wrote:
>
> XP practical minimum RAM = 256MB (less slows XP down too much)
> XP "sweet spot" = 384MB (best performance/value combo)
> XP really loves = 512MB (lets XP go all out)
>
Above 512MB id recommend turning off or virtualising the swapfile on XP or
else it'll be shipping a significant amount of mem to and fro the
harddrive, slowing other hardrive accesses and stalling between windows.

--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 3:46:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In <6pot24lylgbx.w0ycb4ku9wqi$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:

>=|[ Larc's ]|= wrote:
>>
>> XP practical minimum RAM = 256MB (less slows XP down too much)
>> XP "sweet spot" = 384MB (best performance/value combo)
>> XP really loves = 512MB (lets XP go all out)
>>
> Above 512MB id recommend turning off or virtualising the swapfile on XP or
> else it'll be shipping a significant amount of mem to and fro the
> harddrive, slowing other hardrive accesses and stalling between windows.

Is it actually true that Windows (I could believe it of 9x, but not of
NT etc) keeps shifting stuff in and out of swap unnecessarily just
because it's there, to the detriment of performance? Or are there some
closet RISC OS zealots about?

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 5:01:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:

> In <6pot24lylgbx.w0ycb4ku9wqi$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:
>
>>=|[ Larc's ]|= wrote:
>>>
>>> XP practical minimum RAM = 256MB (less slows XP down too much)
>>> XP "sweet spot" = 384MB (best performance/value combo)
>>> XP really loves = 512MB (lets XP go all out)
>>>
>> Above 512MB id recommend turning off or virtualising the swapfile on XP or
>> else it'll be shipping a significant amount of mem to and fro the
>> harddrive, slowing other hardrive accesses and stalling between windows.
>
> Is it actually true that Windows (I could believe it of 9x, but not of
> NT etc) keeps shifting stuff in and out of swap unnecessarily just
> because it's there, to the detriment of performance? Or are there some
> closet RISC OS zealots about?

I find on NT and 2000 it does but I could be cranky about the idea ;) 
If you set a drives power management to go to sleep quickly after use, you
would notice big system stalls waiting for it to wake up at context changes
even with plenty of memory free.
The OS doesnt know when its going to need more space, so it starts
mirroring pages into the pagefile right from the start, on win2k the more
mem you have the more of this background activity occurs.
imbo the 32bit kernel handles paging very efficiently except for the
relative age it takes to get data back off Hard drive.
If you work out how efficient paging is, it would probably be an impressive
figure ~99% , but the 1% creates annoying pauses if you're used to juggling
applications and tabs alot.

Only XP and 9x lets you turn the pagefile off completely, but data is
quickly compressed into the pagefile as its written so its useful in a way.
I have my swapfile on a virtual ramdisk using memory taken away from
windows with 'maxmem=' switch in boot.ini
If you have a gig of memory and use half that for pagefile, because of the
compression, half a gig of pagefile gives about 1Gig of virtual memory (+
the system mem left to windows)
- it works a dream for me and a few people Ive heard gave it a go.

Theres some strict theorists about say its impossible to gain from taking
memory away from windows and looping it back like this so...

ymmv ;) 
--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 1:09:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Creeping Stone" <l@l.lll> wrote in message
news:bzxddb8vu73l$.11scnez8kms40.dlg@40tude.net...
> =|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:
>
> > In <6pot24lylgbx.w0ycb4ku9wqi$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> > Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:
> >
> >>=|[ Larc's ]|= wrote:
> >>>
> >>> XP practical minimum RAM = 256MB (less slows XP down too much)
> >>> XP "sweet spot" = 384MB (best performance/value combo)
> >>> XP really loves = 512MB (lets XP go all out)
> >>>
> >> Above 512MB id recommend turning off or virtualising the swapfile on XP
or
> >> else it'll be shipping a significant amount of mem to and fro the
> >> harddrive, slowing other hardrive accesses and stalling between
windows.
> >
> > Is it actually true that Windows (I could believe it of 9x, but not of
> > NT etc) keeps shifting stuff in and out of swap unnecessarily just
> > because it's there, to the detriment of performance? Or are there some
> > closet RISC OS zealots about?
>
> I find on NT and 2000 it does but I could be cranky about the idea ;) 
> If you set a drives power management to go to sleep quickly after use, you
> would notice big system stalls waiting for it to wake up at context
changes
> even with plenty of memory free.
> The OS doesnt know when its going to need more space, so it starts
> mirroring pages into the pagefile right from the start, on win2k the more
> mem you have the more of this background activity occurs.
> imbo the 32bit kernel handles paging very efficiently except for the
> relative age it takes to get data back off Hard drive.
> If you work out how efficient paging is, it would probably be an
impressive
> figure ~99% , but the 1% creates annoying pauses if you're used to
juggling
> applications and tabs alot.
>
> Only XP and 9x lets you turn the pagefile off completely, but data is
> quickly compressed into the pagefile as its written so its useful in a
way.
> I have my swapfile on a virtual ramdisk using memory taken away from
> windows with 'maxmem=' switch in boot.ini
> If you have a gig of memory and use half that for pagefile, because of the
> compression, half a gig of pagefile gives about 1Gig of virtual memory (+
> the system mem left to windows)
> - it works a dream for me and a few people Ive heard gave it a go.
>
> Theres some strict theorists about say its impossible to gain from taking
> memory away from windows and looping it back like this so...
>
> ymmv ;) 
> --

Some thoughts on pagefile/swapfile settings for XP:

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
--
Doug Ramage
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:09:56 +0100, "Doug Ramage"
<namxat666@hotmail.com> wrote:

| Some thoughts on pagefile/swapfile settings for XP:
|
| http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Also, a few things straight from "the horse's mouth":

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314482

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 4:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In <bzxddb8vu73l$.11scnez8kms40.dlg@40tude.net>,
Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:

>=|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it actually true that Windows (I could believe it of 9x, but not of
>> NT etc) keeps shifting stuff in and out of swap unnecessarily just
>> because it's there, to the detriment of performance? Or are there some
>> closet RISC OS zealots about?
>
> I find on NT and 2000 it does but I could be cranky about the idea ;) 
> If you set a drives power management to go to sleep quickly after use, you
> would notice big system stalls waiting for it to wake up at context changes
> even with plenty of memory free.

So don't set the discs to spin down quickly! ;-)

> The OS doesnt know when its going to need more space, so it starts
> mirroring pages into the pagefile right from the start, on win2k the more
> mem you have the more of this background activity occurs.

I think what you're actually seeing are the effects of FS caching. I
don't think it's at all likely that it would save pages to disc before
it wants the RAM for something more critical. And you're effectively
saying that Windows gets slower the more RAM it has.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 6:22:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ Larc's ]|= wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:09:56 +0100, "Doug Ramage"
> <namxat666@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>| Some thoughts on pagefile/swapfile settings for XP:
>| http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
>
Its a fine link, but its scope is not for advanced users or system
administrators. (moreso the horse talk;)

It doesnt recognise, that in this era of plentiful RAM *and* lagging Hard
Drive performance, the old hard drive paging operations are no longer
necessary, and with larger common memory usage, much more memory needs
passed through i/o than was the case when machines commonly ran with less
than 48 megs ram.

A number of authors writing about pagefiles state somewhat arrogantly that
no benefit could possibly be gained from limiting the size of the pagefile,
or virtualising it altogether.

For the advanced user or system builder, the great benefit available is to
free i/o from paging bandwidth (particularly desirable on laptops), and
free the OS from associated lags.

The purpose of setting maximum values on computer resources is to limit
undesired awol circumstances ability to make a mess of everything, flagging
the critical situation before they do. With enough global resource to
accomodate the greediest valid usuage possible, it is detrimental to set
maximum usage beyond that calculatd level (especialy pagefile because
larger pagefile = more i/o work).

On win2k if you set pagefile to 1.5 x RAM minimum, it will begin to
increase when about 90% of virtual memory is used, setting it below that
ratio causes windows to complain about its VM usuage long before its
reaching the estimated ceiling.

If you start with 256 meg of system ram, and allocate 512 megs min+max of
hard drive space for pagefile. That gives the system about 1250 megs
virtual memory (routinely compressed) - which for most users is much more
than enough required for any practical combination of open applications
-including modest CAD and graphic apps which often make more efficent use
of scratch disks that windows VM.

If you have 768 megs of system ram, windows will complain (..is increasing
virtual memory..) if you set pagefile to less than [768 x 1.5] = 1.1 gigs,
so youll have well over 2 gigs of virtual memory!
- for most users that is just a silly allocation of resources and the
relationship between mem and pagefile means youll be mirroring huge swathes
of virtual memory to your huge pagefile - on the cherished hard drive /
through limited i/o bandwidth...

The load on the hardrive and folly of the allocation increases the more
lovely onboard memory you give windows to deal with.

768 megs system memory is a decent sweet spot, if you take 512 megs off
windows and leave it 256 megs to work in, put the pagefile on a capable
ramdisk (or buy a pci card for $1000's)
Then you get much more than enough VM for all but the heaviest workstation
loads, have a perfectly smooth machine and completely free hard drive i/o,
and asociated power saving on laptops.

Programs DO load faster, and lags ARE eliminated, because decent ramdrives
do i/o transactions in ~no time at all.

The type of summarisations that technical authors often make about this
system are oversimplified to the point of being quite irrelevant to the
behaviour of the actual system (also see politicians, economists...;)
- so beware those who want dont wish to mislead in that way, its more
useful to understand the details by actualy observing them.

Regards,
--
' andy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 6:33:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:

> Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:

>> If you set a drives power management to go to sleep quickly after use, you
>> would notice big system stalls waiting for it to wake up at context changes
>> even with plenty of memory free.
>
> So don't set the discs to spin down quickly! ;-)
>
The test demonstrates the obtrusiveness of windows antiquated pageing
system.

> I think what you're actually seeing are the effects of FS caching.
Perhaps thats mixing in :/ 

> I don't think it's at all likely that it would save pages to disc before
> it wants the RAM for something more critical.
Im quite sure thats how it works - it must anticipate as part of its
design.

> And you're effectively saying that Windows gets slower the more RAM it has.

Beyond what ram it actualy requires, the extra ram needs managed and leads
windows to expect that truely huge demands will be required.
If you have much more memory than you need, why involve the hard disk i/o
in memory management at all??

--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 6:33:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In <1d0hqs5myivxf.q785ohfglxip.dlg@40tude.net>,
Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:

>=|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's at all likely that it would save pages to disc before
>> it wants the RAM for something more critical.
> Im quite sure thats how it works - it must anticipate as part of its
> design.

Why? I can understand it insisting on keeping a few pages available in
case there's a sudden increase in demand, but otherwise I can't see any
reason why it would waste time mirroring pages to disc just on the off
chance it might want to reallocate them later at some point when it's
not in the mood for writing them to disc.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html&gt; for more reliable contact addresses.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 7:39:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:
> Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:
>>=|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:
>> Im quite sure thats how it works - it must anticipate as part of its
>> design.
>
> Why? I can understand it insisting on keeping a few pages available in
> case there's a sudden increase in demand, but otherwise I can't see any
> reason why it would waste time mirroring pages to disc just on the off
> chance it might want to reallocate them later at some point when it's
> not in the mood for writing them to disc.

I read some problems in my big post, so take it lightly.
Ill try and get closer to the bones.

My understanding of windows VM iirc, is this:

The address space of main memory is split into pages, iirc 4096 bytes long.
Each page has a low level record of its useage and its mapping to virtual
memory space, including 'TLB' table which kernel/cpu uses to quickly look
up the real address of virtual memory locations.

The paging system, mirrors lesser used pages to the hard disk pagefile as a
background process - not all pages, but a significant amount. This allows
those pages which are mirrored to the pagefile to be overwritten if/when
memory demand unexpectedly requires it. If such mirrored pages arent
overwritten, there is no reason to retrieve them, but they must be updated
or invalidated in the pagefile if thier contents are changed.

At start up the os begins this mirroring work, observing the activity of
pages and transfering the least active ones, then after using the machine
for a while, there are a selection of pages mirrored in the pagefile, some
that have remained and are valid for a while, these are good pages to have
mirrored, some didnt last long before being invalidated. Theres a soup of
mirrored pages in the pagefile, all recorded and tracked. Some pages are
active enough to have avoided being mirrored altogether, some are marked
nonpageable resulting in the same.
If real memory is running out, the change in circumstance is that the OS is
having to retrieve real-overwritten pages back off the pagefile but the
process of updating the pageable, less active pages is ongoing and not
dependent on whether or not the system is running low on real memory.

All that copying is work for the harddrive - one of the slowest bits of the
computer that has its own work to do as well.

The OS shouldnt need to retrieve data from the pagefile unless it really
has run out of real memory space, but with a very large pagefile, and some
duplication and memory requirements to index it, it may run out before it
would do if the kernel where just compressing areas of mem occasionaly
within mem, and thus need the pagefiles storage facility, or since the
whole thing is not perfect and no prefered axioms can be counted on being
supported by technical implementations :} smaller records might find
themselves exclusively isolated in the pagefile even before they need be.

In short, the pagefiles needs are much better met by actual memory than
creaky old hard drives, which have plenty of thier own work to do.

Newer, Quicker, bigger, smoother :]
--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 28, 2004 11:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <slrncbegv4.3dk.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk>, from the
wonderful person Tony Houghton <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> said
>In <1d0hqs5myivxf.q785ohfglxip.dlg@40tude.net>,
>Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:
>
>>=|[ Tony Houghton's ]|= wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it's at all likely that it would save pages to disc before
>>> it wants the RAM for something more critical.
>> Im quite sure thats how it works - it must anticipate as part of its
>> design.
>
>Why? I can understand it insisting on keeping a few pages available in
>case there's a sudden increase in demand, but otherwise I can't see any
>reason why it would waste time mirroring pages to disc just on the off
>chance it might want to reallocate them later at some point when it's
>not in the mood for writing them to disc.

As far as I can tell it doesn't. Most of 'real ram' is actually occupied
with file cache, which can be dumped at the drop of a hat (since it is
already on disk). At the point where all real RAM is occupied by
code/data, and needs writing out to swap space, you are in trouble. You
have to work REALLY HARD to get WinXP to use more than ~350MB of space
for code/data.

fwiw you can =not= believe the Win2k/Xp 'page file usage' numbers .. get
the utility from Doug Knox's page if you want to know what is really in
use. WinXP counts page file as 'in use' when it has just been allocated,
but never written to (which is what XP often does instead of allocating
real RAM, which is why having not page file at all is pretty dumb, since
then 'allocated but unused' space stays in real RAM)

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 29, 2004 9:06:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ GSV Three Minds in a Can's ]|= wrote:
> Tony Houghton <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> said

>>Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> wrote:

>>> Im quite sure thats how it works - it must anticipate as part of its
>>> design.
>>
>>Why? I can understand it insisting on keeping a few pages available in
>>case there's a sudden increase in demand, but otherwise I can't see any
>>reason why it would waste time mirroring pages to disc just on the off
>>chance it might want to reallocate them later at some point when it's
>>not in the mood for writing them to disc.
>
> As far as I can tell it doesn't. Most of 'real ram' is actually occupied
> with file cache, which can be dumped at the drop of a hat (since it is
> already on disk). At the point where all real RAM is occupied by
> code/data, and needs writing out to swap space, you are in trouble. You
> have to work REALLY HARD to get WinXP to use more than ~350MB of space
> for code/data.
>
> fwiw you can =not= believe the Win2k/Xp 'page file usage' numbers .. get
> the utility from Doug Knox's page if you want to know what is really in
> use.<...>

I had a look with that and with performance monitor,
with my current setup which is:

Total Physical Megs: 320
Pagefile Minimum: 370

Current state
=============
Actual Pagefile use: 39 Megs
System Cache: 173 Megs
Available Free: 159 Megs

At this point the system is freshly booted rather lightly loaded, I often
have bowser windows open amounting to over 100 megs, graphic display of
large directories up to 200 megs, plenty of other apps, then pagefile
effects become much more promenent, anyway...

I suppose Ive been describing an exagerated case, but I think you guys are
over dismissive of pagefile systems problems with meeting unpredictable
memory demands, and how the resulting load is not ideal for hard drive i/o.
Even with machines with large memory, how that increased memory capacity
means delay causing amounts of data are expected to pass transparently
through harddrive i/o.
I notice this particularly if running background tasks which continuously
use hardrive, while I have the pagefile on it.

Once a really bad tweakaholic, I dont do it so much these days, but its
practical heavy workstation experience that leads me to much prefer the
operation of my machine with a virtualised pagefile, tho 512 megs is just a
little low to do this with.

Its dissapointing that no one else has experienced this, or even
acknowledges that it could be the case - i think the config is under
researched because of some of the overstretched summarisations around.

Its all about how cheap and easy it is to have lots of onboard memory these
days, of course memory still benefits from being managed, but significant
benefit -at least for perfectionists, can be gained from taking hard drives
out of the loop.

cheers,
--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 29, 2004 9:32:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <4vqzgxebenbb$.bz87z0tnxli3.dlg@40tude.net>, from the
wonderful person Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> said
<snip>
>Its all about how cheap and easy it is to have lots of onboard memory these
>days, of course memory still benefits from being managed, but significant
>benefit -at least for perfectionists, can be gained from taking hard drives
>out of the loop.

Nobody would disagree with that. Fit 2Gb of real RAM, assign 256MB of
page file for those 'allocated but never actually used' pages, and for
the 50MB that XP needs for a dump file, and for the ~40MB that XP swaps
out as soon as it loads (and never, afaict, swaps back in again), and
your system will fly.

Until you try to do something with a 4GB video/photo file, then it'll
slow down again. Disc IO is well known to be evil .. that's why (as far
as I can see) XP doesn't do any unless it absolutely has to.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 29, 2004 11:34:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ GSV Three Minds in a Can's ]|= wrote:

> Bitstring <4vqzgxebenbb$.bz87z0tnxli3.dlg@40tude.net>, from the
> wonderful person Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> said
> <snip>
>>Its all about how cheap and easy it is to have lots of onboard memory these
>>days, of course memory still benefits from being managed, but significant
>>benefit -at least for perfectionists, can be gained from taking hard drives
>>out of the loop.
>
> Nobody would disagree with that. Fit 2Gb of real RAM, assign 256MB of
> page file for those 'allocated but never actually used' pages, and for
> the 50MB that XP needs for a dump file, and for the ~40MB that XP swaps
> out as soon as it loads (and never, afaict, swaps back in again), and
> your system will fly.
>
I find with nt and 2k, if I set pagefile less than 1.5 times size of real
memory , I soon get alerts that the pagefile needs increased - well before
resources are getting scarce.
I started messing with pagefile settings years ago on socket7 motherboard,
whose chipset wouldnt cache board memory beyond 64 megs, so I got good
results from using >64 megs for a ramdisk.
I just fixed up an old 48meg 586 9x machine, by adding a similarly ancient
harddrive, and relocating its pagefile to a compressed partition on it
-ah the fun %} its almost useable now!

> Until you try to do something with a 4GB video/photo file, then it'll
> slow down again. Disc IO is well known to be evil .. that's why (as far
> as I can see) XP doesn't do any unless it absolutely has to.

Maybe XP is more refined, someday ill check :) 

best regards,
--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 30, 2004 5:59:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <10qxoh2met7c5$.1xm6lqdlntc5t$.dlg@40tude.net>, from the
wonderful person Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> said
>=|[ GSV Three Minds in a Can's ]|= wrote:
>
>> Bitstring <4vqzgxebenbb$.bz87z0tnxli3.dlg@40tude.net>, from the
>> wonderful person Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> said
>> <snip>
>>>Its all about how cheap and easy it is to have lots of onboard memory these
>>>days, of course memory still benefits from being managed, but significant
>>>benefit -at least for perfectionists, can be gained from taking hard drives
>>>out of the loop.
>>
>> Nobody would disagree with that. Fit 2Gb of real RAM, assign 256MB of
>> page file for those 'allocated but never actually used' pages, and for
>> the 50MB that XP needs for a dump file, and for the ~40MB that XP swaps
>> out as soon as it loads (and never, afaict, swaps back in again), and
>> your system will fly.
>>
>I find with nt and 2k, if I set pagefile less than 1.5 times size of real
>memory , I soon get alerts that the pagefile needs increased - well before
>resources are getting scarce.

Well, I ran 2k Pro for several years, and never had the problem. I did
need =enough= page file, but when I doubled the RAM, I was able to
reduce the page file correspondingly.

MS still say '1.5x RAM' for page file, because this tech writers don't
know any better. They've been sating it for years .. it's left over from
multi-user OS days-of-yore, when rolling users out was something the OS
did quite often, and when real RAM was very expensive, and IT managers
balanced RAM & swapfile very carefully (and 1.5 was a reasonable answer
most times). These days people just stick in another Gig.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
May 30, 2004 12:53:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Interesting. I have a PIII, 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM and a 6 GB hard drive
in a Sony laptop. I installed WinXp Home just as an experiment. I did
some of the optimization steps, turning off un-needed services, etc.
and have been very pleased with the performance. I will be leaving
WinXP on this laptop, which I use when travelling.

Regards, hawk

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 30, 2004 6:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ GSV Three Minds in a Can's ]|= wrote:

>>I find with nt and 2k, if I set pagefile less than 1.5 times size of real
>>memory , I soon get alerts that the pagefile needs increased - well before
>>resources are getting scarce.
>
> Well, I ran 2k Pro for several years, and never had the problem. I did
> need =enough= page file, but when I doubled the RAM, I was able to
> reduce the page file correspondingly.
>
I suppose its feasible, I havent broken clear of a minimum threshold to
reduce swapping expectation,
~ *OR* by adding lots more Ram, one rarely reaches the 'feeling like I
should have 1.5x swapfile' threshold by never consuming enough Ram
available - keeps the system in 'green' sorta, avoiding 'amber' and 'red'
by sheer surplus of RAM.
If windows gets a sudden huge memory load accompanied by heavy disk load,
is that exacerbated by resulting activity to employ and grow the sub 1.5
swapfile /?
With my upto 512 meg experience, sub x1.5 pagefile allocation complains
'windows needs to increase..' as it runs through amber to red. Given x1.5
pagefile from start, it keeps quiet until I get 'insufficient memory..' and
the app crashes.

The beauty of looping the pagefile back into memory* via a kernel
ramdriver, is that everything stays smooth and disk i/o-less, even through
awol VM panic levels, and because the systems design goal is to cope even
with those levels via i/o, they get quite unexpectly dissolved by the
instant response provided by a good ramdrive, and you get to errant out of
memory level without having to chug through minutes of slow-mo disk
shenanigans.

(*into unmanaged memory, taken from windows with maxmem boot.ini switch)

When things have got overloaded, thats a situation when you particularly
dont want this slow memory management to occur. If the pagefile is
virtualised, it takes virtualy no time at all anyway.

> ... These days people just stick in another Gig.
--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 30, 2004 7:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ Creeping Stone's ]|= wrote:

> data isquickly compressed into the pagefile as
> its written so its useful in a way.

Correction - I would have thought this would be the case, since compression
is so quick, but I just checked by getting a copy of my pagefile while is
was apperently (rob nox's app) 64 megs full and run NTFS compression on the
copy, and it shrunk to 30 megs in size.
- So its probably not really getting compressed :[
--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 31, 2004 2:35:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <1s6j4bkaydgih.1wim36bsr8ayp$.dlg@40tude.net>, from the
wonderful person Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> said
>=|[ Creeping Stone's ]|= wrote:
>
>> data isquickly compressed into the pagefile as
>> its written so its useful in a way.
>
>Correction - I would have thought this would be the case, since compression
>is so quick, but I just checked by getting a copy of my pagefile while is
>was apperently (rob nox's app) 64 megs full and run NTFS compression on the
>copy, and it shrunk to 30 megs in size.
>- So its probably not really getting compressed :[

No, pagefile isn't compressed. The size of a VM page is 4k (which is why
4k clusters work so well), and compressing it would just confuse the
heck out of things, since page file is 'direct access', i.e. each 4k
page goes to a known spot on disk (which happens, normally to be a
single 4k cluster), and it is liable to be replaced at any time by some
other 4k page image .. imagine the confusion/fragmentation if the new
one would not compress to fit the slot the old one had.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 31, 2004 5:33:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

=|[ GSV Three Minds in a Can's ]|= wrote:

> Bitstring <1s6j4bkaydgih.1wim36bsr8ayp$.dlg@40tude.net>, from the
> wonderful person Creeping Stone <l@l.lll> said
>>=|[ Creeping Stone's ]|= wrote:
>>
>>> data isquickly compressed into the pagefile as
>>> its written so its useful in a way.
>>
>>Correction - I would have thought this would be the case, since compression
>>is so quick, but I just checked by getting a copy of my pagefile while is
>>was apperently (rob nox's app) 64 megs full and run NTFS compression on the
>>copy, and it shrunk to 30 megs in size.
>>- So its probably not really getting compressed :[
>
> No, pagefile isn't compressed. The size of a VM page is 4k (which is why
> 4k clusters work so well), and compressing it would just confuse the
> heck out of things, since page file is 'direct access', i.e. each 4k
> page goes to a known spot on disk (which happens, normally to be a
> single 4k cluster), and it is liable to be replaced at any time by some
> other 4k page image .. imagine the confusion/fragmentation if the new
> one would not compress to fit the slot the old one had.

Well contrary as always; just because their is complexity to implementing
compression doesnt mean its not worth it. since compression does offer an
obvious benefit. Its simpler to implement quick enough without compression
for sure especialy in 386 code when the system was devised, but I still
think its desirable and doable for the ideal system on todays hardware :p 
--
' gathering moss,
android
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 31, 2004 2:49:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Creeping Stone wrote:
>

>
> > ... These days people just stick in another Gig.

To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
How should it be tweaked?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 31, 2004 2:59:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Johannes H Andersen" <johs@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com> wrote in message
news:40BAFFC2.78D9004@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com...
>
>
> Creeping Stone wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > ... These days people just stick in another Gig.
>
> To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
> want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
> 2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
> How should it be tweaked?

I have both an prefer XP pro - mainly 'cos I have a TFT monitor and prefer
ClearType font display.
--
Doug Ramage
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 31, 2004 4:48:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Doug Ramage wrote:
>
> "Johannes H Andersen" <johs@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com> wrote in message
> news:40BAFFC2.78D9004@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com...
> >
> >
> > Creeping Stone wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > ... These days people just stick in another Gig.
> >
> > To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
> > want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
> > 2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
> > How should it be tweaked?
>
> I have both an prefer XP pro - mainly 'cos I have a TFT monitor and prefer
> ClearType font display.
> --
> Doug Ramage

But then XP has the activation spectra hanging over it. I would hate the
hassle of being locked out from my data because I've temporarily added
another hard disk for ghosting or a TV card. Can you get ClearType for
Windows 2k?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
May 31, 2004 4:54:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <2i0dvfFhmrpsU1@uni-berlin.de>, from the wonderful person Doug
Ramage <namxat666@hotmail.com> said
>
>"Johannes H Andersen" <johs@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com> wrote in message
>news:40BAFFC2.78D9004@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com...
>>
>>
>> Creeping Stone wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > > ... These days people just stick in another Gig.
>>
>> To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
>> want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
>> 2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
>> How should it be tweaked?
>
>I have both an prefer XP pro - mainly 'cos I have a TFT monitor and prefer
>ClearType font display.

I actually paid real money to upgrade 2k to Xp Pro for just that same
reason .. SWMBO was going to lynch me over the quality of text display
on a TFT under Win2k.

Apart from that, and the fact that XP has a decent help system (and a
broken 'search' system) there isn't a heck of a lot of difference.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
!