Windows ME or 2000 instead of XP

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?
67 answers Last reply
More about windows 2000
  1. 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
  2. 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 !
  3. 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!)
  4. 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?
    >
    >
    >
  5. 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..
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
    >
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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<
  18. 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
  19. 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?
    >
    >
    >
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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> for more reliable contact addresses.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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 - §§§
  26. 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
  27. 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> for more reliable contact addresses.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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 - §§§
  31. 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> for more reliable contact addresses.
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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> for more reliable contact addresses.
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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?
    >
    >
    >
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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?
  47. 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
  48. 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?
  49. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Windows Me Windows XP Systems