Is it worth upgrading to XP Pro ?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
efficiency I'd rather be without them.
So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
do I stand to gain - or lose ?
TIA
Kevin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:cn2b4a$rpq$1@sparta.btinternet.com,
Kevin Lawton <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> typed:

> I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and
> it is
> 'okay'. Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general
> use.
> My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail,
> office
> apps like word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo
> editing, CD
> burning, etc. Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter'
> work.
> Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye
> candy'
> like animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and
> for the
> sake of efficiency I'd rather be without them.
> So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to
> the
> trouble of upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick
> with
> Windows 2000 ? What do I stand to gain - or lose ?

My view is that you're going about this backward. A change of
operating system should be driven by need, not just because there
is a new version available. Are you having a problem with Windows
2000 that you expect XP to solve? Do you have or expect to get
new hardware or software that is supported in XP, but not in
2000? Is there some new feature in XP that you need or yearn for?
Does your job require you have skills in XP? Are you a computer
hobbyist who enjoys playing with whatever is newest?

If the answer to one or more of those questions is yes, then you
should get XP. Otherwise most people should stick with what they
have, especially if it's 2000, which is very similar to XP. There
is *always* a learning curve and a potential for problems when
you take a step as big as this one, regardless of how wonderful
whatever you're contemplating moving to is. Sooner or later
you'll have to upgrade (to XP or its successor) because you'll
want support for hardware or software that you can't get in 2000,
but don't rush it.

I say all the above despite the fact that I'm a big XP fan. I
think it's the best and most stable of all versions of Windows.


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Kevin Lawton" <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> skrev i melding
news:cn2b4a$rpq$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
> 'okay'.
> Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
> My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
> like
> word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
> Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
> Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
> animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
> efficiency I'd rather be without them.
> So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
> of
> upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
> What
> do I stand to gain - or lose ?

If you're happy with 2K Pro then I suggest you stick to 2K Pro, at least
until it reaches end of life and you no longer get security fixes for it, or
until you clearly identify a feature in XP (or any other OS) that you would
really like.

I chose the upgrade path, but I'd might as well have left it alone. XP
introduces a whole bunch of new fancy bells and whistles, but I have turned
of most of them. The only things I have found in XP Pro that is better than
2K Pro is handling of multi-monitor setups, better application compatibility
(particularly games and demos) and faster boot time. On the downside is tons
of annoying bells and whistles, higher hardware requirements and lower
stability.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

If you find that you want to "be up to date", then by all means make the
upgrade to XP Pro. (You cannot upgrade from Win 2000 Pro to XP Home, of
course.) You don't need to have specific reasons to justify the upgrade.
It is OK just to want to do something. See the features page to check out
what you will be getting at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/features.mspx

"Kevin Lawton" <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cn2b4a$rpq$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
> 'okay'.
> Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
> My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
> like
> word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
> Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
> Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
> animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
> efficiency I'd rather be without them.
> So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
> of
> upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
> What
> do I stand to gain - or lose ?
> TIA
> Kevin.
>
>
>

 

[Ben]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Kevin Lawton wrote:

> I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
> Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
> My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
> word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
> Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
> Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
> animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
> efficiency I'd rather be without them.
> So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
> upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
> do I stand to gain - or lose ?
> TIA
> Kevin.
>
>
>
I think it is not in a hurry for you to upgrade to XP.
MS offers online and phone call services for 5 years,
so don't give up your rights now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Ben" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:%238cgKCkyEHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Kevin Lawton wrote:
>
> > I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
'okay'.
> > Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
> > My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
like
> > word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
> > Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
> > Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy'
like
> > animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
> > efficiency I'd rather be without them.
> > So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
trouble of
> > upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
What
> > do I stand to gain - or lose ?
> > TIA
> > Kevin.
> >
> >
> >
> I think it is not in a hurry for you to upgrade to XP.
> MS offers online and phone call services for 5 years,
> so don't give up your rights now.

What is Win2K doing / not doing that is making you wanting to switch? If you
are satisfied with your interface with Win2K, stay with it.

I use both operating systems and can tell you they have a different feel to
them. XP does a lot of hand holding and hiding a lot of choices. WinXP
offers more of a, by comparison, no frills approach and, in my personal
opinion, is much better suited to business use.

This is not to say WinXP Pro is a bad choice for business, but with all that
it tries to do, I see it better adapted to gaming than running business
applications. This is my personal opinion, and I will not take offense if
you differ from it. I do use XP Pro on two different PCs in a domain network
(mandatory as XP Home will not join a domain) and have absolutely no
problems with networking or running apps. I've never had any memory or CPU
usage problems with either XP machine, but there seems to be more overhead
with XP because of all it wants to manage. Lastly, I am more at home with
Win2K interface because I've run that interface longer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
<socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
wrote:

>I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is 'okay'.
>Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps like
>word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
>animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble of
>upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ? What
>do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>TIA
>Kevin.
>
I have a not dissimilar situation.

I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
one thing.

That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.

My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a machine
lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.

Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling at
88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up" has
become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.


FACE

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Besides the system and user resources issues and stability, Win98 is not as
secure as XP Pro. If you run the Upgrade Advisor (insert the XP cd while in
Windows and choose from the splash screen) you can see if you need to take
any actions before starting an upgrade. Disconnect all peripherals except,
of course, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Update your motherboard drivers,
NIC driver, and video driver from the manufacturer's website. Check for
viruses and spyware. Then upgrade. You will be pleased with the result.
Setup under XP Pro is straight forward and nothing to be feared. Be sure to
defragment the hard drive after the upgrade. It will be pretty well
fragmented by the installer. Convert to NTFS when you are satisfied that
the upgrade is OK and then download Diskeeper 9 Professional trial version
and run the boot time defragmenter to defragment the directory structure.

"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
> <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
> wrote:
>
>>I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
>>'okay'.
>>Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>>My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
>>like
>>word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>>Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>>Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
>>animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>>efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>>So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
>>of
>>upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
>>What
>>do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>>TIA
>>Kevin.
>>
> I have a not dissimilar situation.
>
> I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
> one thing.
>
> That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
>
> My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
> segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
> flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
> machine
> lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
> allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
>
> Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
> seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling
> at
> 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
> SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
> has
> become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
>
>
> FACE
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
| <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
| wrote:
|
| >I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
'okay'.
| >Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
| >My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
like
| >word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
| >Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
| >Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
| >animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
| >efficiency I'd rather be without them.
| >So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
of
| >upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
What
| >do I stand to gain - or lose ?
| >TIA
| >Kevin.
| >
| I have a not dissimilar situation.
|
| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
| one thing.
|
| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
|
| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
machine
| lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
| allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
|
| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
| seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling
at
| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
| SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
has
| become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
|
|
| FACE
|
|

Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally I've found
256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the Internet
Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free programs that can
automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have any third
party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get rid of
them as generally they are more problematic than they are useful.

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0600, "Harry Ohrn" <harry---@webtree.ca> in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:

>
>"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
>| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
>| <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
>| wrote:
>|
>| >I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
>'okay'.
>| >Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>| >My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
>like
>| >word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>| >Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>| >Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
>| >animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>| >efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>| >So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
>of
>| >upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
>What
>| >do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>| >TIA
>| >Kevin.
>| >
>| I have a not dissimilar situation.
>|
>| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
>| one thing.
>|
>| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
>|
>| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
>| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
>| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
>machine
>| lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
>| allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
>|
>| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
>| seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling
>at
>| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
>| SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
>has
>| become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
>|
>|
>| FACE
>|
>|
>
>Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally I've found
>256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the Internet
>Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free programs that can
>automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
>http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have any third
>party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get rid of
>them as generally they are more problematic than they are useful.
>
>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>

I have 256mb of RAM.
16M is taken for on-board video.
I see a lot of messages posted saying that I need 512m for XP Pro.

On the temp files, I cut the temp IE cache from 2G (windows' install choice)
to 300m last summer.

RAM free-er uppers? I have been known to use TASKINFO 2003 to slow flush
RAM on occasion. Not often, since that sure does put an end to current
streaming.

FACE

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Upgrade Advisor? Will do. That will be nice to get a view of what the new
animal does and does not like before the plunge

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:00:50 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:

>Besides the system and user resources issues and stability, Win98 is not as
>secure as XP Pro. If you run the Upgrade Advisor (insert the XP cd while in
>Windows and choose from the splash screen) you can see if you need to take
>any actions before starting an upgrade. Disconnect all peripherals except,
>of course, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Update your motherboard drivers,
>NIC driver, and video driver from the manufacturer's website. Check for
>viruses and spyware. Then upgrade. You will be pleased with the result.
>Setup under XP Pro is straight forward and nothing to be feared. Be sure to
>defragment the hard drive after the upgrade. It will be pretty well
>fragmented by the installer. Convert to NTFS when you are satisfied that
>the upgrade is OK and then download Diskeeper 9 Professional trial version
>and run the boot time defragmenter to defragment the directory structure.
>
>"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
>> <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
>>>'okay'.
>>>Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>>>My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
>>>like
>>>word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>>>Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>>>Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
>>>animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>>>efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>>>So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
>>>of
>>>upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
>>>What
>>>do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>>>TIA
>>>Kevin.
>>>
>> I have a not dissimilar situation.
>>
>> I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
>> one thing.
>>
>> That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
>>
>> My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
>> segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
>> flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
>> machine
>> lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
>> allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
>>
>> Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
>> seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling
>> at
>> 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
>> SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
>> has
>> become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
>>
>>
>> FACE
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

You don't need 512MB for Pro, but it will run nicely with 512MB. What will
happen with 256MB is that the hard drive will run more because you will be
using the page file more, so you can improve performance with more memory.
You can always add memory at your leisure. Pro will run on your machine,
though.

"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6hpkp0luhp6uedm6orenb33suhis663l21@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0600, "Harry Ohrn" <harry---@webtree.ca> in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:
>
>>
>>"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
>>| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
>>| <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
>>| wrote:
>>|
>>| >I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
>>'okay'.
>>| >Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>>| >My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
>>like
>>| >word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>>| >Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>>| >Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy'
>>like
>>| >animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>>| >efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>>| >So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
>>trouble
>>of
>>| >upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
>>What
>>| >do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>>| >TIA
>>| >Kevin.
>>| >
>>| I have a not dissimilar situation.
>>|
>>| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except
>>for
>>| one thing.
>>|
>>| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
>>|
>>| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
>>| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
>>| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
>>machine
>>| lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
>>| allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
>>|
>>| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
>>| seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically
>>idling
>>at
>>| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro --
>>and
>>| SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
>>has
>>| become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
>>|
>>|
>>| FACE
>>|
>>|
>>
>>Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally I've
>>found
>>256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the Internet
>>Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free programs that
>>can
>>automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
>>http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have any
>>third
>>party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get rid of
>>them as generally they are more problematic than they are useful.
>>
>>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
>>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>>
>
> I have 256mb of RAM.
> 16M is taken for on-board video.
> I see a lot of messages posted saying that I need 512m for XP Pro.
>
> On the temp files, I cut the temp IE cache from 2G (windows' install
> choice)
> to 300m last summer.
>
> RAM free-er uppers? I have been known to use TASKINFO 2003 to slow flush
> RAM on occasion. Not often, since that sure does put an end to current
> streaming.
>
> FACE
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I looked on the disk root directory. I opened "Readme.htm" and there were
text files options to read.
My CD is not autorun, so do I activate d:\setup and find "Upgrade Advisor"
there? And it will deep scan the system for compatibilities?

As to peripherals, should I disconnect the speakers?

Presumably it will let me cancel out without changing anything after i run
the Upgrade Advisor?

FACE


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:00:50 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:

>Besides the system and user resources issues and stability, Win98 is not as
>secure as XP Pro. If you run the Upgrade Advisor (insert the XP cd while in
>Windows and choose from the splash screen) you can see if you need to take
>any actions before starting an upgrade. Disconnect all peripherals except,
>of course, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Update your motherboard drivers,
>NIC driver, and video driver from the manufacturer's website. Check for
>viruses and spyware. Then upgrade. You will be pleased with the result.
>Setup under XP Pro is straight forward and nothing to be feared. Be sure to
>defragment the hard drive after the upgrade. It will be pretty well
>fragmented by the installer. Convert to NTFS when you are satisfied that
>the upgrade is OK and then download Diskeeper 9 Professional trial version
>and run the boot time defragmenter to defragment the directory structure.
>
>"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
>> <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
>>>'okay'.
>>>Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>>>My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
>>>like
>>>word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>>>Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>>>Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy' like
>>>animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>>>efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>>>So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the trouble
>>>of
>>>upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
>>>What
>>>do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>>>TIA
>>>Kevin.
>>>
>> I have a not dissimilar situation.
>>
>> I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except for
>> one thing.
>>
>> That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
>>
>> My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
>> segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
>> flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
>> machine
>> lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
>> allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
>>
>> Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
>> seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically idling
>> at
>> 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro -- and
>> SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
>> has
>> become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
>>
>>
>> FACE
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

FACE <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
| machine lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP
| dynamically allocates further resource segments on an "as needed"
| basis.
<snip>
I would have expected that the allocations to User/DGI resources were
specified by values in the registry - let's face, just about everything else
is !
Could anyone possibly confirm this and, it is so, suggest what those
registry values might be ?
I tend to run my systems with lots of RAM - 512 Mb minimum, and up to 1 Gb -
so 64Kb is a pathetic amount to allocate to something which is easily filled
to the point of causing a problem.
Kevin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
<socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
wrote:

>FACE <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
>| segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
>| flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
>| machine lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP
>| dynamically allocates further resource segments on an "as needed"
>| basis.
> <snip>
>I would have expected that the allocations to User/DGI resources were
>specified by values in the registry - let's face, just about everything else
>is !
>Could anyone possibly confirm this and, it is so, suggest what those
>registry values might be ?
>I tend to run my systems with lots of RAM - 512 Mb minimum, and up to 1 Gb -
>so 64Kb is a pathetic amount to allocate to something which is easily filled
>to the point of causing a problem.
>Kevin.
>
>
Kevin,
Yes, it is surprising.
I can relay the in-depth answer that I got on
microsoft.public.win98.performance, back in August. The thread name was
"Increase USER and GDI resources?" and it may shed light on this holdover
from the halcyon days of no viruses and no spyware:


~~~~

Not to worry, I'm only rude in response to ill manners.

The resource pools and their 64k limit are a gift of the compatibility gods.
Windows 3.1 was a 16-bit operating system, so if you do the math (2^16) you
get 65,536 (or 64kb) as the maximum size that a memory pool can be. When
Windows 95 came out it used a 32-bit memory model but it needed to support
those older 16-bit programs, so it maintained the User and GDI pool sizes so
they'd run correctly.

At about the same time as Windows 95 came Windows NT. The NT kernel
attempted to handle these older 16-bit programs by running them in a virtual
session - carve out a chunk of memory and make it look like a 16-bit system,
then load and run the program in that chunk of memory. The problem was (and
still is!) that this breaks as many programs under Windows NT as it fixes.

The sad part is that _only_ the User and GDI pools are limited in Win9x -
there are other 32-bit pools that can be used. And you can dynamically
destroy items you've placed in the User and GDI pools when you're done with
them, freeing up that memory for other uses. So, why don't they? I don't
know. Maybe programmers are fundamentally lazy and use the User and GDI
pools the way they do because it's easier.

(n.b. - I am a programmer and I am lazy, as are many of my
programmer-friends, but I don't assume this tendency transfers to all other
programmers.<G>)

But to get back on point ... if you could change the size of the User and
GDI pools you would break all sorts of interesting things when a program
assumes they'll be the correct size and dips into them to pull out a
resource. So you'd also have to modify programs to expect a larger than
expected pool. Neither of these are trivial tasks and would run the risk of
breaking operating system functions that expect the User and GDI pools to be
64kb in size. So you'd have to modify Windows as well.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] rgharper@email.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

~~~~

I don't think Richard would mind me reproducing this...it is in the google
archives anyway.

Anyway, ultimately that was the answer i got as to if i could increase
USER/GDI under Win 98 after i had poked a little bit (apparently not rudely
though ) for an answer greater in detail than "No."


FACE

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3oflp0p90g5ur7nb689fb0hndhh7a4ja1q@4ax.com...
>I looked on the disk root directory. I opened "Readme.htm" and there were
> text files options to read.
> My CD is not autorun, so do I activate d:\setup and find "Upgrade Advisor"
> there? And it will deep scan the system for compatibilities?
>
> As to peripherals, should I disconnect the speakers?
>
> Presumably it will let me cancel out without changing anything after i run
> the Upgrade Advisor?
>
> FACE
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:00:50 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
> <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
> wrote:
>
>>Besides the system and user resources issues and stability, Win98 is not
>>as
>>secure as XP Pro. If you run the Upgrade Advisor (insert the XP cd while
>>in
>>Windows and choose from the splash screen) you can see if you need to take
>>any actions before starting an upgrade. Disconnect all peripherals
>>except,
>>of course, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Update your motherboard drivers,
>>NIC driver, and video driver from the manufacturer's website. Check for
>>viruses and spyware. Then upgrade. You will be pleased with the result.
>>Setup under XP Pro is straight forward and nothing to be feared. Be sure
>>to
>>defragment the hard drive after the upgrade. It will be pretty well
>>fragmented by the installer. Convert to NTFS when you are satisfied that
>>the upgrade is OK and then download Diskeeper 9 Professional trial version
>>and run the boot time defragmenter to defragment the directory structure.
>>
>>"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
>>> <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
>>>>'okay'.
>>>>Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>>>>My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
>>>>like
>>>>word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>>>>Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>>>>Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy'
>>>>like
>>>>animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>>>>efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>>>>So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
>>>>trouble
>>>>of
>>>>upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
>>>>What
>>>>do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>>>>TIA
>>>>Kevin.
>>>>
>>> I have a not dissimilar situation.
>>>
>>> I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except
>>> for
>>> one thing.
>>>
>>> That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
>>> segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
>>> flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
>>> machine
>>> lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
>>> allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
>>>
>>> Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but that
>>> seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically
>>> idling
>>> at
>>> 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro --
>>> and
>>> SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer "set-up"
>>> has
>>> become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
>>>
>>>
>>> FACE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
A search on microsoft .com for Upgrade Advisor got at least 40 hits
try this one:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/advisor.mspx

gls858

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Instead of Setup, right click on the cd icon in My Computer and use Explore.

"gls858" <gls858@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:er5yoMGzEHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3oflp0p90g5ur7nb689fb0hndhh7a4ja1q@4ax.com...
>>I looked on the disk root directory. I opened "Readme.htm" and there were
>> text files options to read.
>> My CD is not autorun, so do I activate d:\setup and find "Upgrade
>> Advisor"
>> there? And it will deep scan the system for compatibilities?
>>
>> As to peripherals, should I disconnect the speakers?
>>
>> Presumably it will let me cancel out without changing anything after i
>> run
>> the Upgrade Advisor?
>>
>> FACE
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:00:50 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
>> <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Besides the system and user resources issues and stability, Win98 is not
>>>as
>>>secure as XP Pro. If you run the Upgrade Advisor (insert the XP cd while
>>>in
>>>Windows and choose from the splash screen) you can see if you need to
>>>take
>>>any actions before starting an upgrade. Disconnect all peripherals
>>>except,
>>>of course, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Update your motherboard
>>>drivers,
>>>NIC driver, and video driver from the manufacturer's website. Check for
>>>viruses and spyware. Then upgrade. You will be pleased with the result.
>>>Setup under XP Pro is straight forward and nothing to be feared. Be sure
>>>to
>>>defragment the hard drive after the upgrade. It will be pretty well
>>>fragmented by the installer. Convert to NTFS when you are satisfied that
>>>the upgrade is OK and then download Diskeeper 9 Professional trial
>>>version
>>>and run the boot time defragmenter to defragment the directory structure.
>>>
>>>"FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
>>>> <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it is
>>>>>'okay'.
>>>>>Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general use.
>>>>>My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail, office apps
>>>>>like
>>>>>word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo editing, CD burning, etc.
>>>>>Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and butter' work.
>>>>>Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye candy'
>>>>>like
>>>>>animated icons and screen savers are of no interest and for the sake of
>>>>>efficiency I'd rather be without them.
>>>>>So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
>>>>>trouble
>>>>>of
>>>>>upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows 2000 ?
>>>>>What
>>>>>do I stand to gain - or lose ?
>>>>>TIA
>>>>>Kevin.
>>>>>
>>>> I have a not dissimilar situation.
>>>>
>>>> I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs except
>>>> for
>>>> one thing.
>>>>
>>>> That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources daily.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two 64K
>>>> segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the glitzy,
>>>> flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the result is a
>>>> machine
>>>> lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding is that XP dynamically
>>>> allocates further resource segments on an "as needed" basis.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR, but
>>>> that
>>>> seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU basically
>>>> idling
>>>> at
>>>> 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro --
>>>> and
>>>> SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it. Computer
>>>> "set-up"
>>>> has
>>>> become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded over the years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FACE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> A search on microsoft .com for Upgrade Advisor got at least 40 hits
> try this one:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/advisor.mspx
>
> gls858
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:06:13 -0600, "gls858" <gls858@yahoo.com> in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:

>A search on microsoft .com for Upgrade Advisor got at least 40 hits
>try this one:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/advisor.mspx
>
>gls858

Thank you. Good information. I was on that page earlier this morning.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I am looking for something approx 50 meg?
I have actually had these disks a good while, but hating change, I have
never installed them.

Sorted by size, descending, this is the top of the manifest and it seems
that the upgrade advisor should fall between the first file (76 meg) and the
second file (13 meg), even allowing for a possible CAB compression:


DRIVER .CAB 76699621 r... 8-23-01 12:00:0
OEMBIOS .BI_ 13113765 r... 8-23-01 12:00:0
IMJPST .DI_ 8614,079 r... 8-23-01 12:00:0
HWXJPN .DL_ 8422,595 r... 8-23-01 12:00:0
PINTLGS .IM_ 7007,742 r... 8-23-01 12:00:0
HWXCHT .DL_ 6691,525 r... 8-23-01 12:00:0


FACE



On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:39:40 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:

>Instead of Setup, right click on the cd icon in My Computer and use Explore.
>
>"gls858" <gls858@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:er5yoMGzEHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:3oflp0p90g5ur7nb689fb0hndhh7a4ja1q@4ax.com...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

It seems to me that with memory being so cheap at the moment, it is one of
the most cost-effective upgrades you can make to a windows machine - unless,
of course, you already have plenty.
Kevin.

Colin Barnhorst <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:
| You don't need 512MB for Pro, but it will run nicely with 512MB.
| What will happen with 256MB is that the hard drive will run more
| because you will be using the page file more, so you can improve
| performance with more memory. You can always add memory at your
| leisure. Pro will run on your machine, though.
|
| "FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| news:6hpkp0luhp6uedm6orenb33suhis663l21@4ax.com...
|| On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:01:52 -0600, "Harry Ohrn"
|| <harry---@webtree.ca> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:
||
|||
||| "FACE" <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
||| news:q89kp0tff2d4l6glkmqkhcvudmfpscv3vs@4ax.com...
|||| On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:42:50 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
|||| <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in
|||| microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:
||||
||||| I've been using Windows 2000 Pro for almost four years now and it
||||| is 'okay'. Not perfect, by any means, but quite okay for general
||||| use.
||||| My applications are just 'general use' - internet & e-mail,
||||| office apps like word & excel, SQL server 2000 database, photo
||||| editing, CD burning, etc. Nothing very esoteric, just 'bread and
||||| butter' work.
||||| Reliability and efficiency are what I like to see, fancy 'eye
||||| candy' like animated icons and screen savers are of no interest
||||| and for the sake of efficiency I'd rather be without them.
||||| So, the question is: is it worth paying the cost and going to the
||| trouble
||| of
||||| upgrading to Windows XP Pro or should I just stick with Windows
||||| 2000 ? What do I stand to gain - or lose ?
||||| TIA
||||| Kevin.
|||||
|||| I have a not dissimilar situation.
||||
|||| I am currently running WIN 98 SE, which is just fine for needs
|||| except for one thing.
||||
|||| That one thing is a ^&%$. I seem to run out of system resources
|||| daily.
||||
|||| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two
|||| 64K segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the
|||| glitzy, flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the
|||| result is a machine lockup on GDI failure. My further
|||| understanding is that XP dynamically allocates further resource
|||| segments on an "as needed" basis.
||||
|||| Of course I could run fewer programs at once and "shepherd" SR,
|||| but that seems to be an unnecessary move. A monitor shows my CPU
|||| basically
||| idling
||| at
|||| 88-92% free but I am limited by the SR. I have the CDs for XP Pro
|||| -- and SP2 -- but honestly am a little loathe to install it.
|||| Computer "set-up" has become a lot less fun and a lot more dreaded
|||| over the years.
||||
||||
|||| FACE
||||
||||
|||
||| Have you thought of upgrading RAM on your Win98 setup. Personally
||| I've found
||| 256MB of RAM to be the sweet spot. Also limiting the size of the
||| Internet Cache and clearing out caches helps a lot. There are free
||| programs that can
||| automate the process. Empty TempFolders is one
||| http://www.danish-shareware.dk/soft/emptemp/index.html If you have
||| any third
||| party apps installed that claim to free up RAM you may wish to get
||| rid of them as generally they are more problematic than they are
||| useful.
|||
||| Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
||| www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
|||
||
|| I have 256mb of RAM.
|| 16M is taken for on-board video.
|| I see a lot of messages posted saying that I need 512m for XP Pro.
||
|| On the temp files, I cut the temp IE cache from 2G (windows' install
|| choice)
|| to 300m last summer.
||
|| RAM free-er uppers? I have been known to use TASKINFO 2003 to slow
|| flush RAM on occasion. Not often, since that sure does put an end
|| to current streaming.
||
|| FACE

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Okay - thanks for sending that info. Now I understand 'why' the question
becomes 'what can we do to get around the problem ?'.
If, as it seems, many programmers are too lazy to include the code to
release the User/GDI pool resources they have used after they are needed,
then I'm thinking that maybe there is some sort of system utility program
available which performs a kind of 'garbage collection' function so that
resources no longer required are released ?
Does anyone know of the existence of such a utility or whether it is even
possible ?
Kevin.

FACE <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:02:18 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
| <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in
| microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics wrote:
|
|| FACE <AFaceInTheCrowd@bellsouth.net> wrote:
|| <snip>
||| My understanding is that Windows product up until XP allocated two
||| 64K segments for User/GDI resources. I am of the opinion that the
||| glitzy, flashy, internet of today eats the SR ravenously and the
||| result is a machine lockup on GDI failure. My further understanding
||| is that XP dynamically allocates further resource segments on an
||| "as needed"
||| basis.
|| <snip>
|| I would have expected that the allocations to User/DGI resources were
|| specified by values in the registry - let's face, just about
|| everything else is !
|| Could anyone possibly confirm this and, it is so, suggest what those
|| registry values might be ?
|| I tend to run my systems with lots of RAM - 512 Mb minimum, and up
|| to 1 Gb - so 64Kb is a pathetic amount to allocate to something
|| which is easily filled to the point of causing a problem.
|| Kevin.
||
||
| Kevin,
| Yes, it is surprising.
| I can relay the in-depth answer that I got on
| microsoft.public.win98.performance, back in August. The thread name
| was "Increase USER and GDI resources?" and it may shed light on this
| holdover from the halcyon days of no viruses and no spyware:
|
|
| ~~~~
|
| Not to worry, I'm only rude in response to ill manners.
|
| The resource pools and their 64k limit are a gift of the
| compatibility gods. Windows 3.1 was a 16-bit operating system, so if
| you do the math (2^16) you get 65,536 (or 64kb) as the maximum size
| that a memory pool can be. When Windows 95 came out it used a 32-bit
| memory model but it needed to support those older 16-bit programs, so
| it maintained the User and GDI pool sizes so they'd run correctly.
|
| At about the same time as Windows 95 came Windows NT. The NT kernel
| attempted to handle these older 16-bit programs by running them in a
| virtual session - carve out a chunk of memory and make it look like a
| 16-bit system, then load and run the program in that chunk of memory.
| The problem was (and still is!) that this breaks as many programs
| under Windows NT as it fixes.
|
| The sad part is that _only_ the User and GDI pools are limited in
| Win9x - there are other 32-bit pools that can be used. And you can
| dynamically destroy items you've placed in the User and GDI pools
| when you're done with them, freeing up that memory for other uses.
| So, why don't they? I don't know. Maybe programmers are
| fundamentally lazy and use the User and GDI pools the way they do
| because it's easier.
|
| (n.b. - I am a programmer and I am lazy, as are many of my
| programmer-friends, but I don't assume this tendency transfers to all
| other programmers.<G>)
|
| But to get back on point ... if you could change the size of the User
| and GDI pools you would break all sorts of interesting things when a
| program assumes they'll be the correct size and dips into them to
| pull out a resource. So you'd also have to modify programs to expect
| a larger than expected pool. Neither of these are trivial tasks and
| would run the risk of breaking operating system functions that expect
| the User and GDI pools to be 64kb in size. So you'd have to modify
| Windows as well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

From empirical evidence (not what *should* work, theoretically, but what I
seen to work) I have found that a drastic measure that i can take if i catch
it prior to machine lockup on GDI failure is to slow flush RAM (that is,
writing info as necessary, but flushing the thing in any event)

From an observational standpoint, and since the failure on user resources
occurs after about 12-14 hours of fairly intense use, this says to me that
you are correct in that certain functions do NOT release used resources when
they go away. In an unofficial way, i call it "dirty memory".

Having been a systems programmer managing application programmers in another
lifetime, I will take up for the "lazy" statements which I took as somewhat
self-deprecatory on Richard's part. When something works, and appears
sufficient, then when faced with deadlines and limited time, human nature
takes over in a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' kind of way. If you have
ever attempted to fix a program with an "all I have to do is..." approach
and found yourself 3 hours later wishing that you could back to where you
were before you started the "simple" change, you will know what I
mean.....and what Richard meant. After a person does that a few times they
get real skittish about fixing what isn't broke.

But.....what happened here is that "old" machine technology continued
without change until application technology outran it. (Consider as an
analogy the Y2K teck-no non-disaster which would have been a disaster if
many 1000s of $100+ man hours had not been put in. It was a possible
disaster because machine technology from the fifties -- yes, fifties -- had
been carried forward without change, migrated from mainframe to PC.)

Anyway, i'll stop here since all of this will be in my book "why I hate
change and we gotta have it".

Looks like I need to download that "Upgrade Advisor". Maybe I'll find a
neighbor with a DSL/Broadband account or maybe i could start it about
midnight here and have it in the morning........

FACE


On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:33:05 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
<socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> in microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
wrote:

>Okay - thanks for sending that info. Now I understand 'why' the question
>becomes 'what can we do to get around the problem ?'.
>If, as it seems, many programmers are too lazy to include the code to
>release the User/GDI pool resources they have used after they are needed,
>then I'm thinking that maybe there is some sort of system utility program
>available which performs a kind of 'garbage collection' function so that
>resources no longer required are released ?
>Does anyone know of the existence of such a utility or whether it is even
>possible ?
>Kevin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:cnfjuh$78e$1@titan.btinternet.com,
Kevin Lawton <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> typed:

> It seems to me that with memory being so cheap at the moment,
> it is
> one of the most cost-effective upgrades you can make to a
> windows
> machine - unless, of course, you already have plenty.


As long as you include your caveat "unless, of course, you
already have plenty," I don't disagree, but I just wanted to
caution people that adding memory won't improve performance for
everyone. Many people add memory, expecting a performance boost,
but are then surprised when they don't get one. The reason, of
course, is that they already have "plenty."

How much is "plenty"? How much memory you need depends on what
apps you run, but almost everyone needs at least 256MB for decent
performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
photographic images, more than 256MB--even much more--can be
required for good performance.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more
memory will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your
performance. If you are not using the page file significantly,
more memory will do nothing for you.

Go to http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and
download WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage.
That should give you a good idea of whether more memory can help,
and if so, how much more.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Usually, the reason they don't get a performance increase is because they
don't change settings for things like the icon cache, etc.

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OVrNkrMzEHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> In news:cnfjuh$78e$1@titan.btinternet.com,
> Kevin Lawton <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> typed:
>
>> It seems to me that with memory being so cheap at the moment, it is
>> one of the most cost-effective upgrades you can make to a windows
>> machine - unless, of course, you already have plenty.
>
>
> As long as you include your caveat "unless, of course, you already have
> plenty," I don't disagree, but I just wanted to caution people that adding
> memory won't improve performance for everyone. Many people add memory,
> expecting a performance boost, but are then surprised when they don't get
> one. The reason, of course, is that they already have "plenty."
>
> How much is "plenty"? How much memory you need depends on what apps you
> run, but almost everyone needs at least 256MB for decent performance. For
> some people, for example those who edit large photographic images, more
> than 256MB--even much more--can be required for good performance.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory will
> decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance. If you are
> not using the page file significantly, more memory will do nothing for
> you.
>
> Go to http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should give
> you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how much more.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:uZPdIjNzEHA.2568@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
Colin Barnhorst <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> typed:

> Usually, the reason they don't get a performance increase is
> because
> they don't change settings for things like the icon cache, etc.


No, it's because they already have enough memory to keep them
from using the page file, and adding more than that does nothing
for them. It is *not* true that more memory always provides a
speed increase.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:OVrNkrMzEHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> In news:cnfjuh$78e$1@titan.btinternet.com,
>> Kevin Lawton <socks.kepla.shoes@btinternet.com> typed:
>>
>>> It seems to me that with memory being so cheap at the moment,
>>> it is
>>> one of the most cost-effective upgrades you can make to a
>>> windows
>>> machine - unless, of course, you already have plenty.
>>
>>
>> As long as you include your caveat "unless, of course, you
>> already
>> have plenty," I don't disagree, but I just wanted to caution
>> people
>> that adding memory won't improve performance for everyone.
>> Many
>> people add memory, expecting a performance boost, but are then
>> surprised when they don't get one. The reason, of course, is
>> that
>> they already have "plenty."
>> How much is "plenty"? How much memory you need depends on what
>> apps
>> you run, but almost everyone needs at least 256MB for decent
>> performance. For some people, for example those who edit large
>> photographic images, more than 256MB--even much more--can be
>> required for good performance.
>> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more
>> memory
>> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your
>> performance.
>> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory
>> will
>> do nothing for you.
>>
>> Go to http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and
>> download
>> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That
>> should
>> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if
>> so, how
>> much more.
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup