I think we all have been brainwashed

[RobCur]

XP is not the best OS, user are better off with ME, 2k, linux etc. I used XP for 2 week and I can say that it make my computer very sluggish, rebooting god took 30 sec not 5 sec like on 9x or me or 2k. Sorry but the truth is, most people like XP because it look nicer not because its faster or more stable. With 128mb I cannot do anything, with 512mb its like winme with 128mb. Because it such a resouces hog, it will crash when it wants to due to running out of resources or freeze up. Well anyway I decide to downgrade back to ME and everything is so much easier to navigate and my game run faster too by 50 percent.
Can someone splain to me why the swap file size always has to be at least 1.5-3x larger then your maximum ram. So if I have 1GB of ram, it would need at least 1.5gb of swap file for it to function properly at all? This is where it doesn't make sense. The only good thing about XP is that its putting alot of $$$ into bill gate's pocket and most people say its good. sorry I just don't buy that as its just overhyped and you know the truth lies somewhere from experience user like me.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Do we have a new troll in the OS forum?

 

[rmrf]

I agree that XP may not be the greatest OS that M$ has put out, but you are being way too drastic by downgrading to ME, because that is exactly what you are doing; DOWNGRADING. At least have enough common sense to go to W2k or at least 98se. WinME is just not where it is at, at all, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone do something so horrible to their computer.

 

[n0cmonkey]

The 1.5 swap rule is a rule of thumb for most systems. The only time I have seen it really broken (and by broken I mean ignored like an annoying sister), is for midrange servers.

 

[EeyoreX]

I'd also be somewhat interested to know what kind of PC this is running on. Specs and such. If you are trying to run Windows XP on some old machine with that 128MB (even 512MB) RAM of course it will be slow, and Windows ME probably will be faster (faster, not better). Perhaps you are just lucky, if you have Windows ME stable all the time.Perhaps there is some underlying problem with your hardware, or drivers, or something else when you run Windows XP. I have been running XP since it's release. I have had exactly two BSODs. Once was because my RAM was bad and needed replacement. Once was because I thought I would be clever and used the wrong driver for something. Neither were the fault of Windows, and both were easily fixed. The swap file on both of my machines (one Athlon XP 2800+ Barton, 1GB RAM, the other 1.4GHz TBird, 512MB RAM) is set for a min and max of 768MB. Both machines are snappy and responsive. I never have crashes or freezes (barring the two aforementioned issues). My experience with Windows ME, on the other hand... Well, since this is a family site, I'll refrain.

Perhaps your PC isn't up to snuff to run XP. Or perhaps there are other issues...

\Dan

 

[jvang125]

XP is basically just 2k with a different visual interface, which can be demanding if it's running an older machine. You can change the interface to classic view for that 2k look if you want. This should improve your speed some bit. Any machine over 1ghz with 256/512MB ram should run it just fine with all the visual trimmings on.

If you still dont like XP, the next Windows based OS I would recommend is 2k Pro. WinME is utter crap compared to 2k. It was just to milk all the money they can from the suckers before they threw out the 9x product line.

 

[Twista]

xp sets my pagefile to 0 with my current amount of ram and i dont like! I have 768mb ram and a clean install set it to 0 but it still uses what it needs. Bad thing about 0 pf is doom just crashes when all my 768 is used up damn windows!

 

[Megatomic]

This thread is a joke. My guess is that this person has the old Q815411 patch installed and has not bothered to uninstall it and use the new, fixed version. I still find people *out in the wild* with this problem. They are amazed at how much faster their system is after I'm done with it.

 

[EeyoreX]

xp sets my pagefile to 0 with my current amount of ram and i dont like! I have 768mb ram and a clean install set it to 0 but it still uses what it needs. Bad thing about 0 pf is doom just crashes when all my 768 is used up damn windows!

I have never, and I mean never, seen any Windows OS set a pagefile size of zero (and I have used them all, at some point, starting with Windows 3.1). That has to be user set to zero. And, even if Windows did set it to zero, the user can change that too. This doesn't sound like Windows' fault to me. More like "user error".

This thread is a joke. My guess is that this person has the old Q815411 patch installed and has not bothered to uninstall it and use the new, fixed version.

Didn't think of that. That's a good call.

\Dan

 

[Mitzi]

Originally posted by: RobCur
XP is not the best OS, user are better off with ME, 2k, linux etc. I used XP for 2 week and I can say that it make my computer very sluggish, rebooting god took 30 sec not 5 sec like on 9x or me or 2k. Sorry but the truth is, most people like XP because it look nicer not because its faster or more stable. With 128mb I cannot do anything, with 512mb its like winme with 128mb. Because it such a resouces hog, it will crash when it wants to due to running out of resources or freeze up. Well anyway I decide to downgrade back to ME and everything is so much easier to navigate and my game run faster too by 50 percent.

So you are saying you find ME more responsive, faster and stable than XP? Well, you are entitled to your own opinion but I know the vast majority of Windows users believe XP is superior to ME in every way.

 

[Mem]

So you are saying you find ME more responsive, faster and stable than XP? Well, you are entitled to your own opinion but I know the vast majority of Windows users believe XP is superior to ME in every way.

hehe..I think everybody knows ME is the "nightmare OS" as to XP well give it enough ram and it`s a happy puppy IMHO.I`ve been using it since well Nov 2000 and with all the updates over the years have found it very stable,I don`t get any BSOD now.
Btw I`m using 512mb and 768mb fixed virtual swap size.

 

[foxkm]

Did you upgrade to XP from ME? I find that if you have problems in ME (happens too much) that XP will suck up the same damn problems into XP when you upgrade. As far as XP goes, I have worked on 1000's of computers with different problems and I can say that XP is by far Microsoft's best OS product. If you have problems with XP, then you either need to clean install or diagnose your hardware. Business has actually gone down at the computer store I worked at cause NT (XP,2K) is soo much more tolerant to buggy software, etc that people don't have as many problems in general. The majority of problems seen is still with 98 and especially ME

Fact is: People believe XP is a good OS cause maybe it actually is, not cause Microsoft says it is

Foxkm

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: RobCur
XP is not the best OS, user are better off with ME, 2k, linux etc. I used XP for 2 week and I can say [...]

i wonder what you 'can say' after using it two weeks

XP (Pro) and 98 are two totally dfferent worlds...it is true that 98 'seems' to be more responsive (eg. in the gui(....but the more features and stability of XP are just no comparison.


btw....reboot times...EVER heard of prefetch...dll caching...etc... ?? You know ANYTHING about the features of XP, the new filesystem features ?

If no...then maybe start reading and learning and post again about XP if you know more

 

[fredtam]

Quicker reboots=

Quick POST in bios
Shortened delayed seek for hard drive in bios
Editing Boot.ini in OS (shorter than 30 secs)
Disable unuse services at startup.

XP is great. It takes 15 sec from power button to desktop even with the small built in delay on the IC7-G.

 

[Twista]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

xp sets my pagefile to 0 with my current amount of ram and i dont like! I have 768mb ram and a clean install set it to 0 but it still uses what it needs. Bad thing about 0 pf is doom just crashes when all my 768 is used up damn windows!

I have never, and I mean never, seen any Windows OS set a pagefile size of zero (and I have used them all, at some point, starting with Windows 3.1). That has to be user set to zero. And, even if Windows did set it to zero, the user can change that too. This doesn't sound like Windows' fault to me. More like "user error".

This thread is a joke. My guess is that this person has the old Q815411 patch installed and has not bothered to uninstall it and use the new, fixed version.

Didn't think of that. That's a good call.

\Dan

No not a user error and xp setted it to do by itself.

 

[Megatomic]

^^^ That pic proves nothing Twista, sorry.

 

[EeyoreX]

No not a user error and xp setted it to do by itself.

I will bet significant cash that am right, it is a user error, and the picture you post does more to show me that. You see that little radio button that says "No paging file"? You know, the one that is selected? The user has to select that, Windows does not. Windows will never set that on it's own. You have a pagefile size of zero, regardless of what the "recommended" says. That's just what it is, a recommendation, not what Windows is using, which is shown after the "Currently allocated" entry. Where you see the big, fat, round 0. Try selecting "System managed size" and then you will have and use a swap file. I have worked on well over a hundred computers with 2000/XP installed and not one hs ever defaulted to "No paging file". Ever.

\Dan

 

[drag]

It's been my experiance with windows that there is a performance threshold that happens between Win9X vs Win2000/Xp machines.

This is due in part to a distinct lack of scalability built into windows 98... maybe from design, maybe from lack of forsight or simply lack of software technology when it was designed.

Anyways XP is designed to take advantage of faster computers. I figure that once you get above the performance level of a computer 1-1.5 gig cpu, 256Meg ram, 64Meg 3d card, and a 7200RPM HD you get a computer that is actually faster using XP then using a win9x series OS. Below that range to about a 700-800mhz computer and 128 megs it's kinda of a toss up between the 2 OSes, anything below that is definately a dog of a computer if your running XP, but would be quite responsive under win98 or that reject of a OS, winME.

Most common response in a customer service phone tech center:
".. ah, and what operating system are you running, please?"
"Oh, hmm.. ah yes here it is. Window M. E."
"I'm sorry"
"I said its "windows ME"."
"yes, I know..."

It seems like that in most modern OSes. You have to get as much as the OS you use regularly up into RAM. THe more usable data you can keep in RAM the more your performance increases. Windows 9x-era memory managment is so crappy that it won't be able to figure out what parts to keep up there and which parts to flush, so you are always accessing the HD. (not to mention the memory leaks were you always have diminising returns on usable space anyways) This wasn't a big deal when you only had 32-64Megs of RAM, since you'd always be accessing the harddrive anyways for cache and new data, but since the harddrive is rougly 10,000 times slower then main system RAM, it shows once you get more then 256megs or so.

 

[boran]

ooh ooh troll bashing, lemme join, lemme join

/me joins with a biiig club

°bash°

anyways serious for a sec, lemme be frank, I dont like XP, I really dont, but that's my personal opinion, and because it is based from the win2K kernel, which I totally love. both of them are good OS's and are miles ahead of any 9x or that bloody thing called an OS with designation ME, if there's one OS to bash it's ME, but hey that's my opinion, you just go on and use ME, it's your PC

 

[Spyro]

This thread has provided me with enough humour to make it through next week with a smile on my face. The first post in this thread is such an obvious trolling that I'm not even going to bother refuting it. I pity every who thinks that Windows ME is better at anything than Windows XP.(And I pity everyone that took him/her/it seriously to a slightly lesser degree.) That doesn't make any sense at all. Even Windows 98 is better than Windows ME. If you don't like windows get something different. Don't troll, trolling is bad karma.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Hehehe, I had the misfortune to use an ME equipped (or should I say ill-equipped) computer for about a month on a temporary assignment with a small firm. I was amazed at how bad that OS is. The computer had a network printer hooked up to it and every time someone would try to print to it the system would hard lock and I would have to power it off and restart. That along with other spontaneous lockups made for about 4-5 restarts per day.

Win ME sucks...period.

 

[Twista]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

No not a user error and xp setted it to do by itself.

I will bet significant cash that am right, it is a user error, and the picture you post does more to show me that. You see that little radio button that says "No paging file"? You know, the one that is selected? The user has to select that, Windows does not. Windows will never set that on it's own. You have a pagefile size of zero, regardless of what the "recommended" says. That's just what it is, a recommendation, not what Windows is using, which is shown after the "Currently allocated" entry. Where you see the big, fat, round 0. Try selecting "System managed size" and then you will have and use a swap file. I have worked on well over a hundred computers with 2000/XP installed and not one hs ever defaulted to "No paging file". Ever.

\Dan

Im on fire now! Its not a dang user error because my system is fresh and windows did set it and this is my 2nd time ever looking there and im not dumb enough to change that option and not it.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

No not a user error and xp setted it to do by itself.

I will bet significant cash that am right, it is a user error, and the picture you post does more to show me that. You see that little radio button that says "No paging file"? You know, the one that is selected? The user has to select that, Windows does not. Windows will never set that on it's own. You have a pagefile size of zero, regardless of what the "recommended" says. That's just what it is, a recommendation, not what Windows is using, which is shown after the "Currently allocated" entry. Where you see the big, fat, round 0. Try selecting "System managed size" and then you will have and use a swap file. I have worked on well over a hundred computers with 2000/XP installed and not one hs ever defaulted to "No paging file". Ever.

\Dan

Yea, Windows will never set it to 'no paging file' itself. The only possible reason it would do that, would be because its using an answer file during install for automated installs.

 

[RVN]

"I think we've all been brainwashed"???? ...We all know you have been brainwashed! It isn't just a popular thing to arbitrarily bash ME ...ME was a grotesque marketing ploy at putting "lipstick on a pig", a stop-gap for targeting "home" computer users with something between "98" (which is all it simply is) and XP. It attempted to "hide" DOS while hinting at not being DOS based, it added some updated graphics and settings ...it used FAT which could be problematic and unserviceable, even though it could have been re-designed to use NTFS, which was already found to be stable and "crashworthy" on NT and Win2K ...it "leaked" even more memory than 95 and 98 did. ME was released with many, many known bugs which is shameful given the fact that even after having been given years of opportunity to "fix" 98 ----- it did not even come close to improving upon it let alone fixing it.

If you're running a memory manager or tweaker program, this might lead to the apparition that the OS decided to not use a paging file ...running such a program or helper is user-initiated and not a decision made by Windows!

 

[pcman2002b]

Originally posted by: RobCur
XP is not the best OS, user are better off with ME, 2k, linux etc. I used XP for 2 week and I can say that it make my computer very sluggish, rebooting god took 30 sec not 5 sec like on 9x or me or 2k. Sorry but the truth is, most people like XP because it look nicer not because its faster or more stable. With 128mb I cannot do anything, with 512mb its like winme with 128mb. Because it such a resouces hog, it will crash when it wants to due to running out of resources or freeze up. Well anyway I decide to downgrade back to ME and everything is so much easier to navigate and my game run faster too by 50 percent.
Can someone splain to me why the swap file size always has to be at least 1.5-3x larger then your maximum ram. So if I have 1GB of ram, it would need at least 1.5gb of swap file for it to function properly at all? This is where it doesn't make sense. The only good thing about XP is that its putting alot of $$$ into bill gate's pocket and most people say its good. sorry I just don't buy that as its just overhyped and you know the truth lies somewhere from experience user like me.

Maybe you need to stop downloading and installing every program that comes along and looks interesting. Comet Cursor, Gator, Gator E-Wallet, RealOne, Windows Washer. Working in a computer store has proven one thing to me, people install everything they find that they think is interesting, then when it causes their computer to act funny they can't figure out why. I have Windows XP Pro on three home computers and it is very reliable and extremely fast, I wouldn't recommend running XP on 128MB of RAM, you don't get through life doing anything using the bare minimum.