rec.autos.simulators

by **Carl Ribbegaard** » Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:46:53

> >faster? which one? win2k and XP are slower than '95-'98 family.
> >And if the performance loss in process and DLL handling at least
> >improves stability, the user interface becomes just amazingly slow
> >for nothing.

> Er, that's why you disable all of the integrated web ***that XP
> defaults with and disable the services that you have no need for.

> My XP machine uses fewer resources, is more stable, and responds
> faster to input than any version of Win9x. The key is tuning your OS
> to your needs. I run one TSR (Sidewinder applet, which is needed to
> use split-axis with my wheel), only the services that are required for
> the OS to function, and have the GUI stripped down to near Win95a
> levels. Currently I'm running Agent, IE, and SecureCRT and have more
> resources available than I did in Windows 95 or 98 on a clean boot
> after a fresh install with all of the TSR's disabled on the same
> machine. Of course I'll have even more resources free when I add
> another gig and a half of RAM to this machine (which wouldn't be true
> in Win95/98). Win98 is pretty sweet tho if you don't mind only being
> able to reliably address 256mb of RAM.

> Jason

Good points Jason!

I'd like to add that it's also possible to enable/disable services for
different hardware profiles.
I have a hardware profile called simracing where the IIS is disabled, and a
development profile where I can start the IIS for ASPNet development. :-)

/Carl

by **Joachim Trens** » Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:09:49

;-)

Achim

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:55 +0100, "Joachim Trensz"

> >Only shows how poorly you had configured your Win98 ;-) <g,d&r>

> My Win98lite thank you very much. =p

> Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:30:33

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:46:53 +0100, "Carl Ribbegaardh"

>I'd like to add that it's also possible to enable/disable services for
>different hardware profiles.
>I have a hardware profile called simracing where the IIS is disabled, and a
>development profile where I can start the IIS for ASPNet development. :-)

I have a profile I do development in but it's called freeBSD. =)

Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:34:09

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:36:06 +0100, "Carl Ribbegaardh"

>How bout the line of server products? Development products?
>MS rules actually.

Depends on the scale really. For a small intranet or a workstation
environment while I'd rather use something else I'm ok with XP if it
keeps the guys who sign my checks happy. I honestly can say I've
never seen it scale very well when people have tried to. Granted,
when a problem happens in Windows it's generally easier to fix than in
BSD, Solaris, AIX, etc - instead of ripping apart hardware you're
generally dealing with a reboot. It's kinda frustrating tho when a
high-availability cluster needs to be rebooted every night because
otherwise it will die.

Jason

by **Larr** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:24:14

Yeah, you gotta hand it to someone who is now upgrading to the OS that is
being officially Unsupported by Microsoft in 3 months :)

Larry

> > As some of you may recall, I've been using Windows 95 for quite a while.
> > Well, yesterday I finally got enough time to try and upate to Windows
> 98SE.

> Oh, wauhh so you finally got win98 !!
> Where do you live Afghanistan ?? 8-)))

by **alex** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:43:37

>>faster? which one? win2k and XP are slower than '95-'98 family.
>>And if the performance loss in process and DLL handling at least
>>improves stability, the user interface becomes just amazingly slow for
>>nothing.

> Er, that's why you disable all of the integrated web ***that XP
> defaults with and disable the services that you have no need for.

> My XP machine uses fewer resources, is more stable, and responds
> faster to input than any version of Win9x. The key is tuning your OS
> to your needs. I run one TSR (Sidewinder applet, which is needed to
> use split-axis with my wheel),

You're a brave man! As much as I dislike MS interfaces I still keep
explorer.exe running (though from Win 95).
I guess if you strip down both OS to bare bones you'll get very
similar performances. In this case there won't be really much OS
is actually doing beside process management, context switching and
disk access. And anyway, something like prime number calculations
performance don't depend on OS you're running.

Point made by previous poster was that MS introduces new features
and advancements which are good, and the fact that you're getting
decently running system by removing 90+% of those innovations
must be telling something about them :)

Alex.

by **Jason Moy** » Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:49:40

>Point made by previous poster was that MS introduces new features
>and advancements which are good, and the fact that you're getting
>decently running system by removing 90+% of those innovations
>must be telling something about them :)

The only thing I'd consider innovative about XP is that the kernel
runs more efficiently. =)

Microsoft should be run out of business for this "OS as a web browser"
***they've been pushing since 95b.

Jason

rec.autos.simulators

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...

Semi-OT: I (finally!) updated my OS...