Making XP desktop look like Win98

[thanatoid]

"HeyBub" wrote in

news:Owe2cVqBLHA.3840@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:



>> Have any of you followed

>> how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.



Unless you actually like it to have /some/ (such as they are)

shape, not just a flaccid (ahem) plastic bag.





--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[thanatoid]

"HeyBub" wrote in

news:Owe2cVqBLHA.3840@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:



>> Have any of you followed

>> how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.



Unless you actually like it to have /some/ (such as they are)

shape, not just a flaccid (ahem) plastic bag.





--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

> Robert Macy wrote:

>

> > Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

>

> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many benefits,

> none the least of which is that it is impossible for an ill-behaved program

> to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive multi-tasking. It is

> impossible for one application program to lock down a machine completely.A

> more robust file system that is less prone to error (NTFS), virtually

> unlimited memory space, and hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR

> superior to Win98 in almost every category.

>



These sound great, except I don't get to see their effects much. NT

base vs DOS base sounds higher level.

1. I don't have any applications that 'hog' the system

2. NTFS is less prone to error: Would I have seen this type of error?

3. Yes, unlimited memory space is an improvement, except WinXP seems

to be the one using that space

4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.



It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98



> > I

> > know there was an improvement for MS by requiring registration of the

> > product.  When I must use the WinXP, I miss the 'snappy' response

> > [even on a slower machine] of this Win98.

>

> XP does require better hardware, I'll give you that.



along with memory



>

> > Have any of you followed

> > how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.



what?

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

> Robert Macy wrote:

>

> > Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

>

> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many benefits,

> none the least of which is that it is impossible for an ill-behaved program

> to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive multi-tasking. It is

> impossible for one application program to lock down a machine completely.A

> more robust file system that is less prone to error (NTFS), virtually

> unlimited memory space, and hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR

> superior to Win98 in almost every category.

>



These sound great, except I don't get to see their effects much. NT

base vs DOS base sounds higher level.

1. I don't have any applications that 'hog' the system

2. NTFS is less prone to error: Would I have seen this type of error?

3. Yes, unlimited memory space is an improvement, except WinXP seems

to be the one using that space

4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.



It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98



> > I

> > know there was an improvement for MS by requiring registration of the

> > product.  When I must use the WinXP, I miss the 'snappy' response

> > [even on a slower machine] of this Win98.

>

> XP does require better hardware, I'll give you that.



along with memory



>

> > Have any of you followed

> > how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.



what?

 

[dadiOH]

Robert Macy wrote:

> On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

>> Robert Macy wrote:

>>

>>> Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

>>

>> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many

>> benefits, none the least of which is that it is impossible for an

>> ill-behaved program to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive

>> multi-tasking. It is impossible for one application program to lock

>> down a machine completely. A more robust file system that is less

>> prone to error (NTFS), virtually unlimited memory space, and

>> hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR superior to Win98 in

>> almost every category.

>>

>

> 4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

> what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

> minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

> immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.



That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your FUBARed install of it.



--



dadiOH

____________________________



dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[dadiOH]

Robert Macy wrote:

> On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

>> Robert Macy wrote:

>>

>>> Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

>>

>> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many

>> benefits, none the least of which is that it is impossible for an

>> ill-behaved program to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive

>> multi-tasking. It is impossible for one application program to lock

>> down a machine completely. A more robust file system that is less

>> prone to error (NTFS), virtually unlimited memory space, and

>> hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR superior to Win98 in

>> almost every category.

>>

>

> 4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

> what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

> minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

> immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.



That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your FUBARed install of it.



--



dadiOH

____________________________



dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[The poster formerly known as 'Th]

HeyBub wrote:

> Robert Macy wrote:

>> Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.



>> Have any of you followed

>> how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.

>



You must have a good set of lungs!

 

[The poster formerly known as 'Th]

HeyBub wrote:

> Robert Macy wrote:

>> Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.



>> Have any of you followed

>> how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.

>



You must have a good set of lungs!

 

[thanatoid]

"dadiOH" wrote in

news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:



> That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your

> FUBARed install of it.



While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited

experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with

64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or

XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than

200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed,

ever). It boots in 35 seconds.



I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it

takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and

"hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc.,

disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the

identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they

should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did

not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not.

During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the

IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it.



Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since

it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some

programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not

connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean

install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it.



Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not

sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and

complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW.





--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[thanatoid]

"dadiOH" wrote in

news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:



> That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your

> FUBARed install of it.



While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited

experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with

64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or

XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than

200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed,

ever). It boots in 35 seconds.



I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it

takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and

"hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc.,

disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the

identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they

should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did

not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not.

During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the

IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it.



Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since

it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some

programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not

connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean

install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it.



Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not

sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and

complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW.





--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Tim Meddick]

The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the need to

download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the link below :



Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :



http://download.microsoft.com/downl...a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe









==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.









"glee" wrote in message

news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> "dadiOH" wrote in message

> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but it

>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will keep

>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The old

>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

>>>

>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP look

>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a new

>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not required

>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

>>> junk.

>>>

>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

>>>

>>> Thanks

>>>

>>> Jerome

>>

>> Display Properties

>> Appearance tab

>> Windows and buttons

>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

>>

>> Right click the taskbar

>> Properties

>> Start Menu tab

>> Check "Classic Start menu"

>>

>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

>

>

> I would add one more:

> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is Tweak UI

> for XP from the package.

> Install and then run TweakUI.

> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic Search

> in Explorer" and select it.

> Click Apply> OK.

>

> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with the

> simpler Win2K search window.

>

> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

>

> This and other tips can be found here:

> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

>

> --

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

> A+

> http://dts-l.net/

>

 

[Tim Meddick]

The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the need to

download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the link below :



Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :



http://download.microsoft.com/downl...a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe









==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.









"glee" wrote in message

news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> "dadiOH" wrote in message

> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but it

>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will keep

>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The old

>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

>>>

>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP look

>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a new

>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not required

>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

>>> junk.

>>>

>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

>>>

>>> Thanks

>>>

>>> Jerome

>>

>> Display Properties

>> Appearance tab

>> Windows and buttons

>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

>>

>> Right click the taskbar

>> Properties

>> Start Menu tab

>> Check "Classic Start menu"

>>

>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

>

>

> I would add one more:

> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is Tweak UI

> for XP from the package.

> Install and then run TweakUI.

> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic Search

> in Explorer" and select it.

> Click Apply> OK.

>

> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with the

> simpler Win2K search window.

>

> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

>

> This and other tips can be found here:

> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

>

> --

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

> A+

> http://dts-l.net/

>

 

[Tim Meddick]

If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

automatically loaded into memory at start-up.



Start the Task-Manager (right-click on empty area of the taskbar, and

choose "Task Manager") and click on the heading "Mem Usage" so they are

arranged from high usage at the top down to lowest usage at the bottom.



Then read down the list to see if any running applications are "hogging"

memory - and if any of those high-memory-usage applications are really

necessary.



Win98 is just as susceptible to over and unnecessary use of memory, and can

be made to be just as slow loading applications if not enough free memory

is available.



But as time goes by, more software manufacturers are taking the liberty to

have components of their software auto-loaded at boot.



Examples of this are such as :



Google Updater (auto memory resident at boot)

Adobe Reader Speed Launcher (also loaded in memory at boot)



....and many other "auto updaters" and others, depending what software you

have installed on your system.



For a more detailed investigation of just what is running on your system,

download the [free] Microsoft program : "Process Explorer"



Download "Process Explorer" from the link below :



http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip



Also, to see exactly what is auto-loaded at boot time, try "AutoRuns" also

from Microsoft.



http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip



==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.









"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

> Robert Macy wrote:

>

> > Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

>

> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many

> benefits,

> none the least of which is that it is impossible for an ill-behaved

> program

> to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive multi-tasking. It is

> impossible for one application program to lock down a machine completely.

> A

> more robust file system that is less prone to error (NTFS), virtually

> unlimited memory space, and hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR

> superior to Win98 in almost every category.

>



These sound great, except I don't get to see their effects much. NT

base vs DOS base sounds higher level.

1. I don't have any applications that 'hog' the system

2. NTFS is less prone to error: Would I have seen this type of error?

3. Yes, unlimited memory space is an improvement, except WinXP seems

to be the one using that space

4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.



It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98



> > I

> > know there was an improvement for MS by requiring registration of the

> > product. When I must use the WinXP, I miss the 'snappy' response

> > [even on a slower machine] of this Win98.

>

> XP does require better hardware, I'll give you that.



along with memory



>

> > Have any of you followed

> > how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.



what?

 

[Tim Meddick]

If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

automatically loaded into memory at start-up.



Start the Task-Manager (right-click on empty area of the taskbar, and

choose "Task Manager") and click on the heading "Mem Usage" so they are

arranged from high usage at the top down to lowest usage at the bottom.



Then read down the list to see if any running applications are "hogging"

memory - and if any of those high-memory-usage applications are really

necessary.



Win98 is just as susceptible to over and unnecessary use of memory, and can

be made to be just as slow loading applications if not enough free memory

is available.



But as time goes by, more software manufacturers are taking the liberty to

have components of their software auto-loaded at boot.



Examples of this are such as :



Google Updater (auto memory resident at boot)

Adobe Reader Speed Launcher (also loaded in memory at boot)



....and many other "auto updaters" and others, depending what software you

have installed on your system.



For a more detailed investigation of just what is running on your system,

download the [free] Microsoft program : "Process Explorer"



Download "Process Explorer" from the link below :



http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip



Also, to see exactly what is auto-loaded at boot time, try "AutoRuns" also

from Microsoft.



http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip



==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.









"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

> Robert Macy wrote:

>

> > Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

>

> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many

> benefits,

> none the least of which is that it is impossible for an ill-behaved

> program

> to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive multi-tasking. It is

> impossible for one application program to lock down a machine completely.

> A

> more robust file system that is less prone to error (NTFS), virtually

> unlimited memory space, and hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR

> superior to Win98 in almost every category.

>



These sound great, except I don't get to see their effects much. NT

base vs DOS base sounds higher level.

1. I don't have any applications that 'hog' the system

2. NTFS is less prone to error: Would I have seen this type of error?

3. Yes, unlimited memory space is an improvement, except WinXP seems

to be the one using that space

4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.



It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98



> > I

> > know there was an improvement for MS by requiring registration of the

> > product. When I must use the WinXP, I miss the 'snappy' response

> > [even on a slower machine] of this Win98.

>

> XP does require better hardware, I'll give you that.



along with memory



>

> > Have any of you followed

> > how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

>

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.



what?

 

[dadiOH]

thanatoid wrote:

> "dadiOH" wrote in

> news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

>

>> That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your

>> FUBARed install of it.

>

> While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited

> experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with

> 64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or

> XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than

> 200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed,

> ever). It boots in 35 seconds.

>

> I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it

> takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and

> "hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc.,

> disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the

> identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they

> should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did

> not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not.

> During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the

> IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it.

>

> Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since

> it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some

> programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not

> connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean

> install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it.

>

> Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not

> sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and

> complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW.



My comment was directed at the OP's complaint that even simple programs took

a minute to start. That slow starting time isn't a characteristic of XP

itself, just of the OP's install of XP and/or the particular program(s).



As far as boot time goes, that also depends a lot on what is installed. I

have two XP installs, each on a different physical drive; the one normally

used - numerous programs installed - takes maybe 45 seconds to boot but once

the desktop appears it continues to grind the HD for about the same period.

The second XP install has very few programs on it, mostly for fixing

purposes; it will boot in maybe 25 seconds or less and is pretty much

finished when the desktop appears.



The windows directory for the main XP is 1.96 GB; for the #2 XP it is 1.06

GB. So why is #1 so much slower to boot? No idea.



Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I ever actually liked

was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is awful. I find it more reliable than

the previous MS offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for it...it allows

even the most inept user the illusion of computer literacy. If they

actually had to understand anything, how many computers do you think would

be sold? And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced operating

systems.



--



dadiOH

____________________________



dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[dadiOH]

thanatoid wrote:

> "dadiOH" wrote in

> news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

>

>> That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your

>> FUBARed install of it.

>

> While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited

> experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with

> 64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or

> XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than

> 200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed,

> ever). It boots in 35 seconds.

>

> I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it

> takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and

> "hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc.,

> disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the

> identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they

> should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did

> not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not.

> During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the

> IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it.

>

> Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since

> it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some

> programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not

> connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean

> install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it.

>

> Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not

> sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and

> complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW.



My comment was directed at the OP's complaint that even simple programs took

a minute to start. That slow starting time isn't a characteristic of XP

itself, just of the OP's install of XP and/or the particular program(s).



As far as boot time goes, that also depends a lot on what is installed. I

have two XP installs, each on a different physical drive; the one normally

used - numerous programs installed - takes maybe 45 seconds to boot but once

the desktop appears it continues to grind the HD for about the same period.

The second XP install has very few programs on it, mostly for fixing

purposes; it will boot in maybe 25 seconds or less and is pretty much

finished when the desktop appears.



The windows directory for the main XP is 1.96 GB; for the #2 XP it is 1.06

GB. So why is #1 so much slower to boot? No idea.



Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I ever actually liked

was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is awful. I find it more reliable than

the previous MS offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for it...it allows

even the most inept user the illusion of computer literacy. If they

actually had to understand anything, how many computers do you think would

be sold? And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced operating

systems.



--



dadiOH

____________________________



dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.



....snip....



What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.



....snip....



What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

 

[Mike S]

On 6/8/2010 2:33 PM, Robert Macy wrote:

> On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

>> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

>> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

>> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

>

> ...snip....

>

> What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

 

[Mike S]

On 6/8/2010 2:33 PM, Robert Macy wrote:

> On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

>> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

>> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

>> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

>

> ...snip....

>

> What gets me is that the applications is extremely small