Windows ME or 2000 instead of XP

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Bitstring <[email protected]>, from the

Its all about how cheap and easy it is to have lots of onboard memory these
days, of course memory still benefits from being managed, but significant
benefit -at least for perfectionists, can be gained from taking hard drives
out of the loop.

Nobody would disagree with that. Fit 2Gb of real RAM, assign 256MB of
page file for those 'allocated but never actually used' pages, and for
the 50MB that XP needs for a dump file, and for the ~40MB that XP swaps
out as soon as it loads (and never, afaict, swaps back in again), and
your system will fly.

I find with nt and 2k, if I set pagefile less than 1.5 times size of real
memory , I soon get alerts that the pagefile needs increased - well before
resources are getting scarce.

Well, I ran 2k Pro for several years, and never had the problem. I did
need =enough= page file, but when I doubled the RAM, I was able to
reduce the page file correspondingly.

MS still say '1.5x RAM' for page file, because this tech writers don't
know any better. They've been sating it for years .. it's left over from
multi-user OS days-of-yore, when rolling users out was something the OS
did quite often, and when real RAM was very expensive, and IT managers
balanced RAM & swapfile very carefully (and 1.5 was a reasonable answer
most times). These days people just stick in another Gig.

 

[Creeping Stone]

I find with nt and 2k, if I set pagefile less than 1.5 times size of real
memory , I soon get alerts that the pagefile needs increased - well before
resources are getting scarce.

Well, I ran 2k Pro for several years, and never had the problem. I did
need =enough= page file, but when I doubled the RAM, I was able to
reduce the page file correspondingly.

I suppose its feasible, I havent broken clear of a minimum threshold to
reduce swapping expectation,
~ *OR* by adding lots more Ram, one rarely reaches the 'feeling like I
should have 1.5x swapfile' threshold by never consuming enough Ram
available - keeps the system in 'green' sorta, avoiding 'amber' and 'red'
by sheer surplus of RAM.
If windows gets a sudden huge memory load accompanied by heavy disk load,
is that exacerbated by resulting activity to employ and grow the sub 1.5
swapfile /?
With my upto 512 meg experience, sub x1.5 pagefile allocation complains
'windows needs to increase..' as it runs through amber to red. Given x1.5
pagefile from start, it keeps quiet until I get 'insufficient memory..' and
the app crashes.

The beauty of looping the pagefile back into memory* via a kernel
ramdriver, is that everything stays smooth and disk i/o-less, even through
awol VM panic levels, and because the systems design goal is to cope even
with those levels via i/o, they get quite unexpectly dissolved by the
instant response provided by a good ramdrive, and you get to errant out of
memory level without having to chug through minutes of slow-mo disk
shenanigans.

(*into unmanaged memory, taken from windows with maxmem boot.ini switch)

When things have got overloaded, thats a situation when you particularly
dont want this slow memory management to occur. If the pagefile is
virtualised, it takes virtualy no time at all anyway.

 

[Creeping Stone]

data isquickly compressed into the pagefile as
its written so its useful in a way.

Correction - I would have thought this would be the case, since compression
is so quick, but I just checked by getting a copy of my pagefile while is
was apperently (rob nox's app) 64 megs full and run NTFS compression on the
copy, and it shrunk to 30 megs in size.
- So its probably not really getting compressed :[

 

[hawk]

Interesting. I have a PIII, 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM and a 6 GB hard drive
in a Sony laptop. I installed WinXp Home just as an experiment. I did
some of the optimization steps, turning off un-needed services, etc.
and have been very pleased with the performance. I will be leaving
WinXP on this laptop, which I use when travelling.

Regards, hawk

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

data isquickly compressed into the pagefile as
its written so its useful in a way.

Correction - I would have thought this would be the case, since compression
is so quick, but I just checked by getting a copy of my pagefile while is
was apperently (rob nox's app) 64 megs full and run NTFS compression on the
copy, and it shrunk to 30 megs in size.
- So its probably not really getting compressed :[

No, pagefile isn't compressed. The size of a VM page is 4k (which is why
4k clusters work so well), and compressing it would just confuse the
heck out of things, since page file is 'direct access', i.e. each 4k
page goes to a known spot on disk (which happens, normally to be a
single 4k cluster), and it is liable to be replaced at any time by some
other 4k page image .. imagine the confusion/fragmentation if the new
one would not compress to fit the slot the old one had.

 

[Creeping Stone]

data isquickly compressed into the pagefile as
its written so its useful in a way.

Correction - I would have thought this would be the case, since compression
is so quick, but I just checked by getting a copy of my pagefile while is
was apperently (rob nox's app) 64 megs full and run NTFS compression on the
copy, and it shrunk to 30 megs in size.
- So its probably not really getting compressed :[

No, pagefile isn't compressed. The size of a VM page is 4k (which is why
4k clusters work so well), and compressing it would just confuse the
heck out of things, since page file is 'direct access', i.e. each 4k
page goes to a known spot on disk (which happens, normally to be a
single 4k cluster), and it is liable to be replaced at any time by some
other 4k page image .. imagine the confusion/fragmentation if the new
one would not compress to fit the slot the old one had.

Well contrary as always; just because their is complexity to implementing
compression doesnt mean its not worth it. since compression does offer an
obvious benefit. Its simpler to implement quick enough without compression
for sure especialy in 386 code when the system was devised, but I still
think its desirable and doable for the ideal system on todays hardware

 

[Johannes H Andersen]

To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
How should it be tweaked?

 

[Doug Ramage]

To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
How should it be tweaked?

I have both an prefer XP pro - mainly 'cos I have a TFT monitor and prefer
ClearType font display.

 

[Johannes H Andersen]

I have both an prefer XP pro - mainly 'cos I have a TFT monitor and prefer
ClearType font display.

But then XP has the activation spectra hanging over it. I would hate the
hassle of being locked out from my data because I've temporarily added
another hard disk for ghosting or a TV card. Can you get ClearType for
Windows 2k?

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

I have both an prefer XP pro - mainly 'cos I have a TFT monitor and prefer
ClearType font display.

I actually paid real money to upgrade 2k to Xp Pro for just that same
reason .. SWMBO was going to lynch me over the quality of text display
on a TFT under Win2k.

Apart from that, and the fact that XP has a decent help system (and a
broken 'search' system) there isn't a heck of a lot of difference.

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Bitstring <40BB1B7C.3F08D217@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com>, from the
wonderful person Johannes H Andersen

But then XP has the activation spectra hanging over it. I would hate the
hassle of being locked out from my data because I've temporarily added
another hard disk for ghosting or a TV card.

Doesn't happen. Stop believing all the myths and check out the real
facts on XP activation at

http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm

Can you get ClearType for
Windows 2k?

No, or I would have done that.

 

[Doug Ramage]

But then XP has the activation spectra hanging over it. I would hate the
hassle of being locked out from my data because I've temporarily added
another hard disk for ghosting or a TV card. Can you get ClearType for
Windows 2k?

No ClearType for Windows 2000, AFAIK.

No XP activation needed for just adding a hard disk, nor (I think) TV Card.

 

[Creeping Stone]

To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?

I couldnt say, 'think theyre probably both as stable.
I want to do *nix soon anyway,

How should it be tweaked?

Except for minute gains, you only get modest benefits from tweaking aging
machines.

Hold on... stick the pagefile on a Ramdisk!

Ill get me coat ;}

 

[Larc]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:49:54 +0100, Johannes H Andersen

|
|
| Creeping Stone wrote:
| >
|
| >
| > > ... These days people just stick in another Gig.
|
| To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
| want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
| 2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
| How should it be tweaked?

XP Home... unless you specifically need one or more of the extra
features in Pro. Most people don't. "Pro" has a nice ring to it, but
the extra dollars are thrown away if somebody isn't going to use what
he's paying more for.

With 1GB of RAM (512MB in each of two channels?), specify a small
pagefile for C (2MB min and 50MB max). Create a 1GB partition at the
beginning of a second HDD or on your single HDD if you have only one.
Set your main pagefile there at 50MB min with full partition size as
max. Never put anything else in that 1GB partition.

That's the way mine is set up and XP is completely happy with it. It
has never even bothered to create the pagefile on C and rarely gets
beyond the 50MB minimum on D.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[Johannes H Andersen]

]
|
| To all you expert tweakoholics, I'm getting 1 Gig as dual channel and
| want to think as little as possible - it hurts. Wavering between
| 2k Pro and XP Pro for the new heap. Which one do you recommend?
| How should it be tweaked?

XP Home... unless you specifically need one or more of the extra
features in Pro. Most people don't. "Pro" has a nice ring to it, but
the extra dollars are thrown away if somebody isn't going to use what
he's paying more for.

I might need a "Pro" version for some MS.net & database work. OEM
versions doesn't cost much extra.

With 1GB of RAM (512MB in each of two channels?), specify a small
pagefile for C (2MB min and 50MB max). Create a 1GB partition at the
beginning of a second HDD or on your single HDD if you have only one.
Set your main pagefile there at 50MB min with full partition size as
max. Never put anything else in that 1GB partition.

That's the way mine is set up and XP is completely happy with it. It
has never even bothered to create the pagefile on C and rarely gets
beyond the 50MB minimum on D.

Thanks for that tip, worth a try.

 

[[ste parker]]

Bitstring <40BB1B7C.3F08D217@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com>, from the
wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
<johs@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com> said



Doesn't happen. Stop believing all the myths and check out the real
facts on XP activation at

http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm

Am I missing something, or does this not explain why I had to reactivate
after a. removing my drive with XP on it, b. testing various graphics
cards, network cards, sound cards in the box using an old windows
install on a seperate drive, c. putting all my old stuff back as before
(same PCI slots etc.) including the HD with XP? I'm just curious.....

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Am I missing something, or does this not explain why I had to
reactivate after a. removing my drive with XP on it, b. testing various
graphics cards, network cards, sound cards in the box using an old
windows install on a seperate drive, c. putting all my old stuff back
as before (same PCI slots etc.) including the HD with XP? I'm just
curious.....

Nope, AFAIK you should not have had to re-activate, unless maybe your
testing had caused the BIOS to come to different conclusions about
what-went-where, or had reset the MAC addresses on some LAN ports, or
whatever? Or maybe you only thought you got them back the same?

 

[[ste parker]]

Nope, AFAIK you should not have had to re-activate, unless maybe your
testing had caused the BIOS to come to different conclusions about
what-went-where, or had reset the MAC addresses on some LAN ports, or
whatever? Or maybe you only thought you got them back the same?

I believe I did get the network card & soundcard the wrong way round at
first (and it was at this point I had to reactivate), on top of that
since being on XP I have upgraded a Radeon 7200 to Radeon 9600, and
removed 256mb RAM. Still, even with those additions/removals from what
I make of things that still shouldn't have gone over any reactivation
thresholds should it? It doesn't really matter to me as I don't mind
reactivating, but I'm having a hard time getting anything better than a
fuzzy picture of what the criteria actually are. Is it possible at all
that the graphics card and other changes I made were recorded in the
BOIS and XP picked that up perchance?

 

[J. S. Pack]

Interesting. I have a PIII, 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM and a 6 GB hard drive
in a Sony laptop. I installed WinXp Home just as an experiment. I did
some of the optimization steps, turning off un-needed services, etc.
and have been very pleased with the performance. I will be leaving
WinXP on this laptop, which I use when travelling.

Regards, hawk

Besides the optimization steps (essential on an old system like that)
mentioned above (see blackviper.com for info on turning off services), I
recommend you consider running a faster, MUCH less memory-hogging, more
flexible shell like bblean (free) or Aston. Great free themes available for
both. (Check out http://www.astonshell.com/skins/index.php or
http://browse.deviantart.com/skins/themes/blackbox/
to see what your desktop *could* look like.) Learning curve required, small
w/ Aston, maybe large w/ bblean, depending on how knowledgeable you are. I
like either of these alternative shells better than explorer.

I run my old laptop (350, 128) w/ tweaked XP and Aston, and it runs about
as fast as Win98 did. Turn off System Restore (use free ERUNT on a
schedule) and hibernation. If your HD is correspondingly small you may want
to get XPlite to remove some of the bloat.

 

[Nick Pitfield]

Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
installed win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I
have used a friends celeron/128mb which is faster!)

I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor
and spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several
users (al la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.

We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more modern the os - the slower the result.

What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?

From the few machines I've seen running it, ME was a fetid pile of dingos
kidneys - and was actually a backwards step from 98SE.

Go for 2000 and update it to SP4 - best O/S that Microsoft have managed so
far.