Lighten WinXP ?

[Eugenia]

Is it possible to have WinXP lightened up; to have only two accounts ? To
remove entirely - along with all associated folders, etc. - any excess
*useless/needless* accounts ? I'm the only user; no-one else uses or will
ever use this machine.

I've heard that one must keep the "guest account". <roll-eyes>. One probably
should need to maintain both an Admin account (OK) and one other account. Is
this true ?

I see in D:\Documents and Settings:
Admin
All Users
Default User
LocalService
NetworkService

and finally, "my user name" (my 'account')

Anyway, there seems to be a excess of bloat I don't want or will ever need
as far as "users" and accounts. Wish MS would have made XP for *one user*
and not an entire brigade. :-/

Thanks for any help or comments.

 

[Bob I]

The system requires each of those for a particular purpose. IF the site
of them bothers you, please return the folder view settings to the
default, so that system and hidden folders and files are not seen.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Is it possible to have WinXP lightened up; to have only two
accounts ? To remove entirely - along with all associated folders,
etc. - any excess *useless/needless* accounts ? I'm the only user;
no-one else uses or will ever use this machine.

I've heard that one must keep the "guest account". <roll-eyes>. One
probably should need to maintain both an Admin account (OK) and one
other account. Is this true ?

I see in D:\Documents and Settings:
Admin
All Users
Default User
LocalService
NetworkService

and finally, "my user name" (my 'account')

Anyway, there seems to be a excess of bloat I don't want or will
ever need as far as "users" and accounts. Wish MS would have made
XP for *one user* and not an entire brigade. :-/

Thanks for any help or comments.

You lack some basic understanding of how the underlying operating system
works/performs its daily tasks.

Windows XP does not care how many actual physical users utilize it. It is a
multi-user operating system, and like all multi-user operating systems, it
has some accounts that aren't utilized by physical beings and some that are
seldom (if ever) used by physical beings.

Example of those you will *never* logon to and see a desktop for - but exist
on your system right now - "NetworkService" and "LocalService". However -
those are necessary for the background processes probably going on right now
on your system. Another example of such an account is "Default User". This
is the basis for any new account that logs into your computer. Could you
erase its folders? Sure. It might cause you problems in the future (near
or far) - but it could be erased and would likely just be recreated by some
other account you don't know about when it becomes needed.

There is the built in guest account (disabled by default - so it is like it
is not even there anyway - literally) and the built-in administrator account
(cannot be deleted, can be renamed.) The second is good for those times
(and they can/do occur) you need a backdoor in your system because of some
incident. You could erase its folders if you desired (usually) and when/if
you logon again, it will use the settings under the "Default Users" folders
to create a new set for the administrator.

In other words - you are worrying over nothing. You looked in there and had
it set so you could see hidden and system files and saw too much and now you
think if you removed that 3-50MB of space, your computer would work faster,
be neater and you would feel happier in the world of computing. The truth
is that if you tried to remove these internal accounts, they would likely
just recreate themselves with some base values and do who-knows what to your
existing processes - perhaps causing havoc that you did not intend.

Every multi-user OS has accounts like these. In fact - I don't think there
are many - if any - single user OSes left out there. There's too much that
gets done in the background as some service account to maintain the
complexity so you don't have to worry with it to NOT have these accounts in
existence with the rights necessary to do their job.

 

[Eugenia]

For my own reasons I prefer to see "Hidden files and folders/System Folders"
at all times.
Thanks........................

"Bob I" pounced on keyboard: news:[email protected]...

 

[Bob I]

Then you will see the system required files and folders, in reality the
bloat is elsewhere. For instance, what do you have "temporary internet
files" cache set to?

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Is it possible to have WinXP lightened up; to have only two
accounts ? To remove entirely - along with all associated folders,
etc. - any excess *useless/needless* accounts ? I'm the only user;
no-one else uses or will ever use this machine.

I've heard that one must keep the "guest account". <roll-eyes>. One
probably should need to maintain both an Admin account (OK) and one
other account. Is this true ?

I see in D:\Documents and Settings:
Admin
All Users
Default User
LocalService
NetworkService

and finally, "my user name" (my 'account')

Anyway, there seems to be a excess of bloat I don't want or will
ever need as far as "users" and accounts. Wish MS would have made
XP for *one user* and not an entire brigade. :-/

You lack some basic understanding of how the underlying operating
system works/performs its daily tasks.

Windows XP does not care how many actual physical users utilize it.
It is a multi-user operating system, and like all multi-user
operating systems, it has some accounts that aren't utilized by
physical beings and some that are seldom (if ever) used by physical
beings.
Example of those you will *never* logon to and see a desktop for -
but exist on your system right now - "NetworkService" and
"LocalService". However - those are necessary for the background
processes probably going on right now on your system. Another
example of such an account is "Default User". This is the basis
for any new account that logs into your computer. Could you erase
its folders? Sure. It might cause you problems in the future
(near or far) - but it could be erased and would likely just be
recreated by some other account you don't know about when it
becomes needed.
There is the built in guest account (disabled by default - so it is
like it is not even there anyway - literally) and the built-in
administrator account (cannot be deleted, can be renamed.) The
second is good for those times (and they can/do occur) you need a
backdoor in your system because of some incident. You could erase
its folders if you desired (usually) and when/if you logon again,
it will use the settings under the "Default Users" folders to
create a new set for the administrator.
In other words - you are worrying over nothing. You looked in
there and had it set so you could see hidden and system files and
saw too much and now you think if you removed that 3-50MB of space,
your computer would work faster, be neater and you would feel
happier in the world of computing. The truth is that if you tried
to remove these internal accounts, they would likely just recreate
themselves with some base values and do who-knows what to your
existing processes - perhaps causing havoc that you did not intend.
Every multi-user OS has accounts like these. In fact - I don't
think there are many - if any - single user OSes left out there. There's
too much that gets done in the background as some service
account to maintain the complexity so you don't have to worry with
it to NOT have these accounts in existence with the rights
necessary to do their job.

If you concern is actually some obsession space and not just some need to
feel isolated on your own computer, then I have a few suggestions to
optimize your space usage you may find useful...

If you are comfortable with the stability of your system, you can delete the
uninstall files for the patches that Windows XP has installed...
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spack.htm

Used Disk Cleanup?
Is hibernate turned on and do you use that feature?
Uninstalled unnecessary applications lately?

You can run Disk Cleanup - built into Windows XP - to erase all but your
latest restore point and cleanup even more "loose files"..

How to use Disk Cleanup
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310312

You can turn off hibernation if it is on and you don't use it..

When you hibernate your computer, Windows saves the contents of the system's
memory to the hiberfil.sys file. As a result, the size of the hiberfil.sys
file will always equal the amount of physical memory in your system. If you
don't use the hibernate feature and want to recapture the space that Windows
uses for the hiberfil.sys file, perform the following steps:

- Start the Control Panel Power Options applet (go to Start, Settings,
Control Panel, and click Power Options).
- Select the Hibernate tab, clear the "Enable hibernation" check box, then
click OK; although you might think otherwise, selecting Never under the
"System hibernates" option on the Power Schemes tab doesn't delete the
hiberfil.sys file.
- Windows will remove the "System hibernates" option from the Power Schemes
tab and delete the hiberfil.sys file.

You can control how much space your System Restore can use...

1. Click Start, right-click My Computer, and then click Properties.
2. Click the System Restore tab.
3. Highlight one of your drives (or C: if you only have one) and click on
the "Settings" button.
4. Change the percentage of disk space you wish to allow.. I suggest 5% or
higher.
5. Click OK.. Then Click OK again.

You can control how much space your Temporary Internet Files can utilize...

Empty your Temporary Internet Files and shrink the size it stores to a
size between 128MB and 512MB..

- Open ONE copy of Internet Explorer.
- Select TOOLS -> Internet Options.
- Under the General tab in the "Temporary Internet Files" section, do the
following:
- Click on "Delete Cookies" (click OK)
- Click on "Settings" and change the "Amount of disk space to use:" to
something between 64MB and 256MB. (Betting it is MUCH larger right
now.)
- Click OK.
- Click on "Delete Files" and select to "Delete all offline contents"
(the checkbox) and click OK. (If you had a LOT, this could take 2-10
minutes or more.)
- Once it is done, click OK, close Internet Explorer, re-open Internet
Explorer.

You can use an application that scans your system for log files and
temporary files and use that to get rid of those:

Ccleaner (Free!)
http://www.ccleaner.com/

Other ways to free up space..

SequoiaView
http://www.win.tue.nl/sequoiaview/

DX Hog Hunt
http://www.dvxp.com/en/Downloads.aspx

JDiskReport
http://www.jgoodies.com/freeware/jdiskreport/index.html

Those can help you visually discover where all the space is being used.

 

[Eugenia]

<in-line>

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message

You lack some basic understanding of how the underlying operating system
works/performs its daily tasks.

Do I ? Thanks for the personal evaluation. :-|

Windows XP does not care how many actual physical users utilize it. It is a
multi-user operating system, and like all multi-user operating systems, it
has some accounts that aren't utilized by physical beings and some that are
seldom (if ever) used by physical beings.

I noticed that. Hence my: "Wish MS would have made XP for *one user* and not
an entire brigade."

Example of those you will *never* logon to and see a desktop for - but exist
on your system right now - "NetworkService" and "LocalService". However -
those are necessary for the background processes probably going on right now
on your system.

Another example of such an account is "Default User". This

is the basis for any new account that logs into your computer.

There will be no new accounts on this PC.

Could you erase its folders? Sure.
It might cause you problems in the future (near or far) - but it
could be erased and would likely just be recreated by some
other account you don't know about when it becomes needed.

Such as which "some other account" ?

There is the built in guest account (disabled by default - so it is like it
is not even there anyway - literally) and the built-in administrator account
(cannot be deleted, can be renamed.) The second is good for those times
(and they can/do occur) you need a backdoor in your system because of some
incident.

I already understand the need for an Admin account.

You could erase its folders if you desired (usually) and when/if
you logon again, it will use the settings under the "Default Users" folders
to create a new set for the administrator.

I have no desire to delete or alter the Admin account.

In other words - you are worrying over nothing.

Poor word choice (IF *I* may be so bold) ; I am not "worrying".

You looked in there and had
it set so you could see hidden and system files

That's right. I've always had and will always enable that function. That is
true for both of my OS's (W98se and WinXP Pro) on this dual-boot setup with
two separate hard-drives (40GB and GB500).

and saw too much
???

and now you
think if you removed that 3-50MB of space, your computer would work faster,
be neater and you would feel happier in the world of computing.

Are you some sort of long distance wanna-be Psychologist ? Please be so kind
as to confine your replies to those which pertain to the question and System
at hand and not try to level any prsesumptive critiques of what I'm thinking
or am not thinking.

The truth
is that if you tried to remove these internal accounts, they would likely
just recreate themselves with some base values and do who-knows what to your
existing processes - perhaps causing havoc that you did not intend.

I should have been more precise. I realize that these "accounts" at root
level (specifically, LocalService and NetworkService) are fundamental. I
really wondered more about this Default and All Users. I know that W98se has
All Users and Local Settings; probably a similar relation in W98se as are
"Default and All Users" in WinXP.

Thanks

Every multi-user OS has accounts like these. In fact - I don't think there
are many - if any - single user OSes left out there. There's too much that
gets done in the background as some service account to maintain the
complexity so you don't have to worry with it to NOT have these accounts in
existence with the rights necessary to do their job.

Again... "thanks".

 

[Eugenia]

That's not where XP's "bloat" resides. It's XP itself.
But if you wish to know, it's set at 100 MB. (and I clear cache *regularly*;
at least 2-3-4 times a day.) Same for my W98se and have performed Deltree on
occasion to reset Index.dat.

That's not what I was talking about anyway. I define bloat as WMP 9 /10,
Adobe Acrobat (amongst others) and..... WinXP.

Thanks for the 'help'.

"Bob I" again went to press with:

 

[Eugenia]

<inline> But first:
New subject: *Streamline WinXP Pro*. ;-)

Shenan Stanley wrote:

If you concern is actually some obsession space

As you may have read by now, I have plenty of space.;-) I'm not talkng
"space".

and not just some need to
feel isolated on your own computer,

"isolated ?" *ggg* "I am the cat that walks by herself" (and likes it like
that). ;-)

then I have a few suggestions to
optimize your space usage you may find useful...

Thanks for the links Shenan. *smile* I know of mostly every one of them. I
employ most regular maintenence details on a very regular basis. But, since
you 'don't know me', you must diagnose and guess from afar. Thanks; I
understand how it is. *smile*

**However, I now realize I should have posted the subject as "Streamline
WinXP"; my mistake. :-( **

If you are comfortable with the stability of your system, you can delete the
uninstall files for the patches that Windows XP has installed...
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spack.htm

Jupiter's website IIRC.

Used Disk Cleanup?

I have

Is hibernate turned on and do you use that feature?

No, and no.

Uninstalled unnecessary applications lately?

Only have 10 apps installed. lol
I solely have and only use XP for the few apps which cannot be run in w9x.
That's it.

You can run Disk Cleanup - built into Windows XP - to erase all but your
latest restore point and cleanup even more "loose files"..

How to use Disk Cleanup
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310312

You can turn off hibernation if it is on and you don't use it..

When you hibernate your computer, Windows saves the contents of the system's
memory to the hiberfil.sys file. As a result, the size of the hiberfil.sys
file will always equal the amount of physical memory in your system. If you
don't use the hibernate feature and want to recapture the space that Windows
uses for the hiberfil.sys file, perform the following steps:

- Start the Control Panel Power Options applet (go to Start, Settings,
Control Panel, and click Power Options).
- Select the Hibernate tab, clear the "Enable hibernation" check box, then
click OK; although you might think otherwise, selecting Never under the
"System hibernates" option on the Power Schemes tab doesn't delete the
hiberfil.sys file.
- Windows will remove the "System hibernates" option from the Power Schemes
tab and delete the hiberfil.sys file.

You can control how much space your System Restore can use...

1. Click Start, right-click My Computer, and then click Properties.
2. Click the System Restore tab.
3. Highlight one of your drives (or C: if you only have one) and click on
the "Settings" button.
4. Change the percentage of disk space you wish to allow.. I suggest 5% or
higher.
5. Click OK.. Then Click OK again.

You can control how much space your Temporary Internet Files can utilize...

Empty your Temporary Internet Files and shrink the size it stores to a
size between 128MB and 512MB..

That almost sounds like a RAM size.(not what I use, but.... *smile*)

- Open ONE copy of Internet Explorer.
- Select TOOLS -> Internet Options.
- Under the General tab in the "Temporary Internet Files" section, do the
following:
- Click on "Delete Cookies" (click OK)
- Click on "Settings" and change the "Amount of disk space to use:" to
something between 64MB and 256MB. (Betting it is MUCH larger right
now.)

*Wrong*. 100 MB.
Thanks for these links, the procedures and the time you've taken to assist.
Tack så mycket. )

Eugenia

- Click OK.
- Click on "Delete Files" and select to "Delete all offline contents"
(the checkbox) and click OK. (If you had a LOT, this could take 2-10
minutes or more.)
- Once it is done, click OK, close Internet Explorer, re-open Internet
Explorer.

You can use an application that scans your system for log files and
temporary files and use that to get rid of those:

Ccleaner (Free!)
http://www.ccleaner.com/

Other ways to free up space..

SequoiaView
http://www.win.tue.nl/sequoiaview/

DX Hog Hunt
http://www.dvxp.com/en/Downloads.aspx

JDiskReport
http://www.jgoodies.com/freeware/jdiskreport/index.html

Those can help you visually discover where all the space is being used.

Thanks again.
Eugenia

 

[Bob I]

Sounds like a lot of work to me and no return on the investment. ;-)

 

[Eugenia]

<top post>
Quite a coincidence, as that was exactly what I was thinking....lol

<paste quote>
....what do you have "temporary internet files" cache set to?
</paste quote>

Cheers.:-D

"Bob I" composed: news:[email protected]...

Sounds like a lot of work to me and no return on the investment. ;-)

<snip>

 

[Patrick Keenan]

Is it possible to have WinXP lightened up; to have only two accounts ? To
remove entirely - along with all associated folders, etc. - any excess
*useless/needless* accounts ? I'm the only user; no-one else uses or will
ever use this machine.

Technically, you *won't* be the only user, and this misunderstanding may be
the source of some of your concern here.

Applications and utiltities which run as services use service-level accounts
to do so, and are system users. XP has two accounts to permit these to run
at different security levels than a "human" user account.

I've heard that one must keep the "guest account". <roll-eyes>.

You can disable it. There are no Guest structures on my systems.

One probably
should need to maintain both an Admin account (OK) and one other account.
Is
this true ?

Yes. The Admin account is for necessary maintenance and user account
creation when a user profile corrupts.

The User account is what you should be using, never the Admin account.

I see in D:\Documents and Settings:
Admin

Which you must not delete or disable or use as the basic account, at risk of
having to wipe the system in case of failure.

All Users

This isn't really a user account in the sense that you can log into it. It
is basically a folder structure that makes files and applications available
to all accounts. You can empty its folders if you don't want this to
happen. Move the contents to your user account.

Default User

This is basically a "template" structure used for creating user accounts.
On my system, it's approximately 1 meg.

Again, you can't log into it, so it isn't really a user account in the sense
of Administrator or User.

LocalService
NetworkService

These two are system accounts and allow system users, which can be
*applications*, access to system services at specific security levels.
Again on my system both are around 1 meg.

and finally, "my user name" (my 'account')

Anyway, there seems to be a excess of bloat I don't want or will ever need
as far as "users" and accounts.

I am not sure that a total of 3 meg over three accounts qualifies as
"bloat".

I am also not sure that allowing services to run at restricted security
levels is "bloat".

Wish MS would have made XP for *one user*
and not an entire brigade. :-/

You can wish this, of course. However, they didn't, partly because it
isn't really a great idea on a general-purpose system like a PC.

Thanks for any help or comments.

Some of these structures you simply have to live with or move to another OS
that has different design, but you will find that other OS's have similar
structures.

HTH
-pk

 

[Eugenia]

:


Technically, you *won't* be the only user, and this misunderstanding may be
the source of some of your concern here.

Seemingly thanks to the way that MS_XP have "stepped in" for the users
benefit. (???)

Applications and utiltities which run as services use service-level accounts
to do so, and are system users. XP has two accounts to permit these to run
at different security levels than a "human" user account.


You can disable it. There are no Guest structures on my systems.

It is disabled. (but not removeable, as you know)

Yes. The Admin account is for necessary maintenance and user account
creation when a user profile corrupts.

The User account is what you should be using, never the Admin account.

That's as I do. (although I also have admin ability, IIRC)

Which you must not delete or disable or use as the basic account, at risk of
having to wipe the system in case of failure.

I don't.

This isn't really a user account in the sense that you can log into it. It
is basically a folder structure that makes files and applications available
to all accounts. You can empty its folders if you don't want this to
happen. Move the contents to your user account.

24.3 MB / 63 Folders / 177 Files.

This is where there's duplication of some items. Annoying, just having them
there. One does a search F/F and there's results shown from that directory
(which I don't want in any case. Not as an item, nor as a search result.
Yes, I could specify the exact user account, and add that extra step to my
search; just what I want, an extra step.

This is basically a "template" structure used for creating user accounts.
On my system, it's approximately 1 meg.\

346 KB / 34 Folders / 50 files

Again, you can't log into it, so it isn't really a user account in the sense
of Administrator or User.


These two are system accounts and allow system users, which can be
*applications*, access to system services at specific security levels.
Again on my system both are around 1 meg.

LocalService - 564Kb / 31 folders /20 files
NetworkService/ - 486 Kb / 26 folders / 14 files

I am not sure that a total of 3 meg over three accounts qualifies as
"bloat".

In that case, no; not "bloat", but a commencement; a duplication. Things
that *one sole user* might not need to have. That's all I'm saying. One
rubbish sack left lying around - though small - is still rubbish
nonetheless.

And again, my *mistake* in terms of word selection. I should have said
**STREAMLINE**. ok ?

And I've some confidence that some might dispute as to whether XP is bloated
or not anyway.

I am also not sure that allowing services to run at restricted security
levels is "bloat".


You can wish this, of course.

And I do. XP was 'supposed to be an 'improved W98se'. What a price.... And
now there's Vista. lol (no way in hades)

However, they didn't, partly because it isn't really a
great idea on a general-purpose system like a PC.

And why is that ?

Some of these structures you simply have to live with or move to another OS
that has different design, but you will find that other OS's have similar
structures.

*now* they do/might have.

At the risk of being redundant, I rarely use XP. I only use it for seldom
used applications - which *sadly* - will only run in an NT environment.
There's some things of XP which I do like (over my workhorse - W98se).
Equally, there's as much about XP which I despise.Equally, there's much
about 98se I prefer.
Anyway, the upshot is, that although I use it only occasionally, it is
annoying to me to have these extra items of which I "complain". (I'm not
"worrying' about it. I simply don't like it, that's all).

The rports given above also reflect the current status of this XP Pro
system; just re-installed fresh, < 1 month ago. It wasn't broken, corrupted,
or anything like that. I simply added a new larger hard-drive and
re-installed it.
To re-install XP is but a small task for me; It's always relatively empty.

HTH
-pk

Yes... thank you.

 

[HeyBub]

That's not where XP's "bloat" resides. It's XP itself.

Quite possibly. The XP code could have been written with magnitudes less
instructions, bloat, redundancy, and duplication (and bugs).

But neither you - nor anyone else - could afford it.

Heck, the federal government can't even afford to re-write the air traffic
control software or even the on-board software for the space shuttle.

 

[Eugenia]

<in-line>
"HeyBub" pecked away at keyboard:

Quite possibly.

It is bloated. Compared with 98se, far more bloat. (Please, - from no-one -
no comments on how much more secure XP is. Secunia has plenty to say on that
matter. For those who must, please have a look....)

98se
http://secunia.com/product/13/
XP Pro
http://secunia.com/product/22/

The XP code could have been written with magnitudes less

instructions, bloat, redundancy, and duplication (and bugs).

I'd agree (in principle). Not that I'd know how to do so.

But neither you - nor anyone else - could afford it.

Heck, the federal government can't even afford to re-write the air traffic
control software or even the on-board software for the space shuttle.

Yes... I noticed. :-D
http://geocities.com/tiensoon_law/images/blog_comic_pleaseRegister.jpgAnother instance of "less is (costs) more". lol
Shoes... the more "holes", the more they cost. Cheese... Swiss.... the more
holes, the more it costs. Funny isn't it, Windows has a lot of holes too ?
Costs plenty as it is. lol

Cheers.

 

[dobey]

It is bloated. Compared with 98se, far more bloat. (Please, - from
no-one -
no comments on how much more secure XP is. Secunia has plenty to say on
that
matter. For those who must, please have a look....)

98se
http://secunia.com/product/13/
XP Pro
http://secunia.com/product/22/

What's the point - your not bright enough to understand what you've read at
that site anyway.

"32 Secunia Advisories in 2003-2007"

What a surprise - 3 years after product stopped shipping and a few million
less internet users there are fewer advisories. I bet Windows 3.11 would
have had none.
Why not use this product, over 20% less advisories
http://secunia.com/product/393/

XP is a multi user system. That's what it does

You could try turning off fast user switching, since you don't use it and
set the PC so your account logs on automatically.

You could turn to some other OS.

 

[dobey]

<in-line>

Such as which "some other account" ?

Such as a programs written for XP that allows you to install for current
user only or all users.

Many programs don't ask this question and just install for all users,
meaning it will place a shortcut on the all users start menu. This will
cause the link to appear on all user accounts, current or yet to be created.

This means it will either recreate the directory tree to the all users start
menu, or maybe even throw up an error if the directory doesn't exist.

It sounds more like you want to disable unneeded services.

I would suggest you change the Windows Explorer file view to list, and only
enable thumbnail view or detail view on directories you need them. In detail
view get rid of extraneous columns like "dimensions".

All of this extra information takes more time to gather and list on the
screen.

Be careful though. Any tweak you make or service you disable may cause
something else to fail later on.

I'm sure there are web sites dealing with making XP run with the least
overhead.

<snip>

 

[dobey]

Seemingly thanks to the way that MS_XP have "stepped in" for the users
benefit. (???)

It is disabled. (but not removeable, as you know)

That's as I do. (although I also have admin ability, IIRC)

I don't.

<snip>

<sigh>

Running as an account with Admin privileges is the same as being logged in
as Admin, so you run the same risk.

Not that I blame you - I often run into problems when I create a limited
user account for someone, only to find a program won't run unless it's under
an admin account, or more annoyingly exits without any message.

This is more to do with lazy programming than XPs fault.

I did have one user with a limited account install an old version of
quicktime which managed to make system wide changes.

That seems like XPs fault to me.

 

[Eugenia]

What's the point - your not bright enough to understand what you've read at
that site anyway.

If you want to help someone or add some comment from the stale peanut
gallery, might I suggest you don't start off by insulting them ?

At any rate, I'm bright enough to know the difference between a contraction
of two words and that of a possessive pronoun, unlike a certain wise-acre,
who starts off by "helping" - a few days late, a dollar short, and couple of
bits short of a byte - on a very negative note.

"32 Secunia Advisories in 2003-2007"

What a surprise -

Not at all; yet another clairvoyant - from afar - in a newsgroup. Why am I
not shocked ? lol

3 years after product stopped shipping and a few million
less internet users there are fewer advisories. I bet Windows 3.11 would
have had none.
Why not use this product, over 20% less advisories
http://secunia.com/product/393/

And of course, dopey (oops... typo), deliberately takes my comment as a
challenge to off-handedly support XP's more secure status <coff> by
comparing with a product that has very little in common with W98se and
WinXP, despite my request to avoid such unnecessary banter..

I could give several reasons, but why bother to explain it to someone who
has offered no useful information ?
Lastly, this place is full of long-distance, would be mind-readers. "....
your (sic) not bright enough.....".
How the f*** would you know ? Have we ever met ? I suggest that you demand
a refund from that mind-reading academy you found on the cover of that book
of matches...

All you've offered below - which I will not address - is aready *known*. and
doesn't speak at all to what I tried to make clear in subsequent posts.

How's all of the above for an insult ? Do you like it ? Hoping you do. If
not... too flipping bad.

So... on this note, I bid you a fond *plonk*.

 

[Eugenia]

"d'oh". Almost, but no quite, helpful. <roll-eyes> An improvement, but
frankly, you started off on a bad note with me and have thus far - though
more civil in your manner - offered nothing I didn't already know.

As for your <that's a possessive pronoun> being "...sure there are web sites
dealing with making XP run with the least overhead.", you offered no links
(probably because I didn't give you a head start, such as I did at Secunia).
That is not an "invitation" to you anyway, so please don't bother - I can
manage by myself.

Yes... too bad you didn't start off on a more positive, less slanderous
tenor; we'd not be where we have now arrived.

goodbye.