Windows XP Performance

Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I have found that XP is
quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using "Turn Off" about every 1 in 5 times instead of
"Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and off than Turn Off, but - not to get too
technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.
--
~~~al.kubeluis..md.usa.earth.sun.milkyway.virgo.universe..corsa~~~

 

"Al Kubeluis" skrev...
> Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP.

M.

 

I stopped using hibernate or any variant such as instant-on years ago. It has never been trustworthy
for me. On the other hand, XP Professional has been a dream operating system since I upgraded my
computer from ME. XP has been damn near bombproof.

--
Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush "Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I have found that XP
> is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using "Turn Off" about every 1 in 5 times instead
> of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and off than Turn Off, but -
not
> to get too technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.
> --
> ~~~al.kubeluis..md.usa.earth.sun.milkyway.virgo.universe..corsa~~~

 

OK, can any XPerts tell me why my box sits there doing something anonymous and strange in the
background and not letting me operate the "Start" menu for a Several of minutes every time it starts
up? It is most confusing, especially as it didn't do it before I had to reinstall everything...

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

XP is loading programs, scanning registry files and dialing Quantico.

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, can any XPerts tell me why my box sits there doing something anonymous and strange in the
> background and not letting me operate the "Start" menu for a Several of minutes every time it
> starts up? It is most confusing, especially as it didn't do it before I had to reinstall
> everything...
>
> Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
> ===========================================================
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ===========================================================

 

"Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I have found that XP
> is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using "Turn Off" about every 1 in 5 times instead
> of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and off than Turn Off, but
> - not to get too technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.
> --
> ~~~al.kubeluis..md.usa.earth.sun.milkyway.virgo.universe..corsa~~~
>
>

I HAD been very happy with XP. Until the last series of updates that stopped all kinds of things
from working! No autofill, password recall, etc Been a B*TCH.

 

Wrong. It is dialing John Ashcroft.

--
Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush

"Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message> XP is .... dialing Quantico.

 

LOL. I have to jump in here. I'm a programmer, I've used every version of Windows since 3.0, work
with it every day and of course assist a number of friends and relatives with their home systems. I
have never, in any release or version of Windows, on any brand of PC, seen a case where
sleep/standby/restore/shutdown etc. work correctly or reliably. It's become a standing joke with me
and some of my co-workers. Every new version of Windows adds more confusing variations on these
features - which hardly anyone seems to want, anyway. Microsoft and the various hardware vendors
have never gotten all the bugs out of that stuff and I don't believe they ever will.

 

Dave, If you have Windows Image Acquisition or Background Intelligent Service running it can cause
that. Do Start>Run>Run "msconfig" and check the Services tab to see if they are running, or
Start>run>"services.msc" to disable them. Also, disable indexing. This site, albeit apparently
designed for younger rods and cones than my eyes have, has excellent tips for XP/NT. Check downloads
for BootVis. It works http://www.ntfs.org/index.php bill g

Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> OK, can any XPerts tell me why my box sits there doing something anonymous and strange in the
> background and not letting me operate the "Start" menu for a Several of minutes every time it
> starts up? It is most confusing, especially as it didn't do it before I had to reinstall
> everything...
>
> Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
> ===========================================================
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ===========================================================

 

Dave, Click on start and then run and put in msconfig then go to the startup tab. Look through it
and uncheck things like real player, windows media player, winzip etc. Many programs automatically
check to run on startup when you install them. Joe Elmira NY Wishbone #56

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> OK, can any XPerts tell me why my box sits there doing something anonymous and strange in the
> background and not letting me operate the "Start" menu for a Several of minutes every time it
> starts up? It is most confusing, especially as it didn't do it before I had to reinstall
> everything...
>
> Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
> ===========================================================
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ===========================================================

 

I think I'll switch to Linex.

"Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I have found that XP
> is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using "Turn Off" about every 1 in 5 times instead
> of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and off than Turn Off, but - not to get too
> technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.

 

You might have a hard time finding info on setting up and maintaining that OS. You might instead try
Linux. ;-)

Rob

"Gary Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think I'll switch to Linex.
>
>
>
> "Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I
have
> > found that XP is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using
"Turn
> > Off" about every 1 in 5 times instead of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and
> > off than Turn Off, but -
not
> > to get too technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.

 

[email protected] (Gary Krause) wrote in news:[email protected]:

> I think I'll switch to Linex.
>
>
>
> "Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I have found that XP
>> is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using "Turn Off" about every 1 in 5 times
>> instead of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and off than Turn Off, but
>> - not to get too technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.
>

Better be prepared for a LOT more setup hassles (from what I've read).

 

Try Kleenux.

--
Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush "Gary Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think I'll switch to Linex.
>
>
>
> "Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I
have
> > found that XP is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using
"Turn
> > Off" about every 1 in 5 times instead of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and
> > off than Turn Off, but -
not
> > to get too technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.

 

Actually, I realized the typo after I had sent the message. Even misspelled, it's still a better
operating system.

"Rob Rudeski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<dq%[email protected]>...
> You might have a hard time finding info on setting up and maintaining that OS. You might instead
> try Linux. ;-)
>
> Rob
>
> "Gary Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I think I'll switch to Linex.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I
> have
> > > found that XP is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using
> "Turn
> > > Off" about every 1 in 5 times instead of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on
> > > and off than Turn Off, but -
> not
> > > to get too technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.

 

"Robert Siegel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I stopped using hibernate or any variant such as instant-on years ago. It has never been
> trustworthy for me. On the other hand, XP Professional has been a dream operating system since I
> upgraded my computer from ME. XP
has
> been damn near bombproof.

Windows ME was a bad joke. What a steaming pile of manure it was. Even if you knew exactly how to
disarm its stupid "helpful" features, it was slow and unreliable.

Windows XP is really just Windows 2000 v2.0 with a lot of gew-gaw slapped on for looks. Windows
NT/2000/XP is actually just good old IBM/Micro$oft OS/2. Yep, no kidding. It's an IBM product, with
a lot of junk piled on. Microsoft likes to tout XP's estimated 40 million lines of source code. Of
course, real programmers like to chuckle about anyone who brags about large amounts of source code,
since that's evidence of poor programming technique. It would be a bit like bragging that your bike
is very heavy and slow, as if that were a benefit. (We all know Windows is slow - and it's also
bloated! Yay!)

Don't get me wrong - I use Windows 2000 and XP every day. They are indeed reasonably stable,
although many of the included apps are *not* stable (Outlook Express 6, Explorer.exe, MSIE6) and
crash all the time on my machine. MS Office is famously bug-ridden, and I can vouch for that. It's
actually getting worse as feature bloat grows to ridiculous new levels.

If you want truly amazing stability, try Red Hat Linux 7.3. It's quite a nice desktop OS, with
Ximian Evolution (Outlook clone) and OpenOffice (MS Office clone), AbiWord and other freeware
productivity apps running under KDE or Gnome GUI's. Installation is painless, and the installer
boots from a CDROM. If you have an old PC laying around, give it a try.

Did I mention that it's FREE? You can download the .ISO images for all installation CDROM's for
almost any version of Linux, including Red Hat. Lindows is supposed to be the best mimic of Windows;
but it's not freely downloadable as a compiled binary.

-Barry

 

"MLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Gary Krause) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > I think I'll switch to Linex.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Al Kubeluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Hi Bentgeeks, Some here have expressed performance problems with Windows XP. I have found that
> >> XP is quite good as long as you "Turn Off Computer" using "Turn Off" about every 1 in 5 times
> >> instead of "Hibernate". Although Hibernate is a much faster on and off than Turn Off, but
> >> - not to get too technical - stuff gets gummed up with repeated, successive Hibernates.
> >
>
> Better be prepared for a LOT more setup hassles (from what I've read).

If you want to setup a desktop PC with email, web surfing, Word .DOC compatible word processing,
Excel-compatible spreadsheets, contact management, calendaring, newsreading, MP3 playback, and other
standard apps, then Red Hat 7.3 will work right out of the box, with a graphical installer that is
point-and-click simple, and automagically finds and configures all hardware without problems (I mean
*all* hardware - even old, obsolete stuff).

The wonderful RPM (RedHat Package Management) installers are a breeze to install. It can all be done
entirely within the KDE or Gnome graphical desktop interface (take your pick).

If you want to get "under the hood" in Linux, yes, it's rather terse. However, I really think that
some of the recent distributions of Linux are brilliant for desktop use. Try Caldera Open Linux, Red
Hat, Lycoris, Mandrake. I prefer Red Hat, and find v7.3 to be the best of all. I've had installation
problems with earlier and more recent versions. Caldera is also very good.

Anything faster than a Pentium II 233Mhz with a 2GB hard drive or larger can work well with recent
releases of Linux. I've installed it on many older machines with excellent success.

-Barry

 

This is funny. I have the same trouble when talking to upright and drop bar riders. "Recumbent? When
are you gonna get a real bike?"

"Macintosh? When are you gonna get a real computer?"

david boise ID

 

"B. Sanders" wrote:
B.Yeah Linux desktop OS's are getting better, they are fast and they really do network stuff well. I
think the fastest iso download on my T1 was 435MB in 20'ish minutes using KDE. But I still find
the office productivity software to be a little slack. Last I used SO on KDE it ran in a conjured
windows shell so the translations made it slow as molasses and it tended to freeze a lot. Have
they fixed that? I use SO in XP now and it does fine but still lacks a database program unless you
want to spring extra for Adabase, which is ok but not as integrated and user friendly as the M$
office db. bill g
>
> If you want truly amazing stability, try Red Hat Linux 7.3. It's quite a nice desktop OS, with
> Ximian Evolution (Outlook clone) and OpenOffice (MS Office clone), AbiWord and other freeware
> productivity apps running under KDE or Gnome GUI's. Installation is painless, and the installer
> boots from a CDROM. If you have an old PC laying around, give it a try.
>
> Did I mention that it's FREE? You can download the .ISO images for all installation CDROM's for
> almost any version of Linux, including Red Hat. Lindows is supposed to be the best mimic of
> Windows; but it's not freely downloadable as a compiled binary.
>
> -Barry

 

"B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> "Robert Siegel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
> If you want truly amazing stability, try Red Hat Linux 7.3.
>
>

I've tried an earlier version of RedHat, and much of my hardware was not recognized or drivers
unavailable. Not being a "command line" junky, i gave up rather quickly. I now have Mandrake8.2 on
another machine, but find I have little patience for learning a new OS and use my old WIN98 machine.
Also my arm really hurts from mousing around for long.

An office suite for Windows and Mac, that has yet to crash on me but I only use the spreadsheet
thingy is FREE, www.openoffice.org Special thanks to Peter Eland,and his Ackerman compensation
spreadsheet for trikes.

rorschandt