Slow Performance - Maintainence

***Comments in line

"mayayana" wrote in message
...
XP starts out bloated

That's just nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

If somebody installs something that adds "frivolous startup
processes," blame the company who wrote that software and the person
who installs it, not Windows XP.

You seem to be a bit touchy about perceived
insults to XP. I never "blamed" XP for excess
startup programs. (Corporate malware, let's say.

The problems with XP bloat and the problems with
3rd-party software, though, are all one issue for
somebody who has a sluggish PC.

I suppose that "bloated" is a matter of opinion.
Windows 7 default install is 9GB, 9 times the
size of XP! And it apparently needs over 1GB RAM
just to sit there, while 9x and XP rarely need more
than 256 MB for full functionality, unless one
happens to be editing video. So bloated is relative.

I say bloated because the size of XP increased by
about 50% over Win9x.

***
And Win9x was way larger than 3.1, and ME was larger than Win9x. (We won't
even mention Vista.) "Larger" does not necessarily mean "bloated."

I agree with a lot of what you say, but to catgorically label XP as bloated
and sluggish is just not right.

SC Tom
***

It also added loads of
processes/services. I have 7-10 processes
running on Win98. When I started weeding out
XP services I found there were about 60, many of
which were running, that were unnecessary and/or
risky on my stand-alone PC. Yet Microsoft sets these
services running by default, even on the so-called
"Home" version: Messenger service was one of the
first hacked and doesn't belong on a SOHo PC in
the first place. DCOM has no place on most
stand-alone PCs. Indexing is a waste, and XP search
still doesn't work very well even if it's enabled. WMI
is not needed by most people outside of corporate
networks. The list goes on and on. The Windows Time
service is enabled by default, for goodness sake. I
need a function to go online periodically and fine-tune
my clock settings?!

Then there are things that many people may think
are good, but are really optional and slow down
operation -- Windows Update service and Windows
File Protection come to mind.

That's what I mean by bloated. It adds up. Especially
on older hardware. But I'm not criticizing XP. As I said
initially, I find it notably more efficient than 9x on the
same hardware *once it's cleaned up*, or if you prefer,
once it's been slimmed down.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:35:25 -0400, "SC Tom" wrote:

***Comments in line

"mayayana" wrote in message
...
XP starts out bloated

That's just nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

If somebody installs something that adds "frivolous startup
processes," blame the company who wrote that software and the person
who installs it, not Windows XP.

You seem to be a bit touchy about perceived
insults to XP. I never "blamed" XP for excess
startup programs. (Corporate malware, let's say.

The problems with XP bloat and the problems with
3rd-party software, though, are all one issue for
somebody who has a sluggish PC.

I suppose that "bloated" is a matter of opinion.
Windows 7 default install is 9GB, 9 times the
size of XP! And it apparently needs over 1GB RAM
just to sit there, while 9x and XP rarely need more
than 256 MB for full functionality, unless one
happens to be editing video. So bloated is relative.

I say bloated because the size of XP increased by
about 50% over Win9x.

***
And Win9x was way larger than 3.1, and ME was larger than Win9x. (We won't
even mention Vista.) "Larger" does not necessarily mean "bloated."

I agree with a lot of what you say, but to catgorically label XP as bloated
and sluggish is just not right.


Yes, yes, and yes. My point exactly.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:35:25 -0400, "SC Tom" wrote:

***Comments in line

"mayayana" wrote in message
...
XP starts out bloated

That's just nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

If somebody installs something that adds "frivolous startup
processes," blame the company who wrote that software and the person
who installs it, not Windows XP.

You seem to be a bit touchy about perceived
insults to XP. I never "blamed" XP for excess
startup programs. (Corporate malware, let's say.

The problems with XP bloat and the problems with
3rd-party software, though, are all one issue for
somebody who has a sluggish PC.

I suppose that "bloated" is a matter of opinion.
Windows 7 default install is 9GB, 9 times the
size of XP! And it apparently needs over 1GB RAM
just to sit there, while 9x and XP rarely need more
than 256 MB for full functionality, unless one
happens to be editing video. So bloated is relative.

I say bloated because the size of XP increased by
about 50% over Win9x.

***
And Win9x was way larger than 3.1, and ME was larger than Win9x. (We won't
even mention Vista.) "Larger" does not necessarily mean "bloated."

I agree with a lot of what you say, but to catgorically label XP as bloated
and sluggish is just not right.


Yes, yes, and yes. My point exactly.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup