If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
Does XP need any of this stuff?
k-lite codek pack active-x direct-x` I had to install the K-lite and at least one of those ___-x files. I'm not sure if I have both or only one of the ___-x files in Win98. But I do know I had to install K-lite. But maybe XP dont need this stuff, or it's built in to the OS???? (I never remember which is which of those ___-x files or what they do. Is there anything else that is an absolute need? (I got Adobe flash player, and Foxit PDF reader). I want to download all this stuff at a WIFI place to save time, so I may as well make a list of needs. Thanks |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
wrote in message
... | Does XP need any of this stuff? | | k-lite codek pack | active-x | direct-x` | DirectX is for graphics display. Different versions exist, which may be needed by specific software. Usually it's not something you install, though a display driver might update the installed version in some cases. ActiveX is another word for COM. An ActiveX control can be anything. It's not a matter of whether you need it. A specific control could be needed by a specific program. The system that makes ActiveX work is integral to Windows. Asking whether you need ActiveX is sort of like asking whether a library needs books measuring 7"x9". I don't know of anything that's generally needed by any XP install, other than maybe SP3. | Is there anything else that is an absolute need? (I got Adobe flash | player, and Foxit PDF reader). | Neither of which is absolutely needed. I don't have Flash installed. (I only have .Net regrettably, and as of recently, because my ATI display now requires it and I don't want to go out and buy a new graphics card.) If you're moving from Win98 there are many things that might not run on XP. You might need to replace some of those. Firewalls are a good example. Network functionality was reworked after Win98. Also, XP Find is terrible. I consider Agent Ransack to be an essential part of XP. TweakUI for XP is good to have. People have different opinions about what software is important. A few things I always install a VLC Media Player ImgBurn CD/DVD writer 7-Zip and the last free version of Power Archiver Firefox Libre Office Filezilla FTP Utilities from Sysinternals There are some things pre-installed in XP. For instance, if you ever needed to install SAPI speech-text libraries in Win98, you wouldn't in XP. In general you probably don't need to worry much about that. A few things I personally find indispensible are he http://www.jsware.net/jsware/xpfix.php5 Included: * A utility to make folder windows display the size and style you want. (That functionality is broken in XP.) * A guide and utility for adjusting services. Services are a whole new category of issues you should know about in XP. They're basically background programs. Many are set to run by default that are risky, unnecessary, or both. * One of my favorite tweaks for XP: A command line that will uninstall PCHealth, disabling the whole System File Protection mess. That allows you do delete all of the backup bloat. It also allows you to delete whatever system or program files you like. You can delete games, Windows Media Player, or any of the other non-essential but "protected" files you like without XP sneaking a hidden copy back onto disk. ....It's not a tweak that everyone wants, but getting rid of SFP is on my essentials list. One example of how I use that is that XP sometimes seems to forget my Classic view setting and inexplicably gives me the Fischer-Price kiddie desktop that XP comes with by default. I still don't know why that happens. The Registry settings are the way they should be. But with SFP removed it's an easy fix. I just delete the files involved with creating the skinned display, so that XP can't show anything but Classic view. (It's not really Classic view, as opposed to another view. Rather it's normal Desktop as opposed to "skinned". The newer modes like "Luna" are actually done by overlaying images onto toolbars, window frames, etc. Delete the image files and Classic view is what remains.) I think you'll find that despite being more bloated than Win98 and having more built-in nags and nonsense, XP is also more stable, and faster on the same hardware. (The one exception to that being if you have very little RAM, like less than 256 MB. XP requires more RAM than Win98 does.) The only thing I can think of that I *really* regret about XP -- aside from the restriction of Product Activation -- is that they removed the Active Desktop folder design. It used to be very handy to add features and functionality by customizing folder windows in Win98. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
On 3/10/2014 3:06 AM PT, typed:
Does XP need any of this stuff? k-lite codek pack No. That's a third party addon for media stuff like videos. active-x Yes. It's a part of Internet Explorer. direct-x` Yes, it's a part of Windows. -- "I have to sit up with a sick ant." --unknown /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
Mayayana wrote:
wrote in message ... Does XP need any of this stuff? k-lite codek pack active-x direct-x` DirectX is for graphics display. Different versions exist, which may be needed by specific software. Usually it's not something you install, though a display driver might update the installed version in some cases. ActiveX is another word for COM. An ActiveX control can be anything. It's not a matter of whether you need it. A specific control could be needed by a specific program. The system that makes ActiveX work is integral to Windows. Asking whether you need ActiveX is sort of like asking whether a library needs books measuring 7"x9". I don't know of anything that's generally needed by any XP install, other than maybe SP3. Is there anything else that is an absolute need? (I got Adobe flash player, and Foxit PDF reader). Neither of which is absolutely needed. I don't have Flash installed. (I only have .Net regrettably, and as of recently, because my ATI display now requires it and I don't want to go out and buy a new graphics card.) If you're moving from Win98 there are many things that might not run on XP. You might need to replace some of those. Firewalls are a good example. Network functionality was reworked after Win98. Also, XP Find is terrible. I consider Agent Ransack to be an essential part of XP. TweakUI for XP is good to have. People have different opinions about what software is important. A few things I always install a VLC Media Player ImgBurn CD/DVD writer 7-Zip and the last free version of Power Archiver Firefox Libre Office Filezilla FTP Utilities from Sysinternals There are some things pre-installed in XP. For instance, if you ever needed to install SAPI speech-text libraries in Win98, you wouldn't in XP. In general you probably don't need to worry much about that. A few things I personally find indispensible are he http://www.jsware.net/jsware/xpfix.php5 Included: * A utility to make folder windows display the size and style you want. (That functionality is broken in XP.) * A guide and utility for adjusting services. Services are a whole new category of issues you should know about in XP. They're basically background programs. Many are set to run by default that are risky, unnecessary, or both. * One of my favorite tweaks for XP: A command line that will uninstall PCHealth, disabling the whole System File Protection mess. That allows you do delete all of the backup bloat. It also allows you to delete whatever system or program files you like. You can delete games, Windows Media Player, or any of the other non-essential but "protected" files you like without XP sneaking a hidden copy back onto disk. ....It's not a tweak that everyone wants, but getting rid of SFP is on my essentials list. One example of how I use that is that XP sometimes seems to forget my Classic view setting and inexplicably gives me the Fischer-Price kiddie desktop that XP comes with by default. I still don't know why that happens. The Registry settings are the way they should be. But with SFP removed it's an easy fix. I just delete the files involved with creating the skinned display, so that XP can't show anything but Classic view. (It's not really Classic view, as opposed to another view. Rather it's normal Desktop as opposed to "skinned". The newer modes like "Luna" are actually done by overlaying images onto toolbars, window frames, etc. Delete the image files and Classic view is what remains.) I think you'll find that despite being more bloated than Win98 and having more built-in nags and nonsense, XP is also more stable, and faster on the same hardware. (The one exception to that being if you have very little RAM, like less than 256 MB. XP requires more RAM than Win98 does.) The only thing I can think of that I *really* regret about XP -- aside from the restriction of Product Activation -- is that they removed the Active Desktop folder design. It used to be very handy to add features and functionality by customizing folder windows in Win98. It was interesting hearing about jsware XPFix. I wonder just how safe it is to disable all those "seemingly unnecessary" services though (for a home computer), or if anyone has run into some unpleasant "surprises" by doing so. At least it provides some info on them, though. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
| I wonder just how safe it is to disable all those "seemingly unnecessary"
| services though (for a home computer), or if anyone has run into some | unpleasant "surprises" by doing so. At least it provides some info on them, | though. | I think everyone really needs to do a little research for their own system. I have the following services running: DCOM Server Process Launcher (required for WMI. I don't know of anything else that needs it, and DCOM is an unsafe protocol on a standalone machine.) Event Log Logical Disk Manager (Required for disk partition operations under computer management) Network Connections Plug and Play Print Spooler Protected Storage Remote Procedure Call (critical. Do Not Disable.) Security Accounts Center Security Manager Shell Hardware Detection System Event Notification Themes Windows Audio WIA WMI (Needed only if you run software that uses WMI.) I have 3-4 other services connected to softwa Firewall, printer, etc. Most of the rest is not necessary on a standalone machine. Some is risky. Some is silly. Some will be needed by some people but not by others. For instance, I use a fixed IP address with my router. If you use dynamic IP then you won't get online unless you enable DHCP service. Since I use a fixed IP I don't need DHCP. In fact, that's part of the reason I started using a fixed IP. I don't like to allow svchost through the firewall. It can mask too many things. At some point I discovered that DHCP was the only svchost-mediated service that needs to get through. No DHCP, no need for svchost being allowed out. The XPFix utility is meant mostly just to provide easy information. The services can also be looked up at the "Black Viper" website. I think someone posted a link for that recently. If you're not sure about something you can set it to manual rather than disabled. Then see if it gets started by looking in the Services window after boot. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:33:32 -0700, Ant wrote:
On 3/10/2014 3:06 AM PT, typed: Does XP need any of this stuff? k-lite codek pack No. That's a third party addon for media stuff like videos. active-x Yes. It's a part of Internet Explorer. direct-x` Yes, it's a part of Windows. Thanks for everyone's help on this. I installed the video player "Media Player Classic".(MPC) I have used that on my Win98 computer and my laptop with XP. I really like it. I think VLC is a similar program. When I installed MPC, it said I need to install Direct-X. But it works fine without it. I took a look at my laptop, and found that I had the installer on it for Direct-X 9c. I sort of recall getting that same message when I installed MPC on that computer, and downloaded that Direct-X installer. I'll have to check into the codec pack, but I always figure that the less stuff installed is the best. Too much stuff just slows down the computer. Because I download most videos at WIFI spots, and play them at home, that MPC program is excellent to play the mostly .MP4 files, or sometimes .FLV. That program works great on both types. I rarely use IE, so there is no sense adding anything to that. I did upgrade to IE8. I hate IE6. I normally use Firefox, and lately have been playing around with Seamonkey, which is similar to FF but more like the older FF, without all the bloat they have added lately. Thanks again! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:33:32 -0700, Ant wrote: On 3/10/2014 3:06 AM PT, typed: Does XP need any of this stuff? k-lite codek pack No. That's a third party addon for media stuff like videos. active-x Yes. It's a part of Internet Explorer. direct-x` Yes, it's a part of Windows. Thanks for everyone's help on this. I installed the video player "Media Player Classic".(MPC) I have used that on my Win98 computer and my laptop with XP. I really like it. I think VLC is a similar program. When I installed MPC, it said I need to install Direct-X. But it works fine without it. I took a look at my laptop, and found that I had the installer on it for Direct-X 9c. I sort of recall getting that same message when I installed MPC on that computer, and downloaded that Direct-X installer. I'll have to check into the codec pack, but I always figure that the less stuff installed is the best. Too much stuff just slows down the computer. Because I download most videos at WIFI spots, and play them at home, that MPC program is excellent to play the mostly .MP4 files, or sometimes .FLV. That program works great on both types. I rarely use IE, so there is no sense adding anything to that. I did upgrade to IE8. I hate IE6. I normally use Firefox, and lately have been playing around with Seamonkey, which is similar to FF but more like the older FF, without all the bloat they have added lately. Thanks again! I've got both Media Player Classic and VLC (albeit on different computers). Media Player Classic is great, but it needs some codecs, whereas VLC contains everything built-in. That said, I like having both, and I wouldn't say one is better or worse than the other. (I also have Zoom Player) BTW, Pale Moon is even more similar to FF than SeaMonkey (PM is basically FF written with code *only* for windows OS's. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
Mayayana wrote:
I wonder just how safe it is to disable all those "seemingly unnecessary" services though (for a home computer), or if anyone has run into some unpleasant "surprises" by doing so. At least it provides some info on them, though. I think everyone really needs to do a little research for their own system. I have the following services running: DCOM Server Process Launcher (required for WMI. I don't know of anything else that needs it, and DCOM is an unsafe protocol on a standalone machine.) Event Log Logical Disk Manager (Required for disk partition operations under computer management) Network Connections Plug and Play Print Spooler Protected Storage Remote Procedure Call (critical. Do Not Disable.) Security Accounts Center Security Manager Shell Hardware Detection System Event Notification Themes Windows Audio WIA WMI (Needed only if you run software that uses WMI.) I have 3-4 other services connected to softwa Firewall, printer, etc. Most of the rest is not necessary on a standalone machine. Some is risky. Some is silly. Some will be needed by some people but not by others. For instance, I use a fixed IP address with my router. If you use dynamic IP then you won't get online unless you enable DHCP service. Since I use a fixed IP I don't need DHCP. In fact, that's part of the reason I started using a fixed IP. I don't like to allow svchost through the firewall. It can mask too many things. At some point I discovered that DHCP was the only svchost-mediated service that needs to get through. No DHCP, no need for svchost being allowed out. The XPFix utility is meant mostly just to provide easy information. The services can also be looked up at the "Black Viper" website. I think someone posted a link for that recently. If you're not sure about something you can set it to manual rather than disabled. Then see if it gets started by looking in the Services window after boot. The Black Viper website was very interesting, and it even included a preset "Safe script" already set up and ready to go as a reg file (just by clicking on the reg file in the zip file). I tried it for kicks, but didn't notice any substantive changes in performance, nor less processes shown running in Task Manager (at least for my particular case, where I had already disabled some of these services before on my own in Control Panel Services. It turns out that I usually have about 40 processes shown running in Task Manager, more or less. I don't know if that's considered high or low. I'd just guess it's about average though. :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:36:33 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote: I've got both Media Player Classic and VLC (albeit on different computers). Media Player Classic is great, but it needs some codecs, whereas VLC contains everything built-in. That said, I like having both, and I wouldn't say one is better or worse than the other. (I also have Zoom Player) I normally only play .MP4 and .FLC files, and MPC has worked fine. It also works just as well on Win98, which these days it's rare to find much of any software that still works on W98. I recall trying VLC many years ago, (probably Win95), and allI recall was for some reason it did not work. I cant remember why. I have used and loved MPC for years now. I DO have K-lite on the W98 machine, but so far not on the XP one. BTW, Pale Moon is even more similar to FF than SeaMonkey (PM is basically FF written with code *only* for windows OS's. I'll have to look into Pale Moon!!! I'm not pleeased with the direction FF is heading. Everytime I upgrade, I have to reinstall all the extensions, and they seems to change faster than light these days, while adding far too much bloat. FF has gotten really slow too. And for W98, I'm stuck with FF2.x, or 3.x (with kernel-ex). These just dont render pages decently anymore and the script errors are getting on my nerves. Not to mention that sites like Youtube constantly tell me to upgrade my browser, (which really ****es me off). Thanks |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:11:23 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote: Yes, I recall having script problems with the old browser versions, and it's only going to get worse. Thankfully the day XP will be dead in its tracks is still a ways off (and I'm not counting that as the day support ends - big deal). For the present, at least, I've stopped at version 22 of Firefox, as that seemed good enough. Everytime you upgrade, there's a chance another add-on plug-in will get broken, and besides, why fix what ain't broke. :-) I find myself using PM more than FF, but sometimes FF will still work a bit better on a few sites than PM, so I have it, too. My favorite browser was K-meleon, but they quit upgrading it. It still works well as long as Java Script is turned off, but many sites wont work properly without JS. With JS turend on I get script errors every few minutes which cause the browser to hang. That's kind of sad, because that was always the easiest browser to use, and I liked having all the controls to shut off JS cookies, images, etc right on the front of the browser. I just wish someone made a browser for W98 still, but I suppose I'm one of the few who still use 98. I dont much care about MS support. 98 has been withotu ti for years and it still works fine, except for the lack of browsers. I dont have all the crashes that most people say they have with 98, in fact I find it very stable. But part of that is because I clean out all the junk files, clean the registry, and defrag weekly or even more often. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
| The Black Viper website was very interesting, and it even included a
preset | "Safe script" already set up and ready to go as a reg file (just by clicking | on the reg file in the zip file). | | I tried it for kicks, but didn't notice any substantive changes in | performance, You probably wouldn't be likely to. Amny are minimal services. Windows time, for instance, just goes online occasionally to synchronize your clock. Others should be disabled in most cases because they're risky, like Remote Registry. Still others are only relevant on a network. It's not a way to speed up your system. It's more for housecleaning and security.... and just to be familiar with what's going on. | nor less processes shown running in Task Manager (at least for | my particular case, where I had already disabled some of these services | before on my own in Control Panel Services. | Most services don't show up in Task Manager, though a number of them can be seen running under svchost if you use Process Explorer from Sysinternals. (You can just hover the mouse over an instance of svchost to see the services it's handling.) That relates to what I was saying about DHCP. I don't undertstand the technical details of how svchost is "hosting" services, or why, but many of the services seem to be running within a svchost process, as in-process libraries, which makes them difficult to keep track of. A good example of a service that shouldn't be running on a standalone computer is Messenger. (Not to be confused with Windows Messenger.) If you do a search for messenger service malware you'll get numerous links. Messenger was originally set to run by default. Most network/workstation services are set to run by default, even though they shouldn't, because Microsoft caters to corporate customers. Windows "Home" version is really just Windows Workstation version. Messenger is used by intranet admins to show messages to workstations, like maybe "Please don't forget to turn off PCs before leaving for vacation break." Or even, "Remember, the company cookout is this Saturday. BYOB." Scammers discovered they could pop up messages on peoples' computers by hijacking Messenger and started holding people hostage, trying to get payment in exchange for *not* showing messages. Messenger is probably not a security risk, per se. And it wouldn't be taking much juice. But it has no business being on a SOHo system in the first place. It's an unnecessary complication. | It turns out that I usually have about 40 processes shown running in Task | Manager, more or less. I don't know if that's considered high or low. I'd | just guess it's about average though. :-) | I have about 20, but as noted that doesn't include most services. Aside from a few basics, that list is mostly the current software running, plus things you allow to run at startup. Startup programs is a whole other kettle of fish. I find that most people have lots of extras running the Polling and updating programs; hardware like printers and display adapters that run background processes pointlessly. (My ATI graphic chip driver, by default, installs a hog of a Display Settings applet that would run all the time if I didn't stop it. That's ridiculous, given that I'm likely to adjust the display maybe twice per year.) There are other startup programs, like Skype: It has no need to be running, but needs to run at startup if one wants to be able to receive unexpected calls. Another category is "quickstart" junk. Program like MS Office, Libre Office and Firefox may set those to run at startup. Basically it's a trick to hide how hideously bloated their software is. They load most of it at startup, so that if you happen to open the program it jumps up responsively. It goes on and on. Anyone who hasn't weeded their startup list might benefit from downloading and using Autoruns from Sysinternals. It's a very simple way to monitor startup processes, and allows for reactiviating them, in case you disable something and later realize it was useful. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Does XP need any of this stuff?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:34:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: It goes on and on. Anyone who hasn't weeded their startup list might benefit from downloading and using Autoruns from Sysinternals. It's a very simple way to monitor startup processes, and allows for reactiviating them, in case you disable something and later realize it was useful. Do you have a URL for this? I have wanted to find out what is loaded at startup on XP. On win98 I have a program that shows it. I also use Hijack-this, (on W98) which shows a lot. On my W98 I only have 4 things that load at startup. All are required parts of the OS. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|