Skip to main content
Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

T4

25 Posts

61585

January 17th, 2005 01:00

Optimizing Windows XP: Hints & Tips

 
 

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 25th, 2005 19:00

I don't think I change anything, from some posting I feel that some do not know the difference between operating Windows XP, i.e. using it and the understand the Windows XP operating system, they are entirely two different things.  Using the operating system is how to do something i.e. starting an application, maybe Microsoft Word.  Understanding the Windows XP Operating System is how and which system queues and changes in order to start Microsoft Word. 

100mph

1.2K Posts

January 25th, 2005 19:00

FACT: Most of the Dell machines sold to home users have < 512MB of RAM.
 
FACT: Windows XP is an overstuffed operating system full of extra features, enabled by default, and never utilized by home users.
 
FACT: On the top of the XP stuff computer makers install additional junk on their systems.
 
FACT: Most of the home users use their computers under accounts with administrative privileges, and "unintentionally" install loads of extra junk. They also tend to think that the System Tray is just another "convenient" place to keep their program shortcuts.
 
FACT: Decreasing number of background processes boosts computer performance, improves system security and lowers the possibility of interference.
 
Etc., etc., etc. ...
 
All the Best!   :)

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 25th, 2005 20:00

Putting the word FACT, in capital letters do not make it so.
 
"FACT: Decreasing number of background processes boosts computer performance, improves system security and lowers the possibility of interference."
 
this is the issue that we have always disagree about.  Please offer some proof.  Example I have run up to one hundred processes at a time which I was developing a multi processor application, how does that make me less secure?  I have absolutely no idea what you mean "possibility interference"?  No operating system book I have ever read uses that term.   Someone on this thread went into a long description of a "zombie" proces, and why they are bad, I have been unable to find any reference to Zombies on Windows XP, on UNIX yes. 
 
FACT: Windows XP is an overstuffed operating system full of extra features, enabled by default, and never utilized by home users.  This is an opinion!  In fact I see just the oppsite sometimes.  There have been threads about FTP.  Microsoft provides two more than adaquate implementations in Windows XP, yet many users choose the download additional FTP clients, thereby increasing the footprint system. 
. 

scoobydooby

2 Intern

 • 

495 Posts

January 25th, 2005 22:00

Childish to scream  FACT... FACT...  FACT.... without providing any data.

NS_MaNiAc

117 Posts

January 26th, 2005 12:00

Do your own research, you'll find out he is correct for the most part. As I said before many PC Magazines have stated most of the same things that 100mph is. Some people just don't like being wrong I guess.

scoobydooby

2 Intern

 • 

495 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

I think you see my point?

Unless I see any data to the contrary,  I am assuming (and I am allowed to do so)  my system runs optimally.

But then the question arises, why shouldn't someone else's system also run optimally without those tweaks, as mine does?

Maybe someone else has a different operating system, or a different processor - but again the data should be easy to come by for those other systems that the tweaks will work.

Message Edited by scoobydooby on 01-26-2005 12:46 PM

scoobydooby

2 Intern

 • 

495 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

".... which means increase in overall performance."

Show me that this is so - show me the data.

 

scoobydooby

2 Intern

 • 

495 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

"Show us that this "isn't" so... show us the data. "
 
If you make a contention, it is up to YOU to prove it.
If you can't prove it, I must accept it as false.
It is not up to me to look at every theory / proposition made by anyone in this world to prove or disprove.
And in any case, I don't care to do it.
 
But if you propose something, and you want me to believe you, then you show me. 

RichardLusignan

269 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

Quite simple in fact, less running processes means more memory for the system usage which means less swapping to the pagefile which means increase in overall performance.
 
If you NEED numbers, then do some benchmarking on your system with and without the tweaks and you'll have hard facts about what it can or cannot do to YOUR system, as it will vary from system to system.

Message Edited by RichardLusignan on 01-26-2005 12:09 PM

T4

25 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

Show us that this "isn't" so... show us the data.

scoobydooby

2 Intern

 • 

495 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

"If you NEED numbers, then do some benchmarking on your system with and without the tweaks and you'll have hard facts about what it can or cannot do to YOUR system, as it will vary from system to system."
 
 
Then you agree that the numbers can easily be sought; that tests can be easily run.
So there must be tons of these numbers out there,  if indeed it is now accepted "FACT" that the tweaks improve performance.
But the problem is,  these numbers are nowhere to be found!
 
And as for benchmarking my own system - no - I am not interested.  I don't work for the computer industry - and I am happy with my system as it is.
If you tell me that there is a tweak which will make my system better, and it is FACT - show me!
 
 
 
"... as it will vary from system to system."
 
This may well be true.
But tell me, is it on most systems that these tweaks will work, or is it 1 in 1000?
On how many systems will the effect be opposite? ie downgrade in performance?
Again the data please.
And if it shows that most people can benefit from these tweaks, only then will I try it out on my machine,

Message Edited by scoobydooby on 01-26-2005 12:33 PM

T4

25 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

Scoob, I think in your case it wouldn't make any difference.  I'm sure your system is running at peak performance.

scoobydooby

2 Intern

 • 

495 Posts

January 26th, 2005 15:00

"As I said before many PC Magazines have stated most of the same things that 100mph is."
 
I did do my research.
 
Other than speeding-up boot time by shutting down programs in start-up,  I have found absolutely no data to support the tweaks  (to increase performance )  100mph and others are advocating,
 
If there is such data,  please point me to it.
 
Statements by PC Magazines are not data.

RichardLusignan

269 Posts

January 26th, 2005 16:00

A quick example, more or less related to home users, but definitly on-topic, as per:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308186&sd=tech#2

and: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;816517#2

Notice that the title of the article is: "How to optimize Web server performance in Windows 2000/2003"

Notice also that the first statement is: Disable Unnecessary Services

Also, see the link: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/bosi/maintain/optimize/bostune.mspx

And notice that under "Steps for Tuning Performance" it says:

"Server Services. Windows NT Server automatically allocates certain amounts of RAM for specific processes through server services. To view the services that are running on your server, open Control Panel and double-click Services. Disable services that your system does not require."

Now, I know that these aren't numbers, but what would specific numbers mean if they don't come from your system? I can configure worst-case and best-case performance scenarios and give you my benchmarks, but that wouldn't show what performance increase would be on YOUR system... Hence my remark on benchmarking your own system to see if there's any potential gain on your part by applying those tweaks on your system. It depends on your utilization...

And for msgale, here's the link concerning services as attack vectors:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/guidance/secmod54.mspx

"  By disabling unnecessary services you quickly and easily reduce the attack surface. "

So, yeah, if more services are running, then more services can be attacked, which means higher security risk.

Regards,

Message Edited by RichardLusignan on 01-26-2005 01:57 PM

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 26th, 2005 17:00

The title of the first link provided, “How to optimize Web server performance in Windows 2000” The title of the second link provided, “HOW TO: Optimize Web Server Performance in Windows Server 2003”

Third link provided,

 Abstract

Microsoft® BackOffice® Server is an integrated server suite optimized for Microsoft Windows NT® Server 4.0. BackOffice Server 4.5 simplifies the development, management, and deployment of powerful solutions for departments, branch offices, and mid-sized organizations. It is a single server solution. This paper is intended to provide a high-level checklist for tuning the performance of the Microsoft BackOffice Server 4.5 suite.

 And  the common thread of all three links is  - are you ready – are you really ready – here it comes “SERVER”, and not only that but they are for specific server uses, The fisrt two relate to “Web Server” and the last to “Back Office 4.5”

 

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/guidance/secmod54.mspx this link has valid and useful information.  It will take some time to read it and fully understand its implications, to Windows XP.

 I would suggest that you download and read Microsoft’s “Windows XP Security Guide V2.”

 But, the thread started not as a security thread, but a ho to optimize thread.

Was this post helpful?

View All

0 events found

No Events found!

Top