Should I?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John
  • Start date Start date
J

John

I know I stand to get some flak, but let me first of all say I'm an avowed W98SE
user. Wouldn't have anything else.
However, my wife's computer (about one year old) has Windows XP installed, and
she wants to keep it.

Seems to me that ever since we bought her machine, there have been updates, at
times daily, mostly weekly.

There nust be so many updates on her computer that either nothing of the
original OS is left, or else (and I think so) it has become totally bloated.

Booting up and shutting down the machine takes three or four times as long as my
W98 machine... Yet, she has very few programs (knowingly) running in the
background.

I'm thinking of removing and re-installing the OS on her machine.
That way, it will be clean as of the date of purchase.

Question: If I do that, i'm back to the original, frightfully vulnerable
product I bought.
Is there an update (or perhaps two) that would include all the previous updates
and/or fixes?
Or do I just have to continue to see her strugle with (what I consider to be) a
lesser product?

These questions are not meant to antagonize faithfull XP lovers, nor to troll
for any flaming repiles.

I merely want to know if there's a reasonable way to make XP work well.

Thanks for any advise!

John <><
 
John said:
I know I stand to get some flak, but let me first of all say I'm an
avowed W98SE
user. Wouldn't have anything else.
However, my wife's computer (about one year old) has Windows XP
installed, and
she wants to keep it.

Seems to me that ever since we bought her machine, there have been
updates, at
times daily, mostly weekly.

There nust be so many updates on her computer that either nothing of
the
original OS is left, or else (and I think so) it has become totally
bloated.

Booting up and shutting down the machine takes three or four times as
long as my
W98 machine... Yet, she has very few programs (knowingly) running in
the
background.

I'm thinking of removing and re-installing the OS on her machine.
That way, it will be clean as of the date of purchase.

Question: If I do that, i'm back to the original, frightfully
vulnerable
product I bought.
Is there an update (or perhaps two) that would include all the
previous updates
and/or fixes?
Or do I just have to continue to see her strugle with (what I consider
to be) a
lesser product?

These questions are not meant to antagonize faithfull XP lovers, nor
to troll
for any flaming repiles.

I merely want to know if there's a reasonable way to make XP work
well.
Click to expand...


So, you are complaining a newer and far larger and more robust operating
system requires updates as opposed to your old and unsupported operating
system? Read http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewin and note Windows
98 is dead hence no further updates. Windows 98 died 2 years ago,
there's no support for it, and there isn't even any extended support
(i.e., high cost option) available for it. I'm sure there are still
some old Edsels around but Ford doesn't provide parts for them, either.

As for longer loading, are you including the time right after the BIOS'
POST completes for the time for DOS to load and then adding in the time
for the Windows 98 GUI to load? Have you right-clicked on the
C:\Windows folder of your Windows 98 host to compared its size against
the C:\Windows folder of your Windows XP host? How long does it take to
load the maximum number of passengers and crew into a row boat versus
loading just the crew of an ocean liner?

The load time for a fresh install of Windows XP with no applications
installed will take longer than an install of Windows 98 with lots of
applications already installed. It takes longer to get through the
entry line at the airport due to the security check station. It takes
longer to load more files. It's a bigger operating system. You already
knew that. Could be you installed Windows XP on an underpowered
computer that barely meets the minimums. Could be malware on that host.
Could be the few applications installed on the Windows XP all want to
load something on startup and that adds to the startup time.

Is there a reason the Windows XP host cannot be put into Standby or
Hibernate mode rather than always getting completely shutdown?
 
Underneath that GUI, Windows XP is very different from Windows 98. The only
"reasonable way to make XP work well" is to invest the time to learn how to
use it. That's what works for me.

Modem Ani
 
Spyware/Adware/Scumware has become a major player in compromising
computers.. they introduce viruses, trojans and worms.. they attempt to send
out information about you, and they also slow your computer down..

Some basic steps to removing Spyware/Adware..

First step is to run a one shot virus remover.. I have found that McAfee
Stinger works for people.. download and run it..

http://vil.nai.com/vil/stinger/

You will also need to download Spyware removal software.. Spybot and Adaware
are available at these websites.. both are free.. download and run them..
don't forget to check for updates after you have started them..

http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html

http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/

Spybot has the ability to immunize a system, but there is better for this
function, so download and run Spyware Blaster too.. again, check for
updates..

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/

If you have had your Internet browser hijacked, that is to say, you get
redirected through a search engine NOT of your choosing, you will need
different tools..

HijackThis is a popular and effective tool.. download it from here..

http://www.spychecker.com/download/download_hijackthis.html

CWShredder will eliminate CoolWebSearch and variants.. there is a free
download here..

CWShredder.. http://www.intermute.com/spysubtract/cwshredder_download.html

For other tools in the fight against spyware, visit this website and
bookmark it..

http://www.pchell.com

You must also run a firewall and anti-virus program.. here are some links
for you..

http://www.mcafee.com .. http://www.symantec.com .. http://www.zonealarm.com
... http://www.kerio.com .. http://www.gate.com .. http://www.avast.com ..
http://www.grisoft.com ..

If SP2 update is not installed.. visit the links below.. the first tells you
how, the other three tell you why..

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1724107,00.asp

OK.. all nice and clean now..

Next.. XP benefits from memory.. 512mb is the optimum amount.. the OS is
much smoother in operation.. using 'classic' view also helps greatly in
apparent speed, but somehow I think your wife probably likes the colours and
shapes of XP 'out of the box'..

Re. your own preference for W98SE, this is a common sickness among computers
users pre-XP.. were you to run XP in classic view, I doubt whether you could
tell that it was XP other than it is not hogtied by the memory and resource
limitations of its ubiquitous forebear..

For information purposes only..

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

Please return to this thread and provide feedback.. it is the only way that
helpers here can determine how effective the advice given has been..

Good luck..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user
 
So, you are complaining a newer and far larger and more robust operating
system requires updates as opposed to your old and unsupported operating
system?
Click to expand...

Please re-read the part of my original post which I copied above.

I'm afraid I did not find your "answer" helpful.

Thank you for trying your best, though . . . .

John <><
 
Underneath that GUI, Windows XP is very different from Windows 98. The only
"reasonable way to make XP work well" is to invest the time to learn how to
use it. That's what works for me.

Modem Ani
Click to expand...
Probably very good advice, but not practical in my case. I practically don't
spend any time with the machine which has XP installed, and therefor don't
really get to know the OS.
Frankly, if it were my personal machine, I would long ago have done the "Format
C" thing.

Thank you for replying!
 
Thank you, Mike for the extensive reply.

The only thing I can say for sure is that (AFAIK) this machine is clean from a
virus, spyware and malware point of view.
While I do not "use" this nachine, I regularly update the McAfee AV DAT files,
and regulalry run Spybot S&D, as well as AdAware.

I will read through your reply more closely than I can do in a few minutes.

Thanks again, Mike!

John <><
 
I know I stand to get some flak, but let me first of all say I'm an
avowed W98SE user. Wouldn't have anything else.
Click to expand...


It was certainly the best of the 9x range of products.

Question: If I do that, i'm back to the original, frightfully
vulnerable product I bought.
Is there an update (or perhaps two) that would include all the
previous updates and/or fixes?
Or do I just have to continue to see her strugle with (what I
consider to be) a lesser product?
Click to expand...


If you have access to a CD burner then download AutoStreamer:

http://mhtools.knoware.nl/raptor/autostreamer/AutoStreamer.exe

When you run it it will ask for the original XP CD and the SP2 files.
It then merges them and creates an iso that you can burn to a CD. Use
that for your install and you will have XP SP2 with its improved
security from the word go. There may be additional updates which you
should check for.

You can speed up XP by turning off the tarty bits, Control Panel |
System | Advanced Tab | Settings. If the PC is a bit under spec for XP
that will help.
 
John,

I'm kind'o curious why you are a convinced and frequent 'updater' of the 3rd
party add-ons you mention, but are questioning the need for updating the
underlying OS as MS approach to problems with the 'outside world' evolves?
You should be happy this happens and that they at least try and make an
effort to weed out problems that inevitably exist is any product of this
size.
The fact that other OSses seem to have less problems is decieving.
They also do not have the mainstream attention and widespread use that MS
products have.
This means that it is far less lucrative to invest time in finding exploits
and abusing existing bugs, because once found the potential damage that
could be done is only to a proportionally small slice of the computing using
pie.

my 2c

george
 
John said:
I know I stand to get some flak, but let me first of all say I'm an
avowed W98SE user. Wouldn't have anything else.
Click to expand...
===> Only from the ignorant and narcissistic.
However, my wife's computer (about one year old) has Windows XP
installed, and she wants to keep it.

Seems to me that ever since we bought her machine, there have been
updates, at times daily, mostly weekly.
Click to expand...
===> Not quite that many, but a LOT, especially if you don't have SP2.
There nust be so many updates on her computer that either nothing of
the original OS is left, or else (and I think so) it has become
totally bloated.
Click to expand...
===> SP2 replaced a lot said:
Booting up and shutting down the machine takes three or four times as
long as my W98 machine... Yet, she has very few programs (knowingly)
running in the background.
Click to expand...
===> Sounds like maybe adware, spyware, malware, etc.. Are you protected
from same? a la AdAware, spybot, etc.
I'm thinking of removing and re-installing the OS on her machine.
That way, it will be clean as of the date of purchase.
Click to expand...
===> If you're not sure what to do that might be fastest. Read on.
Question: If I do that, i'm back to the original, frightfully
vulnerable product I bought.
Is there an update (or perhaps two) that would include all the
previous updates and/or fixes?
Click to expand...
===> Yes. Get SP2 from Microsoft. IT's free and if you order the CD they
even pay the shipping. Right now you need SP2 and I think about 4 other
fixes that followed SP2. SP2 includes EVERYTHING prior to its release, so
you won't need those pre-SP2 fixes.
Or do I just have to continue to see her strugle with (what I
consider to be) a lesser product?
Click to expand...
===> If you can hold off, order the SP2 CD or, if you're on a digital modem,
you can download it too. Or you can download and automatically install it
also.
Turn on windows Update and keep her machine up to date; they're lots
easier to take in small bites. SP2 was nearly a hundred Meg by the time it
was all done and installed. 15 hours on a dialip said:
These questions are not meant to antagonize faithfull XP lovers, nor
to troll for any flaming repiles.
Click to expand...
===> YO're gonna get 'em. Just ignore them & let the callouses get thicker.
Knowitalls are a dime a dozen in today's world.
I merely want to know if there's a reasonable way to make XP work
well.
Click to expand...
SP2, hotfixes, all automatically available thru Windows Update, a good
antivirus, a firewall, and anti spyware software. That's not 'cause it's
XP: ALL machines are subject to these problems.
Thanks for any advise!
Click to expand...
===> Luck!

Pop
PS YOu had a spelling erorr; this only went to this group
 
Your wife is getting updates, and you aren't, because your operating system
has been retired. Unless something extremely serious comes along, you will
not likely SEE any more updates for it.

Now, do you really think that yours is better than the O/S on your wife's
computer? Don't be delusional now!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
The updates are what keeps it running smoothly.


XP is no different from Win98 - Win98 will get and need equally as many
updates as any other OS.

SP2 (Jan 2005) for XP has all the fixes and patches (including those in SP1)
since the release of the OS

What are the specs of your wife's computer? The minimum Microsoft
recommends is Pentium III 500 mhtz, with 256 meg ram. any less, and it is
likely to suffer performance wise.
 
Your wife is getting updates, and you aren't, because your operating system
has been retired. Unless something extremely serious comes along, you will
not likely SEE any more updates for it.

Now, do you really think that yours is better than the O/S on your wife's
computer? Don't be delusional now!
Click to expand...

In this news group I'll never get agreement, I understand. (-:
However, the cold hard facts are that my ASUS P III (800 MHZ) computer is a
whole heck-of-a-lot faster in almost every way than her Compaq P IV (2433 MHZ,
according to Belarc Advisor, although that seems a bit much . . ).
The only thing I can see that would possibly account for this difference is that
I have 384 meg of memory, and she has 128 meg only.

According to Belarc Advisor, her OS is XP Home Service Pack 2 (build 2600).

Guess I'll have to see if I have some compatible memory in my parts box
somewhere, or go out and buy 256 meg.

Thanks, all, for your willingness to help!
It shows me that Windows XP people are every bit as friendly and helpful as W 98
people!

Happy Valentine's Day, y'all!

John <><
 
The updates are what keeps it running smoothly.


XP is no different from Win98 - Win98 will get and need equally as many
updates as any other OS.

SP2 (Jan 2005) for XP has all the fixes and patches (including those in SP1)
since the release of the OS

What are the specs of your wife's computer? The minimum Microsoft
recommends is Pentium III 500 mhtz, with 256 meg ram. any less, and it is
likely to suffer performance wise.
Click to expand...

According to Belarc Advisor, it is a Compaq P IV (2433 MHZ, although that
seems a bit much . . ).
The only thing I can see that would possibly account for the difference
difference is that I have 384 meg of memory, and she has 128 meg only.

According to Belarc Advisor, her OS is XP Home Service Pack 2 (build 2600).

Guess I'll have to see if I have some compatible memory in my parts box
somewhere, or go out and buy 256 meg.

Thanks for your input!

John <><
 
John said:
However, the cold hard facts are that my ASUS P III (800 MHZ) computer is a
whole heck-of-a-lot faster in almost every way than her Compaq P IV (2433 MHZ,
according to Belarc Advisor, although that seems a bit much . . ).
The only thing I can see that would possibly account for this difference is that
I have 384 meg of memory, and she has 128 meg only.
Click to expand...

Most people recommend at LEAST 256 MB RAM for XP, and the optimum memory
requirement for XP (either flavour) would seem to be 512 MB....put it up
to that and then see which one is faster!
 
Most people recommend at LEAST 256 MB RAM for XP, and the optimum memory
requirement for XP (either flavour) would seem to be 512 MB....put it up
to that and then see which one is faster!
Click to expand...

Hey, since memory is cheap - why not.

I'll see, and report back here.

John <><
 
In
However, the cold hard facts are that my ASUS P III (800 MHZ)
computer is a whole heck-of-a-lot faster in almost every way
than her
Compaq P IV (2433 MHZ, according to Belarc Advisor, although
that
seems a bit much . . ).
The only thing I can see that would possibly account for this
difference is that I have 384 meg of memory, and she has 128
meg only.
Click to expand...


I missed the beginning of this thread, but it's by no means
surprising that her machine with only 128MB is slower than yours,
even though it has a faster processor. How much RAM you need
depends on what apps you run, but just about everybody needs at
least 256MB for decent performance. And the lack of RAM causes
you to page more, and paging involves I/O, which is a physical
process (unlike electronic access to RAM), and the slowest thing
your computer does.

I'd rather run XP with a slow processor and 256MB than a fast one
and only 128MB any day. Upgrade her to at least 256MB and you
should see her machine run faster than yours.
 
John said:
In this news group I'll never get agreement, I understand. (-:
However, the cold hard facts are that my ASUS P III (800 MHZ) computer
is a
whole heck-of-a-lot faster in almost every way than her Compaq P IV
(2433 MHZ,
according to Belarc Advisor, although that seems a bit much . . ).
The only thing I can see that would possibly account for this
difference is that
I have 384 meg of memory, and she has 128 meg only.

According to Belarc Advisor, her OS is XP Home Service Pack 2 (build
2600).

Guess I'll have to see if I have some compatible memory in my parts
box
somewhere, or go out and buy 256 meg.
Click to expand...


Once the operating system is done loading along with all the startup
programs (not part of the operating system) on both your Windows 98 and
Windows XP hosts, time how long it takes to load the same version of an
application, like Word. Don't load a document. Just load the
application. Make sure you are operating under equivalent conditions
(or as near equivalent as you can get). That means you don't load any
anti-virus scanners because their efficiency and efficacy are different
for the same product on different platforms. Is there a significant
difference in the load time for the test application between Windows 98
and Windows XP? If the load time is much slower on the Windows XP host
then you have problems with your setup, your hardware, or with malware
on your Windows XP host.

When you are within the application, like Word, do you actually see a
significant decrease in the rate, if any, at which you can type in
characters into a new document? Where is the big increase in delays
that you see in Windows XP (other than it loading which has already been
explained plus you seem to object to using Standby or Hibernate modes)?

As already mentioned, one reason that your Windows XP host may be
running much slower is that you are trying to use a platform that is
undersized for that operating system. You just revealed a portion of
that fact by noting you only have 128MB of system RAM in the Windows XP
host. Way too small! Up it to 512MB. While Microsoft lists 128MB as
the MINIMUM requirement for Windows, did you think you would get peak
performance on a host that meets only the minimal requirements? A V-8
muscle car running on only 2 cylinders definitely will not have the
horsepower compared to running on all 8 cylinders. You've got poor
Windows XP hobbling around in leg casts expecting it to fare well in a
marathon. A computer platform that meets only the minimal requirements
will obviously just poke along.

Until you get the breathing room needed in memory, start looking at what
you have running that is not needed, never used, or not even understood
(i.e., you don't use it because you don't know how to use it). Do you
have the IIS web server running? FTP? Telnet? Take a look at your
services list (run services.msc) to see what you can disable. Start
looking at what you have listed in the Startup group to see what you
don't need to leave running all the time. Use msconfig.exe to see the
list of startup programs to determine which ones you don't really need
and might not want to load on Windows startup. Stop sucking up CPU
cycles with processes you don't need nor want running.
 
Back
Top