This article deals with various Windows XP-related myths, grouped in four sections: requirements, reliability, optimisation, and security. I do miss Adam and Jamie, though. This is actually the first webpage I have ever seen that actually includes a changelog. A surprisingly simple yet handy idea.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-09
(XP has 16-bit DOS Code) - Please provide documentation to this that has nothing to do with emulation.
(Win9x vs XP) - So that means it was never said? I've heard it before, plenty of times.
(Services) - I understand fully how they work. Now please stop making unsubstantiated statements and provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that the default Windows services negatively effect performance. I realize many people think this but it is simply not true.
(Disk Defragmenter) - Saying NTFS is not good enough usually comes from the NIX side of things. I find NTFS to be a very reliable, good performing and secure file system. But regardless this is the best Windows users have to work with so complaining about it is irrelevant.
(FAT32) - Are you kidding? They clearly documented what they tested and how. The FAT file system is clearly an inferior file system compared to NTFS on performance, reliability and security. It doesn't make any sense you slam NTFS yet recommend FAT?
(Requirements) - Actually no you haven't I have been working for a system OEM for over 15 years. Your claims of it running like a "three legged dog" and requiring 512MB of RAM to be usable only proves you have little experience with this. I have an older PII 233 system with 128MB RAM sitting right here and it runs fine.
(Limited Users) - I clearly understand how they work. Limited User accounts are pushed as the be all end all by NIX users who have no practical experience with Windows Platforms. The fact is they are simply impractical in XP in a nonmanaged environment. I would go absolutely insane trying to do what I do everyday on a LUA. Not because it is impossible but because it is IMPRACTICAL! I also have NO SECURITY PROBLEMS.
(Firewall) - How is outbound security necessary if you don't get infected to begin with? And how can it be necessary if it can be easily circumvented? Outbound filtering in XP is not going to stop "botnet" traffic since any outbound filtering can be circumvented at will. People get infected and become Bots for simple reasons such as not applying security patches, NO FIREWALL at all, no AV or it being outdated ect.... I have yet to see a severly infected machine meet these basic security requirements.
Member since:2005-07-07
(Services) - I understand fully how they work. Now please stop making unsubstantiated statements and provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that the default Windows services negatively effect performance. I realize many people think this but it is simply not true.
Check out the other response to my last comment, which contains a link showing the RAM savings possible. I think 40% is a pretty big improvement if you ask me.
(Disk Defragmenter) - Saying NTFS is not good enough usually comes from the NIX side of things. I find NTFS to be a very reliable, good performing and secure file system. But regardless this is the best Windows users have to work with so complaining about it is irrelevant.
You see a lot of flak from NIX users about NTFS because NIX has so many filesystems that are all better than NTFS. Just look at Linux alone. ReiserFS, Ext3, XFS, and JFS are all better filesystems by a large margin. They do not get nearly as fragmented as NTFS. They do not degrade in performance nearly as much as NTFS.
After 3 years of heavy disk usage with ReiserFS (with the notail option enabled) I didn't even break 10% fragmentation. Nearly every XP machine passes 10% fragmentation after less than 6 months of normal use. Three years would result in something like 30 to 40 percent fragmentation.
(Requirements) - Actually no you haven't I have been working for a system OEM for over 15 years. Your claims of it running like a "three legged dog" and requiring 512MB of RAM to be usable only proves you have little experience with this. I have an older PII 233 system with 128MB RAM sitting right here and it runs fine.
I guess we have a different definition of "runs fine". XP with 128MB of memory is no longer a multitasking environment. As soon as you try to use it like this it swaps to all hell. 256MB isn't much better with SP2.
Even after you made the claim of working for an OEM for 15 years I still stand by my claim of installing it on more systems than you, especially when it comes to memory constrained systems. Hell, that's part of the reason for my move to Linux.
(FAT32) - Are you kidding? They clearly documented what they tested and how. The FAT file system is clearly an inferior file system compared to NTFS on performance, reliability and security. It doesn't make any sense you slam NTFS yet recommend FAT?
I don't recommend FAT, have never recommended FAT, and will never recommend FAT, even over NTFS.
(Limited Users) - I clearly understand how they work. Limited User accounts are pushed as the be all end all by NIX users who have no practical experience with Windows Platforms. The fact is they are simply impractical in XP in a nonmanaged environment. I would go absolutely insane trying to do what I do everyday on a LUA. Not because it is impossible but because it is IMPRACTICAL! I also have NO SECURITY PROBLEMS.
I'm not going to deny that it takes some time to set up a limited user account, but a seperation of priveledges is absolutely necessary for security. Just because you haven't been bit yet doesn't mean you won't be. Advocating against the use of limited user accounts is just irresponsible.
(Firewall) - How is outbound security necessary if you don't get infected to begin with? And how can it be necessary if it can be easily circumvented? Outbound filtering in XP is not going to stop "botnet" traffic since any outbound filtering can be circumvented at will. People get infected and become Bots for simple reasons such as not applying security patches, NO FIREWALL at all, no AV or it being outdated ect.... I have yet to see a severly infected machine meet these basic security requirements.
You would be amazed out how many time outgoing filtering is not circumvented, which is most of the time. If you and others ran as limited users we wouldn't have to worry about any of this anyway.
Member since:2006-06-28
You should probably read this: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=1678...
Member since:2005-07-07
You should probably read this: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=...
This confirms exactly what I said. Memory constrainded systems can benefit greatly from disabling services, unless you don't consider 40% a large savings.
Member since:2006-06-28
Member since:
2005-07-07
XP has 16-bit DOS code? Please provide documentation to this has nothing to do with emulation.
Almost the entire Windows 3 code is still in XP. That is an awful way to emulate. edlin.exe still works for crying out loud.
(Win9x vs XP) - You have obviously never visted many forums.
I do actually visit a lot of forums, but none of them have a single user who would ever make that claim.
(Dr. Watson) - This "tweak" is recommended in certain "tweak" guides with the assumption that Dr. Watson is running from Windows Boot. As for it "staying running" please provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that this negatively effects performance.
(Services) - Please provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that the default Windows services negatively effect performance.
You don't really understand how services work do you? They are always running. There is no magical way to make them take up no resources. One service by itself usually doesn't take much but if you can do without multiple services then you will increase performance by turning them off.
(Disk Defragmenter) - The debate on "how good NTFS is" is irrelevant to the Myth. It is clearly stated that the Disk Defragmenter does give a partial performance improvement.
I guess I just have an issue with the author saying that the Disk Defragmenter isn't good enough when he should be saying the File system isn't good enough. Of course it all makes sense when you see the Diskeeper ads on his website.
(FAT32) - FAT32 is clearly NOT faster except on small volumes <400 MB and significantly slower on volumes >32GB. The performance claim is easily debunked here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/games/expert/durham_fs.msp.....
What else would Microsoft claim? Try getting some unbiased sources.
(Requirements) - No one is kidding you why not try installing XP on the requirements mentioned. It is clear you obviously have not. XP will install.
Actually I never said it won't install, and in fact I've probably installed windows a thousand times more than you have in your lifetime but that's besides the point. XP runs like a three legged dog on anything under 256MB of memory and is barely usable with anything less than 512MB.
(Limited User) - You don't have to run as a limited user to remain secure. The points made are valid, it is not REALISTIC on XP since so many application break.
How "useable" it is, is a typical elistist statement. Certain games will NOT run (Battlefield 1942 as one example) unless you give it admin rights. There is NOTHING you can do for an application not designed to run as a limited user except give it admin priviledges to run.
I don't understand windows users. They have no concept of how limited users work. It's like this in all multiusers operating systems. There are ways to make admin programs run as a user and it's perfectly legit to do that. With all this "fine grained" security BS that I hear from the windows side, it's kinda ironic that no one can even grapple the idea of limited users. Just forget about ACLs all together.
(Firewall) - There is no way to guarantee that outbound filtering is not compromised on XP with a software firewall solution. The key with any security solution is to NOT get infected in the first place.
Like I said before, but you obviously failed to read, I would love it if everyone was smart enough to indulge in proper security, such as limited user accounts, but they are not, so outbound filtering is necessary. The last thing we need is any more botnet traffic.