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
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.
This is the same incorrect argument pushers of RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters make. RAM Usage does not equal performance.
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.
How much "better" they are is debatable but this is still irrelevant. This is dealing with Windows.
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.
You can multitask but it depends solely on the applications you use. People incorrectly associate third party software requirements with the OS. Windows XP SP2 requirements are identical, except for HD Space which is understandable: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx
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.
I really doubt that at one time I was in charge of volume imaging business clients who were getting a couple hundred systems at a time. Now I am doing more management related duties. When XP came out we were upgrading many clients to XP who had what would be called low end systems by todays standards. Many, many low end PII systems
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.
In a managed environment. I deal with the security issues everyday and it is the same story with new clients, no patches applied, no AV or it is out of date, no firewall ect....
LUA has nothing to do with whether I will have a security issue or not. What is irresponsible is recommending impractical security suggestions to end users that break applications and cause unneeded support costs to them and businesses.
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.
These systems are still infected! That is the whole point! I want to STOP them from getting infected in the first place. Third Party Firewalls create massive amounts of headache for end users and support staff more than the useless outbound filtering does for anything. People simply click yes and let everything connect to the Internet just to get rid of the dialog box. BTW You don't have to worry about me or any of my clients.
Member since:2005-07-07
This is the same incorrect argument pushers of RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters make. RAM Usage does not equal performance.
It certainly does when your machine starts swapping like crazy.
How much "better" they are is debatable but this is still irrelevant. This is dealing with Windows.
Better is not debatable at all. NTFS is by far the worst compared to the filesystems I mentioned. Fragmentation is by far the worst when using NTFS. As for it being irrelevant, it isn't. The author doesn't address the real issue.
You can multitask but it depends solely on the applications you use. People incorrectly associate third party software requirements with the OS. Windows XP SP2 requirements are identical, except for HD Space which is understandable: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx
An OS is useless if you cannot run applications with it.
I really doubt that at one time I was in charge of volume imaging business clients who were getting a couple hundred systems at a time. Now I am doing more management related duties. When XP came out we were upgrading many clients to XP who had what would be called low end systems by todays standards. Many, many low end PII systems
Sounds similar to what I did at one time. So I doubt you have any more experience with it than I do.
In a managed environment. I deal with the security issues everyday and it is the same story with new clients, no patches applied, no AV or it is out of date, no firewall ect....
LUA has nothing to do with whether I will have a security issue or not. What is irresponsible is recommending impractical security suggestions to end users that break applications and cause unneeded support costs to them and businesses.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. With proper security you shouldn't need AV or a firewall. Proper security includes up to date patches and LUA, amongst other things. With LUA you aren't supposed to be able to run everything under the sun. Games are an issue but they can be made to run under a LUA (although they shouldn't be designed like that).
These systems are still infected! That is the whole point! I want to STOP them from getting infected in the first place. Third Party Firewalls create massive amounts of headache for end users and support staff more than the useless outbound filtering does for anything. People simply click yes and let everything connect to the Internet just to get rid of the dialog box. BTW You don't have to worry about me or any of my clients.
Without outgoing filtering the security hell hole that people like you condone causes the rest of us on the internet a ton of problems. Not only that even infected systems can at least protect themselves from identity theft.
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.