Higher Performance System Tweaks for XP. Advance Users only.

(HairyPlums) #21

And why is XP awful? Do you have proof, or did you just hear that from one of those MS-bashing linux fanboys?[/quote]

Nope. On any given hardware* a Linux box will out-perform an XP box at just about any task. I use a Gentoo Linux box for editing & compiling maps and the odd game of ET (odd because I need to use XP for in-game comms) and it’s simply faster. This is especially true if you haven’t disabled all the memory & cpu hogging processes that XP wants to run by default.

petameta stating that XP’s memory manager is awful does not make him a “fanboy”, but calling him that definately makes you look like an MS one…

  • having neccessary drivers goes without saying
(Salteh) #22

And why is XP awful? Do you have proof

I want proof too :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

(pgh) #23

XPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee smells. Does the trick tho.

(petameta) #24

And why is XP awful? Do you have proof, or did you just hear that from one of those MS-bashing linux fanboys?[/quote]

Actually, it’s my own experience, which is hard to proof. Also, if I give some proof here, I’ll start the usual neverending ms vs. linux war.

I have a lot of experience with computers, and found XP to be the worst. If you have a lot of RAM it may doesn’t matter though. Linux uses a lot less RAM than a clean XP install. Also, the task scheduler does a better job. Kernel 2.6.x has an even better scheduler, unfortunately i didn’t have the time yet to test it.

Why don’t you just try Linux for yourself, instead of asking for a proof ? I’ve found Linux to do things much better than Windows. The system is much more responsive, doesn’t crash at all (don’t tell me XP doesn’t crash. I’ve seen so many XPs crash), and gives better performance for games. However, don’t expect miracles. You gain some frames, but linux can’t overcome your hardware-limits. Now that OpenOffice is available, you also have a full replacement for MS Office (works also on Windows --> www.openoffice.org ). One of the most important advantages is that viruses, worms etc. just don’t run on linux.

The main advantage of Windows is of course that it’s easier to use (making it less secure). As said before, Linux made some huge steps being easier to use, but can’t catch up with Windows in this point.

(Riftgarde) #25

Do you by any chance have an ATI graphics card?
http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/atiproblem.htm

You have to be wary of tweaks, people change things they shouldn’t or delete things they shouldn’t, break XP then go on a microsoft sucks rant or something.

(pgh) #26

On the other hand tho, XP is piss easy to break :slight_smile:

(Psycho Al) #27

Yes that’s why I’ve been using XP Pro since November 2001, have applied every patch willy-nilly, had it on two seperate personal PCs during this time and since September 2003 one work PC as well and never once had it “break”. :stuck_out_tongue:

  • Rifle nades Pgh
(BondyBoy007) #28

Yep same here (actually 1st installed in October 2001 - but lets not say how that’s possible) and only got a BSOD when I overclocked a bit too much.

But saying that my sister who is a little less computer literate than myself, has magaged to break it several times - although she does visit these websites that install comet-cursor and shite like that, each time a system restore sorts her out

(petameta) #29

That’s the problem about proof vs. own experience: Your two PCs don’t tell much about all XP-PCs. View at it statistically: There’s a big “population” of XP-PCs, and you have seen two. To give a reasonable proof (statistically), you had to look at, I’d say, at least 10-20 XP PCs, and compare them to another 10-20 Linux PCs. I didn’t test as many XP-PCs, because I made some bad experiences with the few XP-PCs I’ve seen,considered XP a bad OS, and didn’t care about XP any more. It’s my experience that XP doesn’t work good, but I neither have a proof.