Anti-XP Coalition!



  • You know people, if XP were such a RAM hog like you CLAIM it is, then you need some serious computer upgrades. Unless you can get me screenshots proving that its taking up TONS of RAM, then your story is a fake. I have 640MB RAM, and since I have so much, I set Windows to use alot of it for cache if it wants, that way it runs significantly faster. Currently, out of 654,816KB of RAM, I have 442,148KB of free RAM... thats like 440MB free... Its only using exactly 200MB, and that includes the cache. Therefore, all of you with XP on some 256MB system complaining that its using too much RAM, get a better PC and then try to make that claim again.

    Now, Ill get started on the "resource hog" thing. Resources no longer exist how we remember them. Resources was a 64KB (i think) section of RAM that was used to track programs and open windows, each one took up some more resources, slowly depleting that 64KB. In NT based OSes, there ARE NO RESOURCES. And no matter how much RAM you have, you will NOT GET MORE RESOURCES IN 9.X BASED OSES.

    If you want to try saying that "the eyecandy slows it down" go into the services, and disable and stop the themes service... This completely disables them, even if you try to use them. Then theres things you can also turn off like Wireless Zero Configuration, and BITS.

    In conclusion, all people claiming that XP is horrible are complete dumbasses. Unless you get me screenshots proving that XP itself, is taking TONS of RAM, your claims will not be taken seriously by anyone. Also, people using small ammounts of RAM and claiming that XP uses it all should think about WHY its using all of it... Maybe you NEED MORE?
  • Well said.

    You people need to stop pissing and moaning. XP IS a great OS.
  • Fish, I agree, but isn't it easier to install Windows 2000 or Server 2003 instead of turning all that crap off?
  • Well, everyone has their reasons for disliking XP. As far as resources go, we talk about them now as the amount of total mem/HD/Proc etc in the system, not the old 9x ones.

    And RPC isn't stable, you'd caught Blaster, which crashes up RPCSS regularly.

  • But your not GOING to get Blaster :-)
  • But that's the only time I can recall it crashing.

  • i would get more ram but im at maximum...
  • Hell, my Windows Longhorn 4051 is just "stable" as Windows 9x! It doesn't seem to be NT then...
  • The OS is just in Alpha. What more did you expect?
  • Err...Yeah, but arent you on some Celeron?
  • I think he's on a Socket 370 Tualatin Celeron @ 1.1 GHz or so...
  • Point Proven :-)
  • Yes, Intel Celeron Tualatin FC-PGA2 Socket370. 256Mb of cache - rare for Celeron.
  • Sorry, I meant 256Kb...
  • Yeah. It performs like a Tualatin Pentium 3. w/ 256kb cache.
  • ealry celerons arent too bad, the P4 based ones are shit tho
  • The early Celerons had no L2, you call that OK?!

    After the 266MHz Celeron that couldnt keep up with a 200Mhz Non-MMX, Intel put on a 128K L2.
  • i got no probs wiht this
  • I think Celeron Covington 266MHz/0Kb cache works like i486DX4...
  • The Celeron Medocino and the Tualatin were the best ones.
Sign In or Register to comment.