The old days

barneysplash

Hi all

Quick Question / Rant :pac:

On a scale of 1 to 10, how efficient is Windows at running a computer?

For example in 2000 I was using Windows ME / 128MB RAM / Pentium 300 MHz.

Now I use Windows XP / 256 MB RAM / Pentium 4 Processor and my computer is still slow when doing:

Word
Internet
Simple Music Player


Is Windows that badly designed that the advances in hardware speed are
swallowed up by poor operating system performance and use of resources?

Thanks

BKtje

Honestly, if you stick some more ram in your machine i imagine you will see a huge increase in performance (as long as you aint riddled with spyware etc).

It is afterall 8yrs since the year 2000 and programs have gotten a lot more resource hungry since then and while you've increased your cpu by a fair chunk you have only doubled your ram.

A pc is only as fast as it's slowest component.


The answer to the question you actually asked is: I have no idea.

mukki

barneysplash wrote: »

HIs Windows that badly designed that the advances in hardware speed are
swallowed up by poor operating system performance and use of resources?

close

whats happeing is as hardware is improving in speed, the operating system and applications are adding more features because the pcs are fast enough to run them

having said that outlook 2007 is so bloody slow on my fast pc, it must be very badly made

open task manager and if you have more the 30 processess running then your due a bit of a tweak, i have xp on a 300mhz laptop with 16 processess running word 97 opera browser and i gave it to the brother in law and he rang saying that its amazingly fast and that he thought i was giving him a crap laptop

Lazarus2.0

barneysplash wrote: »

On a scale of 1 to 10, how efficient is Windows at running a computer?

There's the crux of the matter . You run the computer .

The computer runs whatever OS you choose to load on it . Why load XP onto a P4 machine with 256Mb RAM ? It's not much different to loading Win2k onto a machine with 64Mb RAM . Or loading Vista onto a machine with 512Mb RAM . They'll all work but will slog their guts out trying to respond to your requests if you dont supply them with the appropriate hardware . Imagine buying a snazzy racing bike and entering the Tour De France . You got a great bike so you expect to last the distance only you forget to inflate the tyres so after a few days your behind is in bits and you retire because your bike (and most likely your a**e) just cant handle it . Do you blame the bike or do you think "Damn , I should have pumped them tyres up ! " ?

Recent Windows versions (i.e. XP and Vista) are very demanding of the user , more so than they are of the hardware but it's important to remember that it's your PC . Your machine would fly if you ran Win2K at your current specs . Equally , bang in some extra RAM (pump up the tyres) as B-K-DzR suggested and XP will purr . The end user perception that Micro$oft run your computer is way too common and their practise in cultivating this train of thought within their Os's I find abhorrent .

Anyways , 1 out of 10 because it's not Windows' job

mukki

op is your pc by any chance a fijitsu siemens desktop???


they have a totally rubbish HDD controller, and you should devide the pc up and sell the parts on ebay.

Overheal

lets not mince words: Windows is bloated. But it makes more money sense for them to keep throwing on to it rather than rewrite the kernel because of the constant upgrades in hardware.

Dont get me wrong, for every bloated thing the OS does it does 2 other things better, but its still bloat.

Rumour has it though the big guys in microsoft - the executive veterans - are getting their hands dirty again, and doing just that: writing a completely fresh kernel, and a totally new, non-windows, operating platform. No word on if or when we will ever see it.

PogMoThoin

Its not just that windows OS's are bloated, its more that they make the minimum requirements 2 low. Most people are on a budget when buying a pc and pc manufacturers aim to have their basic model with just the minimum M$ say the OS requires.

To the OP, add more ram, the 256MB that you got is the absolute minimum for XP, M$ should have given it a 512MB minimum not 256MB. Bringing it up to even 1Gb would massively improve things.

Overheal

Well, this time they were caught out and Microsoft, and Intel even, are in major deep water with antitrust suits because of the minimum requirements set out for vista, and the Windows Vista Ready stickers.

unnameduser

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Its not just that windows OS's are bloated, its more that they make the minimum requirements 2 low. Most people are on a budget when buying a pc and pc manufacturers aim to have their basic model with just the minimum M$ say the OS requires.

To the OP, add more ram, the 256MB that you got is the absolute minimum for XP, M$ should have given it a 512MB minimum not 256MB. Bringing it up to even 1Gb would massively improve things.

MS microsoft training material state that minimum RAM requirements is 64MB. Granted this is before SP's but still!! I agree 256MB is a minimum and even with that its pretty slow!

My personal experience is 512 for XP!

humaxf1

My 512MB XP Home Dell has been running slow recently(needs a reinstall but can't be ar$ed). Put an extra 512Mb stick into it and it's running reasonably well. Quick fix for 20quid.

XP of 6-7 years ago is totally different to the XP of today. Plus all the CRAP that starts up with windows really cripples things. Adobe, itunes, ms office, phone sw, mp3 player, sound/grfx card tray icon, toolbars galore really don't help things. msconfig is your friend.

BLOAT is the word