Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Easy XP Tweaks


  • Please log in to reply

#121
Catwoman=^..^=

Catwoman=^..^=

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
I'm so confused because there really is no topic for what I am dealing with. I'm sorry about that.
Anyway, I tried downloading ZoneAlarm, but, it wasn't able to finish downloading. Now it prevents me from doing and getting online. I'm lucky if I can get online for 10 mins at a time!! What I want to ultimately do is end it from running and just go back to normal again. I've tried everything. I've gone into Windows Task Manager and tried to End Task from there numerous times, but, that didn't help. I've tried going into Register Editor numerous times and ending it from there, but, that doesn't help. What do I do? Please help me. :tazz: Thanks in advance.
Purrs,
Catwoman=^..^= & Mija
  • 0

Advertisements


#122
Michael

Michael

    Retired Staff

  • Retired Staff
  • 1,869 posts
Are you saying that it is still trying to download.
  • 0

#123
Catwoman=^..^=

Catwoman=^..^=

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
Apparently so. You'll have to forgive me, but, I'm not very computer literate. Thanks.
  • 0

#124
Michael

Michael

    Retired Staff

  • Retired Staff
  • 1,869 posts
I know this is ovious but have you tryed rebooting? It sounds very wired are your sure that you problem it this. You should have by the way started a new topic.

Edited by Michael Buckley, 26 July 2005 - 04:12 AM.

  • 0

#125
kraz3d

kraz3d

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
that worked wonders!! thank u!
  • 0

#126
jsmurfy

jsmurfy

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
re: windows messenger

i turned mine off by using WinPatrol and disabling it from startup. it is a handy little program that can monitor services, file associations, staretup, scheduled tasks, IE homepage, HOSTs file, and it alerts you if something is trying to make a change. it is freeware, and i use it all the time
  • 0

#127
jason_m

jason_m

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Hey, nice tweaks. I only got 4.75G Hard drive and the hibernation tweak helped HEAPS. My processor is only AMD-K6 3D 500Mhz, 188 RAM, so I am trying to get as much speed as possible.

With that Index searching it doesn't work for me. I tried going to my computer, right-click C, properties, but the only thing that comes up is how much disk space I got, capacity, free space etc. Nothing to check. Does this mean I don't have it on anyway?

By the way, If my other post hasn't been answer yet could you help. My system, AMD K6 3D, 500 MHz, 188RAM is really bad. I got Windows XP on it. A freind told me it would be better if I had Windows 98. I originally did and he said just to wipe my drive, I dunno how though. Help please.

View Post



I've got an AMD K62 550mhz. Forget XP, and install Windows 2000 instead. It's NT based like XP, but doesn't have the bloat and fluff. It's faster than XP, and it's actually slightly faster than Windows 98 on an AMD K62. I used to have Windows 98 on here, but I got tired of crashes and blue screens. So I went to Windows 2000.
  • 0

#128
GeneralAres

GeneralAres

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts
Windows XP Boots much, much faster then 2000 and all the "fluff" can be easily turned off. You then have much better hardware support and more features.

Edited by GeneralAres, 03 August 2005 - 05:03 PM.

  • 0

#129
jason_m

jason_m

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Windows XP Boots much, much faster then 2000 and all the "fluff" can be easily turned off. You then have much better hardware support and more features.

View Post



It is in my experience on AMD K6/2 cpu's, no matter how much of the eye candy, fluff etc you turn off, it's always a little sluggish. Hardware support is tentative. Only because XP is later than 2k, so 2k doesn't come with as many built in drivers, blah blah blah. BUT the original poster has speed issues with XP. Is the OP willing to sacrafice speed for "more features" and "better hardware support"? Probably not because nobody wants to work with a sluggish GUI.
  • 0

#130
Johanna

Johanna

    The Leather Lady

  • Moderator
  • 3,038 posts
If your XP is sluggish, either your hardware isn't up to standard, or you haven't configured your system well. XP is as slick as snot, in the hands of an eXPerienced user.

Johanna
  • 0

Advertisements


#131
GeneralAres

GeneralAres

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

It is in my experience on AMD K6/2 cpu's, no matter how much of the eye candy, fluff etc you turn off, it's always a little sluggish. Hardware support is tentative. Only because XP is later than 2k, so 2k doesn't come with as many built in drivers, blah blah blah. BUT the original poster has speed issues with XP. Is the OP willing to sacrafice speed for "more features" and "better hardware support"? Probably not because nobody wants to work with a sluggish GUI.

It is much more then just driver support. You can get XP to run better then 2000 by disabling what you don't need. That includes the visual styles, services and all unneeded startup applications.

Edited by GeneralAres, 04 August 2005 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0

#132
jason_m

jason_m

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

It is much more then just driver support. You can get XP to run better then 2000 by disabling what you don't need. That includes the visual styles, services and all unneeded startup applications.

View Post



Then effectively what you have is 2000 after you've disabled all that stuff. :tazz:
Can you really get XP to at least match the speed of 2000 on K6/2 CPU's? I couldn't, and the OP probably can't either, or he wouldn't be posting here.
  • 0

#133
GeneralAres

GeneralAres

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Then effectively what you have is 2000 after you've disabled all that stuff.
Can you really get XP to at least match the speed of 2000 on K6/2 CPU's? I couldn't, and the OP probably can't either, or he wouldn't be posting here.

Of course. It is simply a matter of disabling all the new features XP has, including system restore. Windows 2000 being called "fast" is relative. It is slow as molasis during boot-up. Windows XP is actually designed to improve application load speeds over time. Running it on a K6/2 doesn't make any difference.

Edited by GeneralAres, 05 August 2005 - 02:27 AM.

  • 0

#134
Metallica

Metallica

    Spyware Veteran

  • GeekU Moderator
  • 31,675 posts
Can you try and stay on topic here please?

I don't want to have to close this topic.

Thanks for your understanding.

Regards,
  • 0

#135
jason_m

jason_m

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Of course. It is simply a matter of disabling all the new features XP has, including system restore. Windows 2000 being called "fast" is relative. It is slow as molasis during boot-up. Windows XP is actually designed to improve application load speeds over time. Running it on a K6/2 doesn't make any difference.

View Post



Besides the smoke and mirrors, show me a typical K6/2 system booting up faster then 2k, even just a few seconds! Personally, I don't care about boot time, if it takes 2 min vs 20 seconds, SO WHAT! What counts is real system performance. It's plain and simple: XP was designed for later CPU models, where 2k and before was released at a time where CPU's like the K6/2's were king. Since XP was basically optimized for later CPU models, performance differs quite differently on older CPU designs vs new CPU designs. Did you even try XP on a K6/2? I know I did on a couple, and no matter much useless garbage I disabled, they were never good enough to be comfortable to use long term. Bottom line: Even through the underlying kernel is only a mere .1 version difference, there is still a lot more above the kernel level on XP than 2k to make it use more resources no matter how many "features" you disable, many of which resource users are optimized for late model CPU's.

My experience is this, on typical K6/2 machines, Fully loaded Windows 98, 2k, and XP - boot time is about the same, or just about two minutes from the time I push the power button, until the desktop shows, and the hard drive activity settles down. "Fully loaded" means in the real world the systems are complete with lots of device drivers. If you take a fresh out of the box XP, sure it'll boot fastest of all. Video and CPU performance wise, 2k performs slightly faster than Windows 98, and XP was considerably slower - too slow to be comfortably used. Tweak and disable all my might, but still not fast enough. Keeping that these were K6/2 CPU's and total performance would be far different on a later model CPU.

I have to conclude you are just basically repeating MS's marketing statements, and/or believing what other inexperienced people say, and have no experience other than that new 2Ghz+ computer that came with XP.

So to the OP ddare0, I have real experience with your type of machine. XP just won't cut it no matter how many XP- baised people tell you how good XP is. You'll be very happy with 2000, which is still a HUGE upgrade from 98.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP