Post #68,443
12/12/02 4:23:10 PM
|
DE Frag that Drive.... De Frag it.
USe Norton SystemWorks2002, speeddisk it. Twice er three times.
Believe me, the drive needs it.
W2K defragger doesn't come close.
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]
Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
[link|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive
free trip to the (county)Photographer!
Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies".
Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query:
SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\
WHERE ego < 1048575;
0 rows found
|
Post #68,456
12/12/02 4:55:11 PM
|
Re: DE Frag that Drive.... De Frag it.
Not fragged. Haven't done enough with it since installing to frag it.
Too late in any case - after "that old NT feeling" returned, I speedily removed 2k.
2k runs fine on my Thinkpad, faster than 98 there.
-drl
|
Post #68,458
12/12/02 5:02:26 PM
|
If you have run W2k for an hour...
It can get as bad as 20-25% fragmented. It's just they WAY it does the SWAPFILE and the caching and the memory commits. Similarly with it just sitting there ... if any services are running that really don;t need to be... well more fragmentation due to logging anomalies.
It does seem to *FINALLY* be better in XtraPain...
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]
Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
[link|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive
free trip to the (county)Photographer!
Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies".
Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query:
SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\
WHERE ego < 1048575;
0 rows found
|
Post #68,464
12/12/02 5:21:44 PM
|
Re: If you have run W2k for an hour...
That is seriously FUed, and for that reason alone I wash my hands of W2KWS.
Glad I made the right decision. Thanks GM!
-drl
|
Post #68,502
12/12/02 9:42:50 PM
|
WTF?
No way.
I babysit ~200 Windows 2000 Pro boxen and THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Complaining that W2K Pro is slower than 98 or ME is like complaining that it's slower than DOS.
Given that the filesystem drivers are the same in 2K and XP I can't see how this stuff would happen.
"The way it does the swapfile and the caching and the memory commits" ?
Er, "the way" is the way it was done in 2000. XP is cosmetic changes.
Someone's blowing smoke around here, and it ain't me.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #68,515
12/12/02 10:19:52 PM
|
Re: WTF?
XP is the Windows winner of the 3.1 camp and the steal-from-OS/2 camp - it's like two executives in a big battle, and when the time comes for the Big Promotion, who shows up but some shifty MBA.
In the course of time, over and over and over again I find myself on the side of the 3.1 camp - their stuff was/is simply better. I wish someone at Microsoft would read this.
Windows NT and all its offspring are ultimately shit. I'll be moving our servers to Linux next year - other than the ball-and-chain Great Pains accounting.
-drl
|
Post #68,585
12/13/02 9:07:39 AM
|
There are more than...
Cosmetic differences...
I have seen the Fragmentation Grenades on W2K happen in UNDER an hour of a Laptop being "built" and de-frag'd. I didn't say IT did it ALL of the time. Maybe I missed something, but the newer (slight)revision of the FS Driver in XP is a significant "selection criteria" difference from what W2K is. No, Memory Commits and Swapfile Management is not much if any difference in W2K as WXP, but it.. in combination with the "Slight" change in the FS driver for XP, it does make a difference.
Now, as for your statements about smoke. I'm all out.
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!]
Your friendly Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
[link|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html|Wi-Fi enabled device use] comes with an all inclusive
free trip to the (county)Photographer!
Overbooking, is a problem, please be prepared for "room-ies".
Why You ask? Here is the answer to your query:
SELECT * FROM politicians WHERE iq > 40 OR \\
WHERE ego < 1048575;
0 rows found
|
Post #68,498
12/12/02 9:37:19 PM
12/12/02 9:40:44 PM
|
Norton! Fsck Norton!
Try to guess how many times I've had to remove Symantec shit from a computer - try! It's a fucking ordeal - shit keeps popping up - I half expected to get spam reminding me how stupid I was to remove Norton Utility (singular) from a machine.
Yes, at one time it was Norton Utilities - two of them - sd and the one that issued ANSI.SYS commands. An essential utility in the days of EGA. What was it called? sa? Screen Attributes? White on blue on an IBM AT with an Enhanced Color Display was a state-of-the-art PC when I had one at work. Plus terminals to UNIX - and math to program - heaven :)
I also had a spiffy grey Wyse terminal. All I want for Christmas is a green VT! (Regressing even farther, the ultimate green-screen experience is still the high-persistence green phosphors of the original IBM Personal Computer Display. Once VGA rolled along, you could have secondary monochrome video card to hook up to the IBMPCD and run dual console-head, or as I did, run Windows 3.1 or OS/2 on the retrospectively crappy graphics monitor and have a DOS box open on the green screen. This was a great setup for debugging Borland C code with Turbo Debugger. The code would walk by on the green screen and the high persistence phosphors would leave trails of the instruction pointer - a kind of unintentional trippy smooth scrolling.)
-drl
Edited by deSitter
Dec. 12, 2002, 09:40:44 PM EST
|
Post #68,528
12/12/02 10:52:24 PM
|
SA was good for checking the color uniformity on monitors...
|
Post #68,534
12/12/02 11:09:06 PM
|
Re: SA was good for checking the color uniformity..
Right! And the IBM was faultless - but the reddest red I ever remember seeing in those early days was on the Compaq Deskpro 386. Unfortunately the green was garish. The IBM equipment was always the best. Unlike HP, this is true today as well.
I was so lucky in the early PC days to have the best equipment to work with.
-drl
|
