dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1212
share rss forum feed

Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA
kudos:3
reply to robman50

Re: [Vista] How should I tweak Vista so it hogs less RAM?

The simplest and best thing to do is Get Rid Of Vista and Install XP. It uses way less HDD space and much less RAM.
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ********

robman50

join:2010-12-14
Beamsville, ON
Yes I do agree with you there.

BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3
reply to Shootist
All updates end for XP in 2014 while Vista will still get support until 2017 so it's not a great idea at this point.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
If it's working ... well, it's working. Why do you need updates in this case. The wise say - don't fix what is not broken...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3

1 recommendation

The wise also say don't sail the seas with a ship with holes in it, as in security holes, and that sea being the internet. That's all we need, another botnet army on the outdated xp.

robman50

join:2010-12-14
Beamsville, ON

1 edit
Does ReadyBoost actually do any thing?


CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
reply to BlitzenZeus
As Win 8 takes over and there is less and less of XP machines - the exploits for XP will stop. Of course by 2014/15 - MS will make it that you won't be able to use XP.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain


thinkpad

join:2000-07-26
Stamford, CT
Reviews:
·NETPLEX
·Optimum Online
reply to robman50
If you have a SD card slot you could get a 4gb or 8gb sd-card and try using readyboost. It was made to help computers running Vista with 1gb of ram, I think. I got a class 10 Sandisk 8gb sd card that has 30mb/s read/write speed at Bestbuy for $15, so you could try that.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to BlitzenZeus
There is no such thing as Windows OS, that doesn't require a stream of patches. Never was and perhaps never will be. It's the way of its life. And after 400-500 security patches XP cold be in a better shape, than the newest Windows OS, which should be tested in real life for the next couple of years before we will know how it's secure (or not).
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

robman50

join:2010-12-14
Beamsville, ON
A service pack might improve performance right and maybe some other updates?

Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA
kudos:3
reply to BlitzenZeus
said by BlitzenZeus:

All updates end for XP in 2014 while Vista will still get support until 2017 so it's not a great idea at this point.

Wouldn't you think after 11+ years XP has gotten enough updates? I would.
Actually I've run XP on most of my computers, and still do on 3 of them, since 2002 and only update occasionally and have never been infected with anything. And I have stopped doing any updates on my XP boxes.
Now I only update Win 7 occasionally.
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ********

BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3
So you actually think a os is magically secure after years of updates? It's still mostly the same nt core, and I know they sweep issues under the rug until the day they have to fix them.

Before the firewall in xp sp2 you couldn't install xp without xp instantly being infected by an internet worm if you didn't have a hardware firewall for a period of time. This bug carried over from Win2k!
--
I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires- Susan B. Anthony
Yesterday we obeyed kings, and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to the truth- Kahlil G.

Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA
kudos:3
Security is between your 2 ears.
If you don't have that then you are never secure, no matter how many updates you do.

Never used the built in firewall as it is a waste of resources. Never used any firewall system, other then my router.

IMHO you are way to paranoid.
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ********


eddiebbb

@bethere.co.uk
reply to robman50
I wrote in my other answer that I run ready boost on a fast 4 gig flash stick. I cannot for the life of me see if there is any difference.
From what I have read about it, it seems to be beneficial if only one gig of ram is present.


eddiebbb

@bethere.co.uk
Update : I have been reading up on other peoples experience who have trod this "Readyboost" path.
I then experimented with Readyboost sans Superfetch and with Superfetch.
I cold booted and using the Task manager performance tag noted the total boot time till the CPU's registered zero. It took seven minutes. With and without Superfetch.
I then booted Firefox and a UK daily newspaper containig large amounts of photos .
Firefox before SP 9 seconds after 3 seconds. Newspaper before 9 seconds after 3 to 4 seconds.
The question begs as to whether the reduction in time is because of Readyboost or simply because I enable Superfetch, something I have always had turned off ( because of the lengthy boot time ).

robman50

join:2010-12-14
Beamsville, ON
reply to eddiebbb
said by eddiebbb :

I wrote in my other answer that I run ready boost on a fast 4 gig flash stick. I cannot for the life of me see if there is any difference.
From what I have read about it, it seems to be beneficial if only one gig of ram is present.

Oh ok, now I saw it. I must of misunderstood it or over looked it.

BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3
reply to Shootist
Apparently you missed the memo on the worms, just by being connected to the internet not on a firewalled connection a worm was elevated in windows 2k/xp, no user interaction at all. Those with dial-up connections, and those with broadband, however had not bought a router for the one computer they had. This was happening, it was not a paranoid dream even if you wanted it to be one, and you assume way too much about how Microsoft operates, along with your own skills. There are people to this day with only a modem directly connected to their computers, and if the windows firewall wasn't enabled their windows services would able to be interacted with on the internet.

I was running a software firewall before the worms came, and yes they came. I've been using firewalls since before ZA came out, and people scrambled for firewalls after the worms came. Later, much later Microsoft decided to include a basic inbound firewall in xp sp2 since they knew their services were leaking out, and interacting with the internet, however this didn't stop the problem with their computers being infected just by being connected to the internet currently until they turned off the service that was being exploited, then dealt with the infection. To install windows safely you had to either be behind a router, or disconnect from the internet, then disable the exploitable service, and/or install a software firewall before connecting your xp to the internet.

Whatever it is between your two ears won't save you when they exploit the os.
--
I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires- Susan B. Anthony
Yesterday we obeyed kings, and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to the truth- Kahlil G.