win 2k too much crap

[fuSEboX]

Hi all

Just upgraded to 2k from 98, and though I´m happy with the increase in reliabilty, i´m not so happy with it´s huge footprint. I remember NT used about 16 megs just for the os, but 2k seems to use on my machine almost 64 megs with almost all of the background services disabled. I know ram is very cheap, but i don´t fin it logical to give microsith 64 megs just to show fading menus and nice cursor shadows.
Also, is there an easy way to disable all the user profile stuff, since I´´ll be the only one using this computer. ...and the dllcache folder...

Do any of you know of a utility similar to 98lite.

 

[FatBurger]

You can disable the cursor shadow and fading menus, but I doubt that would help performace any.

As for profiles, no you can't delete them completely, since NT/2000 is user-level security, not shared-level like 95/98/ME. My recommendation is to just use the administrator account and delete the others (although someone I'm sure will disagree).

Apple? Macintosh? What are these strange words you speak?

 

[Pettytheft]

Win2k needs about 256MB of Ram. It'll run on 128 fair enough but dont have too many windows open at once. A couple of browser windows, spreadsheets, and services running and your easily in the 160MB range. There is nothing worse than your machine hitting up the Swapfile for resources. Just drop the $25 on the ram. I've ran a 233 PII notebook with 160MB ram and it's fine. It's all about the Ram with Win2k. If you can afford to pay the extra dough for win2k then you can afford the Ram.

Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.

 

[fuSEboX]

Ok, thanks for the replies.
i do agree with stability issues, no lockups, bsods ´till now, and i´ll probably end up buying the extra ram.
What i don´t agree with is with all the extra crap microsith puts in every new release. I´ve never found win interface likable, so putting truecolor icons, shadows, etc. is not really the solution to the poor design of the interface. That´s the reason why i ask for something like 98lite, so i can stick say nt explorer into 2k and keep as much of the extra ram for app, not windows.
Also, it seems like 2k has some sort of file protection mechanism, which should probably make things slower. Is there a way to disable it.
Anything to make 2k as sleek as possible.

 

[ejsmith2]

I know what you mean. I've a 144meg p2 laptop that I run win2k on, and it chews up memory like everything. At boot, I usually have about 70meg free (available). There's really nothing you can do about it, short of moving to Linux. Every flavor of windows loves memory, and it's more or less the msft motto: You'll never need more than 640k/2meg/16meg/128meg. I'd have to agree that using the default admin login will reduce a couple of meg off the harddisk, but it won't really free up any memory. I use xteq X-Setup as soon as I load win2k, mainly to chuck all the startup stuff (sync. manager). Takes me about an hour of point/click to undue everything good ole' msft likes to turn on.

 

[mrtj]

i have 384 MB of PC-133 ram. would that run ok? cos i am thinking of buying another 256, maybe 512.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mrtj on 06/12/01 09:15 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Pettytheft]

384 Ram is plenty. 256 is easily enough. Unless your going to be doing some heavy server/database type stuff 512 is not neccessary.

Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

512k ram here.
win usually sits on 400 to 425 mb free in idle with a few small task bar apps working

512 is oh so very sweet. specially running at 150mhz cas 2

This behavior must not continue! Feel the BURNING STARE of my HAMSTER... and change your ways!

 

[mrtj]

i was thinking of adding 512 to my 384. i need it for graphics stuff. plus it's so cheap, why not? 896 of pc-133 should be decent. is there any order i should put them in, like biggest first or something? i have 1x 128 and 1x 256 chips.

p.s. i've seen the pc-150's for sale, how do you know if your board supports it? mine is a kt7-raid.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

your board will support it. and it will run very happy at 133 cas 2.
if u want to really use it at 150 or above that means you have to start messing around with multipliers in the bios.
I was very fortunate as my 1200C was unlocked when i got it, so instead of it being
9x133 ive made it
8x150. also have to ensure that things like PCI attachments can handle the increase in bus frequency.

i have no idea about increasing the speed of the ram but not the FSB such that they run asyncronous.

My Hamster has 512MB of SDRAM @ 150Mhz CAS 2!