H
Horns
Guest
Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !?
I wish they'd send us XP or something to replace it. This PC came out with XP
when XP was new and had all the bugs. I couldn't do a thing with it so I went
back too 98se. Well seeing as how the system didn't come with an XP CD. there
was no way to ever upgrade or re-install it. Kind of like a recall on a
vehichle. Shouldn't thier be a replacement ?
"Bill in Co." wrote:
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
> >
> >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
> >
> >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
> I've
> >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
> >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
> bothers
> >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
> >
> > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
> > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
>
> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32,
> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me,
> sometimes).
>
> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there,
> admitedly).
>
> >>Tips:
> >
> > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
> >
> > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
> > size for best virtual memory performance.
> >
> > There are other goodnesses to a small C:
> > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
> > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
> > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
> > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
> >
> > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
> >
> > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
> > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
> > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
> >
> > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
> >
> > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
> > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
> > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
> > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
> > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
> >
> > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
> >
> > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
> > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
> > huge default TIF size.
>
> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
>
> > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
> > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
> > system!
>
> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
> just because I like to).
>
> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
>
> > 5) Locate shell folders off C:
> >
> > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
> > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
> > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
> > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
> > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
> > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
> >
> > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
> >
> > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
> > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
> > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
> > clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
> > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
> >
> > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
> >
> > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
> > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
> > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
> > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
> > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
> > system up as NTFS in the first place.
>
> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
>
> > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G
> in size.
>
> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
>
> > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
> > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
> > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
> > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
> > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
> >
> > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
> > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
> > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
> > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
> > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
> > choose NTFS for your data set as well.
> >
> > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
> > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
> > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
> > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
> > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
> >
> >
> >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
> > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
> > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
> >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>
>
I wish they'd send us XP or something to replace it. This PC came out with XP
when XP was new and had all the bugs. I couldn't do a thing with it so I went
back too 98se. Well seeing as how the system didn't come with an XP CD. there
was no way to ever upgrade or re-install it. Kind of like a recall on a
vehichle. Shouldn't thier be a replacement ?
"Bill in Co." wrote:
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
> >
> >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
> >
> >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
> I've
> >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
> >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
> bothers
> >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
> >
> > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
> > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
>
> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32,
> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me,
> sometimes).
>
> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there,
> admitedly).
>
> >>Tips:
> >
> > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
> >
> > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
> > size for best virtual memory performance.
> >
> > There are other goodnesses to a small C:
> > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
> > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
> > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
> > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
> >
> > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
> >
> > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
> > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
> > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
> >
> > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
> >
> > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
> > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
> > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
> > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
> > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
> >
> > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
> >
> > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
> > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
> > huge default TIF size.
>
> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
>
> > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
> > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
> > system!
>
> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
> just because I like to).
>
> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
>
> > 5) Locate shell folders off C:
> >
> > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
> > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
> > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
> > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
> > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
> > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
> >
> > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
> >
> > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
> > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
> > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
> > clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
> > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
> >
> > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
> >
> > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
> > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
> > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
> > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
> > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
> > system up as NTFS in the first place.
>
> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
>
> > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G
> in size.
>
> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
>
> > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
> > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
> > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
> > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
> > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
> >
> > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
> > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
> > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
> > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
> > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
> > choose NTFS for your data set as well.
> >
> > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
> > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
> > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
> > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
> > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
> >
> >
> >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
> > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
> > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
> >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>
>
