NucleusKore
TheSaint
Anyway, what they have decided to do is a good thing, it should be appreciated.
E-mail, photo programs stripped from Windows 7
- Status
MetalheadGautham
AFK
which decision are you talking about ?
NucleusKore
TheSaint
To sell Windows as just an OS; we can then put in what we want. I do not fancy having Outlook Express when I can use Thunderbird just as well. This will reduce the bloat.
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
Abt removing E-mail pic programs^^^
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
What do U mean by bloat??? Size on harddisk? Cos from what I see Windows Mail or Windows Live Mail desktop are quite slim & don't eat much RAM either,
MetalheadGautham
AFK
I haven't used vista yet, but atleast in XP, I notice that lesser the installed apps, faster the speed. For some reason, using the OS for a few months tends to gradually slow the system speed too. Infact, a fresh install is much faster than a 6 months old install with some 20 extra apps installed and lots of updates done.
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
Keep to XP, rokcs, at least better than VISTA(personal Opinion)
ajaybc
Youngling
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
hmm....did u try using some maintenance applications like Tune UP Utilities ? Try it, I use them once a month & Vista is still as fast as first time.
iMav
The Devil's Advocate
NoTWWhat does forum membership got to do with this????
It was used as a metaphor.
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Well, I have a friend who runs this certain tuner software every week in order to keep his XP on 128 mb ram machine running, but I am still not sure if they are trustable
...But the question is, WHY does it happen ? The root cause needs to be researched and eliminated by microsoft R&D team. THAT, of all things would make windows seem magically faster, not temporary solutions like stripping windows naked.
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
Well, I have a friend who runs this certain tuner software every week in order to keep his XP on 128 mb ram machine running, but I am still not sure if they are trustable
Ok, this is his problem, he is trying to run Windows XP (I guess SP3) in the year 2008 with 128 MB RAM. Technology is dirt cheap these days, should I still need to tell U to help him upgrade the hardware.... Unless you have good hardware, forget about enjoying the OS & it's applications. Even latest linux distributions which U adore a lot don't recommend 128 MB RAM anymore.
It isn't only the fault of Windows. So far Microsoft made Windows as a platform on which 3rd party devs can make an app the way they want which results in a complex registry, lots of settings & temp files all over the places even when they shouldn't be & usual memory leaks in application. This all is changing with the new .net 3.0 based application programming Model & user permission for application unlike admin permission by default like that in case of Windows XP.
The condition of Windows will just get better as soon as all the developer follow some guidelines for developing & running apps of Windows
1) Make the installer as a Windows Install or .msi which makes sure that all the files written on the hard disk during installation are sorted out & noted down so that when removing, they can all be removed & any old file backed up will be copied again
2) Make all the applications running in User mode & not admin mode. This will solve lots of problems with Security
3) Make the application in .net solving many memory leak errors & security problems.
4) Follow Vista's UI & UX guidelines
5) All settings should be saved in the user's own folder only, & not cluttering the registry
6) Code efficiently by not using hacks in Windows, instead of using documented API.
See, no matter how much you praise cross platform novelty of QT & GTK, they are still not native to Windows. Same in Windows Vista where WPF apps run better then Winform apps written in VB or VC instead of C#. The problems is, developers make apps the way the way they want without taking into consideration Windows's recommended way. Why do u think applications like Windows Live Mail, messenger, Writer, Office 2007 work so well in Windows compared to any other applications.
MetalheadGautham
AFK
The problem is not "not working". The problem is a "gradual decrease in performance over a few months". What can be done to avoid this, THATS the question I asked. Sure, apps might not run fast enough, but at the same time, thats fine as long as they run next month at the same speed as they run now.
I personally think it might be due to the fact that the registry ends up with lots of entries and the system takes time to go through the database, or that the page file is in a non continuous area or that there is excessive fragmentation and the NTFS file system does not have any way to nullify the performance drop due to fragmentation.
What can be done to avoid these issues ? The only thing I as a user can do is to create a separate partition for Page File use and not use it for anything else. (it has little effect if you have giant sized partitions, but if your windows partition is around 10GB only, and you often add and remove files from it, I think the performance difference will be huge). The rest is in microsoft's hands.
And yeah, about my friend, if the system could handle windows xp with 128mb ram in 2004 (not SP3), there is no reason the very same OS shouldn't run on the very same system. His needs are simple - internet and music. For games he has a PS2. So I seriously doubt he needs to upgrade...
I personally think it might be due to the fact that the registry ends up with lots of entries and the system takes time to go through the database, or that the page file is in a non continuous area or that there is excessive fragmentation and the NTFS file system does not have any way to nullify the performance drop due to fragmentation.
What can be done to avoid these issues ? The only thing I as a user can do is to create a separate partition for Page File use and not use it for anything else. (it has little effect if you have giant sized partitions, but if your windows partition is around 10GB only, and you often add and remove files from it, I think the performance difference will be huge). The rest is in microsoft's hands.
And yeah, about my friend, if the system could handle windows xp with 128mb ram in 2004 (not SP3), there is no reason the very same OS shouldn't run on the very same system. His needs are simple - internet and music. For games he has a PS2. So I seriously doubt he needs to upgrade...
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
That Windows XP of your friend will run fine even on 128 MB RAM but the applications he uses will not. Tell him to use same applications, same versions as of 2004 even today & they will run fast & fine.
With time, software add more & more features which demand RAM. It's not the OS only. Vista runs fine on 1 GB RAM here but to use the applications that I have, U need more RAM.
Registry is actually better & faster then configuration files. Registry is machine code itself, & it is a shared database which .ini files are not. Third party apps do clutter registry because of which MS has always told the developers to make applications using the guidelines of Microsoft but lazy devs don't follow it always. For example, just have a look at Pictomio (using full WPF) a small software company making a fantastic product on MS guidelines & ACDSee, a big company still using the age old Win32 engine. U can't blame MS for registry slowdown, blame the devs who usually don't follow the MS route & end up cluttering the registry.
Fragmentation doesn't create a penelty on NTFS 5 performance in Vista compared to that in Windows XP. It is negligible at best in today's world of SATA 2.0 & SSD
.
Sure & benefit from 1% performance increse.
chandru.in
In the zone
ACDSee has been in the market for a much longer time than WPF or Pictomio. I even remember using ACDSee on Windows 98 and ME. So they'd have a large existing code base in Win32. Just because some new UI engine has been released by MS doesn't mean all existing code bases have to be ported in a blink of eye.
Since, you have commented about GTK and Qt in one of your previous posts, I'd like to add that though GTK 2.0 has been out for quite a long time, certain legacy apps using GTK 1.0 run just fine on modern Gnome versions without affecting system perfomance in anyway (of course they do look out of place).
If MS has the guts to accept that Win32 was poorly designed and can hurt performance on modern systems, all apps using Win32 should run in a sandbox with restricted access to API calls which can mess with system performance. Just as 16-bit apps are run in NT series of Windows.
Last edited:
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
ACDSee changed there codebase with ACDSee 4 which they are still using but it isn't sufficient for the future.
Who told U WPF is just good for UI? If ACDSee switches to WPF & .net then lots of there work will be easier. .Net is easy compared to Win32 so porting won't be a problem, also they will get free GPU acceleration which is essential for them when working with Huge Megapixel pics & applying those filters etc in real time.
ACDSee will benefit the most by switching to WPF as they already have a loyal user base & have plethora of customisable features. Don't worry, ACDSee is soon coming with a Pure WPF based ACDSee suite. WPF was given to devs in 2005 with Visual Studio 2005 & at that time ACDSee 8 was in the market, now don't tell me it takes 3 years to make an application in WPF.
Because it is native to X Window server of Linux but not Windows Enviroment. That's what I said. Why do u think WPF has a fallback software engine in case someone is using a WPF application in Windows XP, just to have compatibility cos it is not native to Windows XP.
Win32 when came out wasn't bad. At that time GPU were not what they r today & not even the CPU were this powerful as today, time has changed now, WIn32 wasn't poorly designed, its just that today's computing world demands better things then Win32 which they now have in form of .Net. With this analogy shouldn't I also say that GNome should have the guts to admit that GTK1.0 was flawed & poorly designed due to which they relesed GTK 2.0
- Status