More Updates:
v1.1.0
Market Share Myths - Category Added
Market Share Myths - Firefox Achieved 20% Market Share in Europe Added
Security Myths - Firefox is More Secure because it is not integrated into the OS Added
v1.0.3
Security Myths - Firefox Extensions are Safe Added...
Updates:
v1.0.1
Performance Myths - Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser
Performance Myths - Firefox is Faster than Mozilla
Security Myths - Firefox is the Most Secure Web Browser
Feature Myths - Firefox Blocks all Popups
Feature Myths - Firefox is the Most Standards Compliant Web Browser
Nope, you cannot get drive by spyware with SP2 unless you either reinstalled MSJVM or disable the Active X warning system. You name the site and I will go there and nothing will happen unless I want it to.
You don't have to restrict anything. I use IE 6.0 with XP Sp2 24/7 and get infected with NOTHING. I can go to any site, no restrictions. I don't use limited user accounts or hosts files.
Maybe some people don't want to buy a used card? Seriously instead of telling people to buy a new card, why don't you buy it for me since it couldn't be that people don't buy them because they don't have even $50 to spare, it must be they were really waiting for you to tell them to buy it, please.
So, I understand the TNT2 cards but they should either continue to support all the GF2 or none. And if you support any GF2 it should the faster ones. Otherwise that is just BS.
That sucks the GF2 Ti cards are dropped but the GF2 MX are still supported? WTF? The GF2 Ti cards are twice as fast as the GF2 MX cards. Yes there is a problem here.
You are not testing hardware but software, in this case services. Testing load times is a legitimate test.
Disabling services does free up memory and at the very leasy improves boot times.
Denial shows through when you bust out the trolling moniker. You declare something "irrelevant" and...
Then prove otherwise.
Another off topic rambling when confronted with a legitimate argument. Why am I not surprised.
So you now speak for all Windows XP users? Ten or so people agreeing with you here, hardly makes a solid argument.
You wouldn't want to show anything but the answer you were...
It is convient that you attempt to imply or ignore what I said to try and manipulate the conversation. If you read what I posted I clearly said you should never disable necessary services. Boot time performance is enough of a reason to disable unused services.
Conviently you failed to test or...
So why not set all services to automatic by default. Clearly there is more to it then simply boot time performance.
I don't want ot use hibernation either. It is not practical for a multiuse machine.
So what you are saying is a system with every single service enabled will not see any...
Right... Who said they did?
Because Windows XP is actually stable and more secure. An alternate recomendation would be Windows 2000 but I am assuming most users want the new features.
In which case XP will work fine and work better then his older OS.
In which case you need to find out what...
Are you talking about hibernation mode or sleep mode. Because sleep mode doesn't work real well with a desktop PC not plugged into a power source.
Why don't you, otherwise you haven't proven anything.
The point is what is enough memory. When multitasking smaller applications you will not notice...
With XP the requirements are dead on. They even mention with 64MB of RAM that performance will suffer and some features will not be available. If people are using XP's requirements over the application that they want use requirements, that is their fault. No one is saying this. This is not about...
I take my PC to different locations and don't want to leave it in sleep mode when I am not home ect...
You can never technically have enough RAM and Windows will page. Obviously less so with more RAM but it does happen and no one has tested the performance loss due to it, especially when loading...
You can't just claim boot time is not important based on your usage habits. I don't want to but my system to sleep, I want to shut it down. As for paging and telling everyone to buy more ram is not practical for people that cannot. You have to stop looking at how you use your computer and your...
Any application you use comes with system requirements. Their system requirements have nothing to do with the ones for XP. If you are running application X then your system needs to meet application X's requirements.
You pay my electrical bill and I will not. ;) That still has nothing to do with performance loss due to paging. Either way boot time is a valid argument.
Boot performance is important to alot of users, including myself. So is any performance lost when the unneeded service needs to be paged. Booting is Booting. Windows XP booting faster then another OS is just one of many advantages over other OSes and yes I care how fast my system boots. It...
Simply not true. You do not understand how prefetching works. The only items prefetched at windows startup are the items that load with windows, every single other prefetch file is not even referenced until you launch the associated application. If the application is uninstalled those prefetch...
Right and service set to manual don't load on startup and are not always in memory. So why are they not ALL on Automatic?
Nice dodge, you haven't tested this and cannot confirm it so you are making assumptions. Which means you haven't proven anything.
What I stated was clear.
That is not true at...
Since it is clearly not phrased this way, it is a myth. Unplugging your modem helps "decrease" the chance of spyware infection too, it doesn't make it anymore necessary.
The common definition of productive would mean being able to use the system for the work needed to get done. This would...
I agree that it makes no sense to disable any service that is useful. But the testing here is far from extensive. If the number of services running has absolutely not affect on system performance in any way then Microsoft would have enabled every single service by default. They clearly do not...
Why would you want to delete a prefetch file for any installed application? I mean what is the point, just to delete files? It doesn't make any sense. How much time is save varies widely by the application. All you are doing by deleting a prefetch file for an installed application is hurting...
That is fine if you are infected with that but it is pretty ridiculous to do it otherwise. Actually you would not want to clear the folder, just delete that file or the infected file. That is like telling people to delete their system restore cache all the time incase it might be infected with...
Yes the file is recreated the next time it is launched but that first time after you delete it's .pf file it will be unoptimized and load slowly. Why would you deliberately ever want to slow down an applications load time? This is the point and the makers of CCleaner don't understand this.
You have to be running Windows and use IE to test it. It does nothing in Linux or Opera and from what I can tell not always in Firefox as he says in the article. If it freezes leave it alone for a minute or so and see if goes to a BSOD.
I get it everytime with Windows XP SP2, IE and the...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.