WinXP SP2 RC2 - slowdown, stability

[cert]

Did you find any slowdown or greater memory consumption with WinXP SP2 RC2 installed?

 

[Motorheader]

I didn't notice either, but I saw problems with page refresh in IE and java pages.

 

[imported_LobbDogg]

So far I haven't seen one problem yet. But still looking for any.

 

[magomago]

I think i may wait out a month after SP2 is released to see if any huge bugs out there, or something they totally missed~

 

[imported_theEman]

I haven't seen any problems or slow downs yet. Running SP2 RC2 on my 1.2GHz lappy too .

 

[RVN]

I noticed that I have to run three "extra" services ...two of which I had disabled and one that came with SP2, if I wanted to be able to "update". The V5 site "complained" and specifically told me which ones I had to change back from "disabled". This is from an extremely service-stripped down setup and inspite of not wanting system restore, auto update or Windows time.

My typical XP Pro setup required three extra services in order to check V5 update, even manually. Auto, DCOM, security center, system restore, Windows time and Windows firewall services were all turned back to automatic after installing SP2. There is some extra "overhead" with running these services ...not much, I couldn't sense it but I looked at it to be about 25-30 MB + ram at least. I could live with it, but I don't want to. It makes me think twice about installing the official SP2.

The machine I've left the RC beta on has to have alot of extra services because of tuner card, video, sound and graphics apps and to tell the truth I don't notice any extra taxation on it and it's a slower setup. I'm running both boxes with a GB of ram and it's not a big deal ...but if you were running 256 MB ram, I'd bet you'd notice.

 

[stash]

The whole idea behind SP2 is to make boxes more secure. So the firewall is going to be enabled by default. This and the security center are probably using the most of that extra 25-30Mb of RAM.

Enabling this by default is a great thing for the vast majority of home users. A power user such as yourself may not want this, so the services can be disabled like any other service. So I don't see why this would prevent you from upgrading.

 

[sp80]

Originally posted by: STaSh
The whole idea behind SP2 is to make boxes more secure. So the firewall is going to be enabled by default. This and the security center are probably using the most of that extra 25-30Mb of RAM.

Enabling this by default is a great thing for the vast majority of home users. A power user such as yourself may not want this, so the services can be disabled like any other service. So I don't see why this would prevent you from upgrading.

I agree with that. The firewall is a great feature for most home users. Some people get attacked by spyware and think their com is broken, throw it out, and end up buying a new one. This new SP2 help out with spyware a lot. But it can also be disabled

 

[rogue1979]

My daughter is running a Dell Inspiron 5100 with a 1.6 Celeron (256k L2) @ 2133MHz. WinXP Pro without service pack 1 or 2 normally consumes about 95MB of ram on the desktop. This is with Black Vipers service tweaks set on "safe".

It runs very stable without a service pack update, but of course her Intel chipset wouldn't support USB 2.0.
I finally got around to updating her to SP1a and now her USB 2.0 is working correctly but it is now taking 125MB to run the desktop!

Jeez, 30MB of ram to run a service SP1a? Somehow that doesn't sound right, I checked for viruses or anything unusual, but all looks well.

Has anyone else noticed this? So far I'm gonna have to blame this on Microshaft crap....

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
My daughter is running a Dell Inspiron 5100 with a 1.6 Celeron (256k L2) @ 2133MHz. WinXP Pro without service pack 1 or 2 normally consumes about 95MB of ram on the desktop. This is with Black Vipers service tweaks set on "safe".

It runs very stable without a service pack update, but of course her Intel chipset wouldn't support USB 2.0.
I finally got around to updating her to SP1a and now her USB 2.0 is working correctly but it is now taking 125MB to run the desktop!

Jeez, 30MB of ram to run a service SP1a? Somehow that doesn't sound right, I checked for viruses or anything unusual, but all looks well.

Has anyone else noticed this? So far I'm gonna have to blame this on Microshaft crap....

There are fixes and updates to an operating system; sometimes they take more room. 512MB costs $70 or so these days; you say this takes 30MB more, so that's about $4 we're talking about?

 

[rogue1979]

She already has 512MB of ram, and she still has plenty of resources. I am just bothered that to do a simple thing like get USB 2.0 support it takes 30MB of ram.

I know for a few Athlon chipsets the manufacturer will send a full USB 2.0 driver that gives you a warning about service pack 1 being needed, but still adds in the necessary files to give you full USB 2.0 function.

Of course we don't really have a choice, but Microshafts so-called fixes are a complex load of bull as usual.

I still don't have to like it

Like many people out there, I am almost forced to be a hypocrite. I hate Microshaft, but I still use it.
I have tried Linux successfully several times, but everyone in my family loves to game.

I am running Win2K Pro on my main rig, with firewall and anti-virus it consumes 88MB to run the desktop.
Except for the fancy themes, it does everything WinXP does for the way I use it.

Heck, I have an old machine laying around with Win98 SE and it still does what I need it to. If you strip all the extra Microshaft stuff out like IE, Netmeeting, Media Player and alot more it can browse online with Firefox for hours on end without using up all the memory resources, still remaining responsive, with 64MB of ram! And the key there is you have the choice to remove all that stuff completely.

Microshaft's OS's are headed in the wrong direction and we are going along for the ride. It is time for somebody to develop a viable alternative. Our best friend Bill Gates has successfully managed to stop that from happening and it doesn't look anything is gonna change soon.

OK, I'm done ranting now and I feel better:frown:

 

[rogue1979]

Use these tweaks and memory consumption goes back to normal pre SP1a levels.

Open your favorite registry editor and navigate to the following key:
HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management

1. DisablePagingExecutive - Double click it and in the decimal value field, put a 1. This will allow XP to keep data in memory instead of paging sections of RAM to the hard drive.
2. LargeSystemCache - Double click it and change the decimal value to 1. This will allow the XP Kernel to Run in memory.
3. Create a new DWORD value and name it IOPageLockLimit - Double click it and set the value in hex to 4000 if you have 128MB of RAM, 10000 if you have 256MB or 40000 if you have more than 512MB of RAM.

 

[RVN]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Use these tweaks and memory consumption goes back to normal pre SP1a levels.

Open your favorite registry editor and navigate to the following key:
HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management

1. DisablePagingExecutive - Double click it and in the decimal value field, put a 1. This will allow XP to keep data in memory instead of paging sections of RAM to the hard drive.
2. LargeSystemCache - Double click it and change the decimal value to 1. This will allow the XP Kernel to Run in memory.
3. Create a new DWORD value and name it IOPageLockLimit - Double click it and set the value in hex to 4000 if you have 128MB of RAM, 10000 if you have 256MB or 40000 if you have more than 512MB of RAM.

With my configuration, doing these registry tweaks with my standard install (services to a minimum) I spent 4 more MB.

 

[rogue1979]

Hmmm, I'm not suprised. I tried this on a total of three different systems and got varying results. I use Black Vipers tweaks to tune all my services to his "safe" level.

I'll do some more testing and see what happens.

 

[bacillus]

2. LargeSystemCache - Double click it and change the decimal value to 1. This will allow the XP Kernel to Run in memory

do not do this tweak if you run an ATI videocard or you may well hose your install or get other odd problems.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: sp80
I agree with that. The firewall is a great feature for most home users. Some people get attacked by spyware and think their com is broken, throw it out, and end up buying a new one. This new SP2 help out with spyware a lot. But it can also be disabled

Just for the record, SP2's firewall will not help with spyware. The firewall is inbound only. Outbound is not blocked. The only spyware that would get zonked by it would be that which opened a listening port and the user would be prompted. Not that they would know what it meant though as they mindlessly click Yes.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: bacillus

2. LargeSystemCache - Double click it and change the decimal value to 1. This will allow the XP Kernel to Run in memory

do not do this tweak if you run an ATI videocard or you may well hose your install or get other odd problems.

I am using an 8500 retail in a Win2K Pro machine and had to go into safe mode and change it back.

I had the same problem with a 9700 Pro in WinXP Pro and no service pack.

My daughters notebook has a 7500 using WinXP Pro with SP1a and the Omega Catalyst 3.10 and it handled the LargeSystemCache tweak without problems.....

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Use these tweaks and memory consumption goes back to normal pre SP1a levels.

Open your favorite registry editor and navigate to the following key:
HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management

1. DisablePagingExecutive - Double click it and in the decimal value field, put a 1. This will allow XP to keep data in memory instead of paging sections of RAM to the hard drive.

Yes.. and ... ? That doesn't make sense. If you want more free RAM, paging unused things out to the HD is a good idea. Setting this will prevent that, and take *more* RAM.

Originally posted by: rogue1979
2. LargeSystemCache - Double click it and change the decimal value to 1. This will allow the XP Kernel to Run in memory.

No, it will cause XP to be more aggressive at caching disk and other things, and give that priority over application usage of RAM. Again, more than likely to be of negative performance gain, unless running a file server. Also, you may in fact experience disk corruption and data loss in WinXP from enabling this - do so *at your own risk*.

Originally posted by: rogue1979
3. Create a new DWORD value and name it IOPageLockLimit - Double click it and set the value in hex to 4000 if you have 128MB of RAM, 10000 if you have 256MB or 40000 if you have more than 512MB of RAM.

I believe that this tweak controls the number of async disk I/O pages that can be "in flight" at any given time. I don't know what the default values of these settings are, so I can't say whether your tweak will take up more RAM or not, as compared to the OS default settings on these.

Personally, I always install WinXP systems with SP1a integrated, given all of the bugfixes and additional hardware support (48-bit LBA!), it just makes sense. Normal memory load at the desktop with SP1 is indeed around 125-128MB of RAM. I would say, just live with it, and upgrade the RAM if needed. Don't go without SP1a, it's very useful. Either that, or do what I do on my personal machine, run W2K Pro instead.

 

[Sianath]

I really wish more people would research this stuff before just spouting it. Thank you VirtualLarry.

DisablePagingExecutive :

Specifies whether user-mode and kernel-mode drivers and kernel-mode system code can be paged to disk when not in use. If the value of this entry is 0 (the default), drivers and the kernel must remain in physical memory. If the value is 1, they can be paged to disk as needed.

(translation: we will page out your drivers and kernel mode code. This does NOT change the fact that we will continue to page out your process data, it simply means that if you end up using this code, you'll have to wait longer while we page it back in. It's defaulted to 0 for a reason.)

IoPageLockLimit :

Specifies the limit of the number of bytes that can be locked in a user process for I/O operations. When this value is 0, the system uses the default (512 KB). The maximum value is approximately the equivalent of physical memory minus 7 MB. This registry key isn't used in Windows 2000 Datacenter Server and is no longer used in Windows 2000 starting with Windows 2000 Service Pack 1.

(see bold)

LargeSystemCache:

Affects whether the file system cache or the working sets of processes are given priority when it comes to memory trade-offs.

(translation: If you don't even know what a working set IS, please don't mess with this. In addition to what you THINK it affects, this value also affects the dirty page threshold used in calculations for how often the lazy writer is woken up to write pages to disk)

 

[rogue1979]

Hey, I didn't make the tweaks myself or write the explanations. I just tried and posted the results. I just reloaded a fresh version of WinXP Pro on my wife's P4 system and installed SP1a. Using Black Vipers tweaks for services, two of the above mentioned tweaks, and a handful of other tweaks not mentioned, she is using 78MB of ram to load the desktop.

125MB is way too much, I don't care how fast your system is or how much memory it has. I have several respectably fast systems, and running a stock WinXP installation with no tweaks makes it noticably slower in everyday applications. No, not benchmarks or games, but overall responsiveness is better if you streamline it. I don't believe in putting up with a slower OS just to gain more/better features. Microsoft doesn't mind, but XP is better than Win98 and should run as fast, not slower. High powered machines like most of us run at Anandtech don't notice as much, but a laptop or slower machine can get choked by a WinXP stock installation.

The answer shouldn't have to be to get a more powerful system with more memory to run WinXP decently!

The original poster in this thread obviously noticed a slow down with "a better" service pack. This is Microshafts continual policy to pile complex fixes on top of each other for another fix, often causing new fixes to be needed. As for the so called security fixes, they are a bunch of bull. Run behind a router with a good firewall and don't sweat it. Only a server in a office type set up needs worry about all the security crap put out by Bill Gates and company.

Microsoft is a target and there are always gonna be people that try and ruin it. All the so called fixed aren't gonna be able to keep up.

I run Win2K Pro on one of my machines. When tweaked out it matches the memory desktop consumption of a similar tweaked WinXP, no improvement noticed.

 

[stash]

As for the so called security fixes, they are a bunch of bull. Run behind a router with a good firewall and don't sweat it. Only a server in a office type set up needs worry about all the security crap put out by Bill Gates and company.

Right, because only servers in offices are vulnerable to worms, viruses, hackers, etc

And of course, no home Windows user would never think of plugging their computer directly into the Internet, so what do they need a built in firewall that is enabled by default for...right? <cough>blaster, slammer, agobot, etc<cough>

And you don't need those pesky, bunch of bull patches when you run your machine behind a router with a good firewall! Critical updates are for suckers and for paying corporate IT guys' salaries!

Who needs this security crap, anyway?


:roll:

 

[Sianath]

LOL!

Some people aren't worth arguing with STaSh. They have their mind made up going into the discussion, and no amount of discussion will accomplish anything.

There has to be a basic level of understanding of the issues involved that is shared between the people in the discussion in order to make any headway one way or the other. If that base level doesn't exist, there's no ground to stand on.

Case in point:
"Hey, I didn't make the tweaks myself or write the explanations. I just tried and posted the results."
"makes it noticably slower in everyday applications." <-- slower than what? with what apps?
"streamline it."

If you don't understand what you are doing or why, you are not in a position to make any definitive statements about what is going on. Any RAM on your machine that is not being utilized is being wasted. You don't gain performance by having empty memory. You gain performance by having the frequently used data backed by physical memory so when the processor needs it, it can be accessed without having to fault out to disk. Showing that you have "way too much" memory being used (and way too much defined by what standard?) in no way supports your theories of performance.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: Sianath
LOL!

Some people aren't worth arguing with STaSh. They have their mind made up going into the discussion, and no amount of discussion will accomplish anything.

There has to be a basic level of understanding of the issues involved that is shared between the people in the discussion in order to make any headway one way or the other. If that base level doesn't exist, there's no ground to stand on.

Case in point:
"Hey, I didn't make the tweaks myself or write the explanations. I just tried and posted the results."
"makes it noticably slower in everyday applications." <-- slower than what? with what apps?
"streamline it."

If you don't understand what you are doing or why, you are not in a position to make any definitive statements about what is going on. Any RAM on your machine that is not being utilized is being wasted. You don't gain performance by having empty memory. You gain performance by having the frequently used data backed by physical memory so when the processor needs it, it can be accessed without having to fault out to disk. Showing that you have "way too much" memory being used (and way too much defined by what standard?) in no way supports your theories of performance.

Jeez, what logic!

All computers have limited resources no matter how fast. If you minimize the processes running, it frees up more resources to do other things. Logic can't get more simple than that. A streamlined OS runs faster than a bloated one, period.

I have five systems up and running of varoius speeds, and all show some improvement when streamlining an OS. That is an improvement in desktop responsiveness.

Try it, you'll like it.

Just 'cause there isn't a benchmark review (probably biased by a paycheck anyway) showing a "snappier, more responsive OS set up", doesn't mean it isn't so.

You don't need any "theories of performance" to sit down at your computer for a few minutes and notice an immediate seat of the pants improvement when making mouse clicks.

 

[Sianath]

It's beyond necessary to comment on what you say. All I need to do is quote you. Your comments are rants, not backed by any data at all, and show a very obvious ignorance.

"125MB is way too much, I don't care how fast your system is or how much memory it has"
"but overall responsiveness is better if you streamline it"
"This is Microshafts continual policy to pile complex fixes on top of each other for another fix, often causing new fixes to be needed"
"so called security fixes, they are a bunch of bull"
"Only a server in a office type set up needs worry about all the security crap "

One statement is oh-so-worthy of comment however...

"All computers have limited resources no matter how fast. If you minimize the processes running, it frees up more resources to do other things. Logic can't get more simple than that."

And indeed it can't! Your logic shows exactly how little you understand your OS and how it works. It does a beautiful job of pointing that out, actually.

I try and be polite when I'm discussing something, but when someone continually shows their blatant ignorance (demonstrated via continuous use of the word "Microshaft") it's difficult.

Unless all your RAM is being utilized and you have almost zero time spent in the idle thread, you are wasting resources (I would explain the "almost" vs "none" in the idle thread, but I have a hunch it would be wasted effort). Having "extra" does not in any way increase the OS performance... in fact, if you look at a memory dump of your system, you'll find that a majority of your time is spend in the idle thread, and that 90% of the threads on your system are BLOCKING... which means they aren't even ready to run, they are waiting on resources (a resource as a specific kernel-mode object, not the nebulous "resources" word you keep tossing around), disk IO, etc. Reducing what is ready to run will not speed up how fast those threads return from a blocking state.

All of my comments are purely from an OS standpoint. I agree completely that stopping unnecessary applications from running in the first place can definately improve your experience.... tweaking how the OS handles internal resources however (the "tweaks" you listed earlier) will not in any way help if you are running crappy apps to begin with. Apps that leak memory, apps that hold locks for longer than they should, apps that do synch IO vs asynch, apps that block for long periods of time, etc.

 

[rogue1979]

OK, I think we are having a different argument here. I am saying that by streamlining an OS by various tweaks and disabling services makes a computer more responsive in desktop duties.

I am also saying that using 125MB of memory to run a desktop is accepted by most people, but that in my humble opinion that is supporting a bloated OS.

Sure, some of these memory tweaks that effect the way the OS handles usage doesn't speed up the OS or make it more efficient.

I don't claim to understand all the technical details.

But from a less educated point of view using the desktop memory usage as a tool to streamline an OS is very effective, and shows definate improvements.

Sometimes common sense is more effective than technical mumbo jumbo.