• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

Nothing in the security guide about Limited-class accounts, though? Least-privilege practices merit some coverage, being a simple, free defense that never needs signature updates and incurs no performance hit. Yeah, there's some software that freaks out under a Limited account. Anyway, it's all the antispyware protection we use or need where I work, 100% Restricted-User accounts (domain equivalent of a Limited account).
 
Nothing in the security guide about Limited-class accounts, though? Least-privilege practices merit some coverage, being a simple, free defense that never needs signature updates and incurs no performance hit. Yeah, there's some software that freaks out under a Limited account. Anyway, it's all the antispyware protection we use or need where I work, 100% Restricted-User accounts (domain equivalent of a Limited account).
Click to expand...
Least-privilage practices merit more than just some coverage; it merit's as much coverage as it takes to beat it into every admin, developer and user's head!

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: GeneralAres(Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. There are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding Windows XP, especially relating to Optimizations and Security. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these.
Click to expand...

Debunks Requirement, Optimization and Security Myths.[/quote]Hmm...

Well it also depends how the Myth itself is phrased. I.e. you define a Myth on your own terms you might create a Myth of a Myth.

Example: Myth - "Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files are necessary to prevent Spyware infections."

I doubt that you would find a serious definition of the Host File claiming it to be a major tool, or necessary to prevent Spyware infection.

If I rephrase the Myth above to: A good Host file can block Sites that are known to spread the "decease" and thus might reduce your general exposure to get the Spyware In.

It is Not a Myth any more.

The best Host file on the Internet, http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.zip

Examlple: Myth - "Windows XP requires a high end PC to install and run"

I do not think that you would find serious claims that you cannot "Run".

If the word Run means Run the setup and install then the Myth above is a Myth. But if the word Run means productive functional system it is not a Myth.

:sun:

P.S. Interesting observations.

1. The page is on the personal space of an Internet account and there is No About info. or any thing else that would ID the Producer, beside the name Andrew K.

2. In the last month the OP above made it is business to "advertise" the link in many public Forums.

There is nothing wrong about doing so, provided that the Site in the link does not have Ads on it. If the Site does have Ads, it is like using public forums for your own commercial business.

3. While the top Computer Enthusiasts Web sites are Linked at the top, AT is missing???

However, in general, most of the info on the anonymous page is valid.
 
I doubt that you would find a serious definition of the Host File claiming it to be a major tool, or necessary to prevent Spyware infection.

If I rephrase the Myth above to: A good Host file can block Sites that are known to spread the "decease" and thus might reduce your general exposure to get the Spyware In.

It is Not a Myth any more.
Click to expand...
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.

Examlple: Myth - "Windows XP requires a high end PC to install and run"

I do not think that you would find serious claims that you cannot "Run".

If the word Run means Run the setup and install then the Myth above is a Myth. But if the word Run means productive functional system it is not a Myth.
Click to expand...
The common definition of productive would mean being able to use the system for the work needed to get done. This would require meeting the system requirements of the software used. Nothing of which has anything to do with Windows XP's minimum system requirements. If you wanted to use the Internet, XP's built-in apps and basic office Apps, the minimum would work fine.
 
On Host files... Yes, a "good" host file is important. Is a Host file a good fix, probably not. But is the "right" host file a good thing, yes. Note that some malware (adware, viruses, trojans, spyware) actually poison the host file with bad entries. Some of the scanners now check for such attacks. A host file can help speed up problematic DNS lookups, but with the dynamic nature of the internet, it is not recommended unless you must resolve unnamed systems.

So, some myth, some fact.
 
There is a problem with your prefetch folder tweak myth.

Deleting the contents of your prefetch folder WILL decrease your boot time. The first boot afterwards will be drastically faster at a cost of slower load time for applications launched just after boot. As you boot and use apps prefetch will be repopulated and your boot time will slow back down. It will typically plateau at a level faster than your original boot time. The idea behind cleaning the prefetch is to stop prefetching items that were "optimized" long ago but you no longer use.

My source?

Stopwatch and about 4-5 reboots.
 
There is a problem with your prefetch folder tweak myth.

Deleting the contents of your prefetch folder WILL decrease your boot time. The first boot afterwards will be drastically faster at a cost of slower load time for applications launched just after boot. As you boot and use apps prefetch will be repopulated and your boot time will slow back down. It will typically plateau at a level faster than your original boot time. The idea behind cleaning the prefetch is to stop prefetching items that were "optimized" long ago but you no longer use.

My source?

Stopwatch and about 4-5 reboots.
Click to expand...
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 files are never referenced at all and eventually will be removed. I've tested this on numerous systems. My test system here was booting in 41 seconds with prefetching enabled, clearing the folder made it take 1 minute, 45 seconds to load. Your system may very well continued to slow down on startup but it had nothing to do with prefetching, rather you added more items to the startup or your HD's fragmentation got worse.
 
Originally posted by: GeneralAres
There is a problem with your prefetch folder tweak myth.

Deleting the contents of your prefetch folder WILL decrease your boot time. The first boot afterwards will be drastically faster at a cost of slower load time for applications launched just after boot. As you boot and use apps prefetch will be repopulated and your boot time will slow back down. It will typically plateau at a level faster than your original boot time. The idea behind cleaning the prefetch is to stop prefetching items that were "optimized" long ago but you no longer use.

My source?

Stopwatch and about 4-5 reboots.
Click to expand...
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 files are never referenced at all and eventually will be removed. I've tested this on numerous systems. My test system here was booting in 41 seconds with prefetching enabled, clearing the folder made it take 1 minute, 45 seconds to load. Your system may very well continued to slow down on startup but it had nothing to do with prefetching, rather you added more items to the startup or your HD's fragmentation got worse.
Click to expand...

Yep, that sounds like Smilin alright. What a Windows newbie. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: GeneralAres
I doubt that you would find a serious definition of the Host File claiming it to be a major tool, or necessary to prevent Spyware infection.

If I rephrase the Myth above to: A good Host file can block Sites that are known to spread the "decease" and thus might reduce your general exposure to get the Spyware In.

It is Not a Myth any more.
Click to expand...
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.

Examlple: Myth - "Windows XP requires a high end PC to install and run"

I do not think that you would find serious claims that you cannot "Run".

If the word Run means Run the setup and install then the Myth above is a Myth. But if the word Run means productive functional system it is not a Myth.
Click to expand...
The common definition of productive would mean being able to use the system for the work needed to get done. This would require meeting the system requirements of the software used. Nothing of which has anything to do with Windows XP's minimum system requirements. If you wanted to use the Internet, XP's built-in apps and basic office Apps, the minimum would work fine.
Click to expand...
OK.

Then you have to make a decision whether your main goal is to ?Sound Smart? or you want to Help commoners like me.

If your Goal is to Help, go back to your page and add your own sentence. "If you wanted to use the Internet, XP's built-in apps and basic office Apps, the minimum would work fine". Otherwise .... (add here what ever you would like as an example when more power, and much more power is needed).

:sun:
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: GeneralAres
There is a problem with your prefetch folder tweak myth.

Deleting the contents of your prefetch folder WILL decrease your boot time. The first boot afterwards will be drastically faster at a cost of slower load time for applications launched just after boot. As you boot and use apps prefetch will be repopulated and your boot time will slow back down. It will typically plateau at a level faster than your original boot time. The idea behind cleaning the prefetch is to stop prefetching items that were "optimized" long ago but you no longer use.

My source?

Stopwatch and about 4-5 reboots.
Click to expand...
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 files are never referenced at all and eventually will be removed. I've tested this on numerous systems. My test system here was booting in 41 seconds with prefetching enabled, clearing the folder made it take 1 minute, 45 seconds to load. Your system may very well continued to slow down on startup but it had nothing to do with prefetching, rather you added more items to the startup or your HD's fragmentation got worse.
Click to expand...

Yep, that sounds like Smilin alright. What a Windows newbie. :roll:
Click to expand...

hehe, thanks n0c 😛
 
OK.

Then you have to make a decision whether your main goal is to ?Sound Smart? or you want to Help commoners like me.

If your Goal is to Help, go back to your page and add your own sentence. "If you wanted to use the Internet, XP's built-in apps and basic office Apps, the minimum would work fine". Otherwise .... (add here what ever you would like as an example when more power, and much more power is needed).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Yeah I know, like the Entry Level Wireless Hardware.

The range that is quoted on the Box is a Good indication to the ""Actual Range"" that it would yield.

Same with Applications, what ever is written in the box is pure ""Objective Reality"".

Kind of reminding me the Evaluation practices of the Big Magazines that you are very familiar with.

Might be one of the (small) variables, that contributes to their slow and sad demise.

:sun:
 
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 recommended system requirements for someone buying a PC today. It is clearly about what the requirements are to run Windows XP. People clearly do not realize XP will run on a on a PII233 with 128MB of RAM.
 
Rather than playing with words (which I concede that I am No match to you).:brokenheart:

People do not buy New 233 computers, if an issue like this comes, it comes because someone has an old computer and he wants to upgrade.

Mr. X has a 233 computer with 128 RAM and he uses it for surfing the Internet email and simple word processing. As most 233 computers he has Win98 as an OS.

Mr. X comes to me and ask about Ugrading to WinXP.

I ask why?

Mr X answers.

Scenario 1. It Looks nicer, and every one is using it.

I explain to him that Upgrading to WinXP Home would cost him a little less then $100 if he does the Job himself, and more if some one is doing it for him. He should know that it would look nicer but he would have to use the applications that are currently installed on his computer.

Scenario 2. He says, yeah I want it to look nicer but I also want to use the newest Shiny applications that my friends are using. Play some newer games and work on my own photos.

My answer do not worry I read on Andrew web site it will (WinXP) install and run on your computer???

So I guess the Myth relates to scenario one. However if a person has a 233 and he is Not knowledgeable, upgrading to WinXP while aiming for scenario 2, it his fault.

:sun:
 
People do not buy New 233 computers, if an issue like this comes, it comes because someone has an old computer and he wants to upgrade.
Click to expand...
Right... Who said they did?

Mr. X has a 233 computer with 128 RAM and he uses it for surfing the Internet email and simple word processing. As most 233 computers he has Win98 as an OS.

Mr. X comes to me and ask about Ugrading to WinXP.
Click to expand...
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.

I explain to him that Upgrading to WinXP Home would cost him a little less then $100 if he does the Job himself, and more if some one is doing it for him. He should know that it would look nicer but he would have to use the applications that are currently installed on his computer.
Click to expand...
In which case XP will work fine and work better then his older OS.

Scenario 2. He says, yeah I want it to look nicer but I also want to use the newest Shiny applications that my friends are using. Play some newer games and work on my own photos.
Click to expand...
In which case you need to find out what application he is running and whether he needs to upgrade his system to meet them.

My answer do not worry I read on Andrew web site it will (WinXP) install and run on your computer???
Click to expand...
And it will. Andrew never said it would run Application X at the same requirements.

So I guess the Myth relates to scenario one, if a person that has a 233 and he is Not knowledgeable upgrades to WinXP while aiming for scenario 2, it his fault.
Click to expand...
Yes, Responsibility is important. If you don't know you should ask. But reading system requirements on a box is far from rocket science. You can't hold every applications system requirements to what XP needs to run. That is insane. How does the requirements for Battlefield 2 relate to Windows XP? It doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top