View Full Version : An amazing Microsoft feat.
How’s this for an amazing feat using a Microsoft product. My current Windows XP session has been active 6 Day(s) 1 Hour(s) 0 Minute(s) 31 Second(s). How is that possible, I hear you cry, without a myriad of application crashes and wipe-outs?! Here’s a handy tip for all you power users out there.
To restore system stability, you have to restart explorer.exe and the only way to do this is to crash the Windows shell. This is remarkably easy. Find a folder with more than 1,000 files and select all. Then choose properties, but close the window before Windows returns statistics for that folder. Then repeat the same process. The Windows shell will give up the ghost and roll over like an obedient dog, but Windows XP’s built in protection system will automatically restart explorer.exe giving you a “fresh” Windows session without needing to reboot. System integrity restored! (usual disclaimers apply)
XP does sounds great, maybe I should upgrade. I currently have windows ME.
I would recommend that. For all their faults (and they have many) Microsoft's Windows XP Professional is the best from the current Windows family for both games, applications and stability. As a hardy gamer, I would recommend XP.
..married to the right hardware setup of course. You can't go wrong with an Intel 2Ghz+, 1/2GB DDR and a GeForce 4Ti. Anything currently on the market will perform fine.
not a bad theroy, but i have found that not all of my TSR programs reload when i do such a thing. MY PC has had a good few days of work without this method. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
I have Win XP and have had animations in 3D studio max render for days and not had it crash. I built my PC from scratch so i have configured it PERFECTLY and it works great. no need to hurt my poor baby like that. (LOL) :D
Duffman. Indeed some do not. But those that don't can be restarted, and this added inconvenience still beats the time lost during a reboot.
i was reluctant to go to WIN XP from WIN 99SE as games was a big thing on my PC. and while newer games work fantastically, older games do not work at all. :mad: :mad:
its the only thing that i hate about it. im not a gamer that luvs the graphics, but more the gameplay, so im thinking of making a partition with 98SE so i can play those old gems. :D :D
Essentially, the trouble is with memory leaks. So many applications (not just from MS) contain code which spawns memory leaks and compatibility errors. Invariably, after any length of time the integrity of a Windows environment becomes compromised. It will be interesting to see just how long I can keep this session active.
something i luv about XP is the amazingly fast start up. my PC starts up from power on to logon in about 15 seconds and i have had it at under 10 seconds when i removed my network card that slows the start p process.
The new OS, code named longorn looks just like XP, only a little 'softer' in layout.
Another reason i changed was because i found out that Microsoft doesnt support operating systems after 5 years and things like drivers are not made after this time, by microsoft anyway, so i thought it best to change with the times.
For me XPect Failure is hardly an option. The system resource waste is not something Im going to roll over and accept...Its ME for me...
But if you dun mind it I imagine XPect Failure is fine...
Draco. How long did you use Windows XP for? If you not crashing any one of the Windows family operating systems, then you're not a power user. Try opening ME up and see how it whines http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
I crash Windows regularly...but I also restart nearly every three hours...so Im pretty good at rescuing the poor brat...lately though Ive been going longer than three hours without restarting...
A couple days ago I ran one of my...proggies...for 24 hours...ME didnt crash once...I was mildly surprised...
Exactly. Don't you get frustrated keep having to restart Windows? XP is the most resource-economical o/s to date. ctl-alt-del on Windows 98-ME reveals nothing of what your environment is busy chewing over. Task Manager in XP will list each process and it's power consumption. XP will also allow you to configure all services totally streamlining the session environment and freeing all those hidden resources 98/ME omits from sharing with it’s user.
Having said that, a friend of mine swears by ME, but I wonder how much of that is cosmetics and familiarity than actual function ability. XP can be quite daunting at first, but it comes packed with a zillion wizards. NT/2K users will feel at home right away.
...and I guess it also depends on how you want your PC to function. I look on mine rather like a finely tuned sports car with enough torque to spring it to Mar's. My environment is stripped of anything not integral to the stability and function of my Windows session. There are no free meals for power-hungry subsidiary applications in my registry or buried within my services.
i also luv the Task manager in XP. its so full of system information u just burst.
There is no other like it and i find that since ive had XP its crashed like twice. its fallen over, a few more times, but XP is so good that it has the ability to get back up on its feet agian, unlike other OS's.
I feel it works harder to make my life easier and its like it relaxes after doing tasks to regenerate and perform a little better the next time. i work my system to its peak daily and it is great. im a power user tho and have developed my own programs to make my life easier. ill release them on my web site as soon as i can and all can enjoy them. :D
It's not uncommon for my Win2K system to smoothly run ten days in a row... I only need to reboot when I install an update for a driver or other proggy ;)
NT-based systems are undoubtedly way more stable than Win9x/ME 'crash prone' systems. I don't like XP that much, but I would nevertheless recommend it to any user looking for an OS upgrade.
Originally posted by tlr online:
...and I guess it also depends on how you want your PC to function. I look on mine rather like a finely tuned sports car with enough torque to spring it to Mar's. My environment is stripped of anything not integral to the stability and function of my Windows session. There are no free meals for power-hungry subsidiary applications in my registry or buried within my services.My thoughts exactly! My own XP install is ruthlessly clean and as a result of that combined with XP, i cant' remember the last time i had a BSOD (a dodgy 3rd party driver if i remember right).
Top tip for those having XP crashes - uncheck the 'auto restart' option under 'Error handling' so you can see what's bringing you down - odds on it'll be a driver problem. (There's also a Registry hack for those brave enough that'll pin down the offender if you're getting BSOD's)
If you're having stability problems with XP, it'll be badly written hardware drivers - everytime!
As for Win ME - so bad they named a disease after it....... :rolleyes: :D :D
Im not talking about programs...Im talking about the OS itself...why get XP when ME performs faster on similar computers?
if had experience with both of those OS's Draco and found XP to be the better. Maybe its HW configuration but ive found both business apps and games (newer) perform better on XP.
As for my system, it has performed around 3 to 5 times better with XP on it (as opposed to 98SE) and a similar system slower with ME.
Im not saying that this is definate of course, (i think we have and understanding on it) but XP is definately a better OS than anything ive seen (except UNIX of course) and ive seen almost every OS out there, so my opinion is based on expereince not theory. ;)
XP 4 me, hehehe :D :D :D (get it?, oh no a bad joke, Duffman slumps his head :( )
Granted, I have little experience with XP. However I do read up on it. And by my own interpretation of what I read, I decided XP wasnt for ME...right...and that I would stick with ME. Also, when XP was known as Whistler, I did some research and decided than that it would be a little if any improvement over 98 (ME wasnt out yet).
But, I can be wrong, I am as infallible as religion...
Originally posted by Duffman:
XP is definately a better OS than anything ive seen (except UNIX of course) and ive seen almost every OS out thereDoh... That's counting without AmigaOS, except if you consider it a UNIX cousin of course ;)
Originally posted by tlr online:
Draco. How long did you use Windows XP for? If you not crashing any one of the Windows family operating systems, then you're not a power user. Try opening ME up and see how it whines http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif Lesson 1 from the Tim Allen School of Computer Use.
I just love my Win2000+SP3 http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
Windows XP is good, but i think that it's not so stable as Windows 2000. When i purchased Windows 2000 i wondering how did i do anything on Windows 98 before. ;)
But, to be honest, games runs better on Windows 98 than 2000. :( I've tested it with Quake III (demo mode 1) on the following machine: PIII @ 1000MHz, 512RAM, Matrox G400 DualHead MAX 32MB RAM, SB PCI 128, 60GB Maxtor 7200 + 40GB Maxtor 5400.
Windows 2000: Quake III - 88 FPS
Windows 98: Quake III - 200 FPS
Windows 98 is 2.27 times speedier than Windows 2000. Maybe it's the drivers for graphic card, i don't know.
But, when talking about stability, thumbs up for Windows 2000.
7 Day(s) 1 Hour(s) 44 Minute(s) 25 Second(s) and counting...
0 Period(s) 0 Era(s) 0 Millennium(s) 0 Century(ies) 0 Decade(s) 0 Year(s) 0 Month(s) 0 Week(s) 0 Day(s) 0 Hour(s) 12 Minute(s) 39 Second(s)...
:D I know enough not to keep the comp on when I dun use it... http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
At the workplace, we have Windows 2000 Server, it's up more than two months http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
9 Day(s) 9 Hour(s) 20 Minute(s) 25 Second(s) and six shell restarts so far.
and you have now spent around $9-$12 (AUS) worth of power... :mad: thats Aus power ratings, ur country might use more/less, also depending on the PC config it might want more juice.
dont forget to save the planet now. im not a nark, but still... wasting power is bad for us all. Your PC isnt solar powered is it? or maybe kinetic? typing powers the computer, hehehe... its theoretically possible... maybe a project for intel or microsoft to take on.
Just breached the 10 Day(s) 0 Hour(s) 13 Minute(s) 37 Second(s) and I've fallen foul to a Windows XP update reboot. Looks like my experiment will soon draw to a close. Conclusion. The forced shell-crash does act like a quick reboot, with the exception of a few memory resident programs, system integrity is completely restored and the evidence of nasty memory leaks eradicated.
This is Lt. tlr online, signing off from the Nostromo. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
i wonder if the re-installation of windows XP does the same sort of thing as the re-installation of windows 98SE, which improved and tuned windows.
I used to do it to refresh the windows shell and it only took about 15-20 minutes on my old pentium 233. it would keep all settings, just refresh files and stabalise the system overall.
hmmmm.... i wonder...
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.