Guest

Microsoft has no plans for a second Windows 7 Service Pack

41 posts in this topic

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
Posted from a real PC running XP SP2, using Opera Browser 9.52. ;)

It's probably an automatic message added by that Board Express application :whistle:

Sure :), I know, the IPad and the blackberry do the same and it is considered (by me and a few other people around) a form of "netiquette" to remove it as it:

  1. senselessly "promotes" the device/application (and you don't get any money for it)
  2. could (though this is specifically not the case for a Lumia 900 :whistle: ) cause a sense of "envy" to the readers that would like (but cannot afford) a "desirable" item

I like:

Ex nominis expers supertabula mea missa. :hello:

It does not "promote" anything except, perhaps, the use of macaronic Latin.

I sometimes add it to my replies to e-mails sent from any of those ipso-omphalocentric mobiles. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like:

Ex nominis expers supertabula mea missa. :hello:

It does not "promote" anything except, perhaps, the use of macaronic Latin.

I sometimes add it to my replies to e-mails sent from any of those ipso-omphalocentric mobiles. :D

Bene intelligo tuae rationes. :thumbup

Hoc nuntium ab innominato instrumento missum erat.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont even update my win 7 is there a need for updates?

every time i done it on xp it slowed it down only time it was good was when i built an intergrated disc with all updates, but cbf doing that with win7

Edited by b-man
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is a need to update in a timely fashion. Otherwise you are susceptible to hacks.

Updates don't slow down systems. It must have been something else. 99% of the time all updates do is replace a system file with a patched, higher version number.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like:

Ex nominis expers supertabula mea missa. :hello:

It does not "promote" anything except, perhaps, the use of macaronic Latin.

I sometimes add it to my replies to e-mails sent from any of those ipso-omphalocentric mobiles. :D

Bene intelligo tuae rationes. :thumbup

Hoc nuntium ab innominato instrumento missum erat.

jaclaz

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XP is used because it isn't broken, most enterprises still use old apps, and upgrades cost money. It has nothing to do with the technical merits of XP versus Windows 7 or Windows 8, it's a fiscal decision. It's cheaper for them (until 2014, anyway) to upgrade at the cheapest pace possible, and that might include not at all.

Still it has to do with the quality and value of Windows XP themselves - at least that's what I believe. The fact that Windows XP is the most succesfull version of Windows until now isn't sheare coincidence, is it? I believe that the Microsoft's big mistake is that they tried to make something better than it without using it as a stable basis. Perhaps it was the basis for Windows Vista but they thought that people were lacking 3D Windows and transparency... and messed the whole thing with UAC. Now Windows 8 make me feel rather sad - thanks God they finally have a desktop and there are numerus solutions for the lack of the Start Menu. I don't question the OS capabilities but it just doesn't make you happy - if you know what I mean. It rather puzzles you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually the "3D windows" was more than necessary move

XP has GDI object limitation imposed, for example I had problem when used a theme(skin) and opened 10 apps

OS would refuse to work, no new window would open nor draw, task manager would refuse to run

no explorer window would open

I'd be greeted by beep-error sound

this was common problem and the only solution was vista's desktop composition engine (desktop window manager/DWM)

with that user has no such limitation problems at all

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still it has to do with the quality and value of Windows XP themselves - at least that's what I believe. I believe that the Microsoft's big mistake is that they tried to make something better than it without using it as a stable basis. Perhaps it was the basis for Windows Vista but they thought that people were lacking 3D Windows and transparency... and messed the whole thing with UAC.

you can believe what you want but this is not correct ;)

XP has only grown that much because Vista was delayed. A lot of companies wanted to skip XP and stay at 2000, but because of the Vista delay they were forced to upgrade because they didn't wanted to use a Windows which is out of mainstream support.

And VISTA is the EXTREMELY STABLE BASIS for Windows 7 and Windows 8 :lol:

Edited by MagicAndre1981
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually the "3D windows" was more than necessary move

XP has GDI object limitation imposed, for example I had problem when used a theme(skin) and opened 10 apps

OS would refuse to work, no new window would open nor draw, task manager would refuse to run

no explorer window would open

I'd be greeted by beep-error sound

this was common problem and the only solution was vista's desktop composition engine (desktop window manager/DWM)

with that user has no such limitation problems at all

I dunno why your skin would hog them up.

That's not common with NT-based Windows.

It was common with non-NT-based versions.

Edited by RJARRRPCGP
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually the "3D windows" was more than necessary move

XP has GDI object limitation imposed, for example I had problem when used a theme(skin) and opened 10 apps

OS would refuse to work, no new window would open nor draw, task manager would refuse to run

no explorer window would open

I'd be greeted by beep-error sound

this was common problem and the only solution was vista's desktop composition engine (desktop window manager/DWM)

with that user has no such limitation problems at all

Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 have a configurable GDI object limit (via the registry) that defaults to 10,000 objects per process (but a theoretical maximum of 65,536 for the entire session. The reason the behavior you describe happens on XP is because the shared desktop heap is limited. Increase it and XP will scale beautifully on modern systems:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SubSystems]

"Debug"=hex(2):00,00

"Kmode"=hex(2):25,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,52,00,6f,00,6f,00,74,\

00,25,00,5c,00,73,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,33,00,32,00,5c,00,77,00,\

69,00,6e,00,33,00,32,00,6b,00,2e,00,73,00,79,00,73,00,00,00

"Optional"=hex(7):50,00,6f,00,73,00,69,00,78,00,00,00,00,00

"Posix"=hex(2):25,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,52,00,6f,00,6f,00,74,\

00,25,00,5c,00,73,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,33,00,32,00,5c,00,70,00,\

73,00,78,00,73,00,73,00,2e,00,65,00,78,00,65,00,00,00

"Required"=hex(7):44,00,65,00,62,00,75,00,67,00,00,00,57,00,69,00,6e,00,64,00,\

6f,00,77,00,73,00,00,00,00,00

"Windows"=hex(2):25,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,52,00,6f,00,6f,00,\

74,00,25,00,5c,00,73,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,33,00,32,00,5c,00,63,\

00,73,00,72,00,73,00,73,00,2e,00,65,00,78,00,65,00,20,00,4f,00,62,00,6a,00,\

65,00,63,00,74,00,44,00,69,00,72,00,65,00,63,00,74,00,6f,00,72,00,79,00,3d,\

00,5c,00,57,00,69,00,6e,00,64,00,6f,00,77,00,73,00,20,00,53,00,68,00,61,00,\

72,00,65,00,64,00,53,00,65,00,63,00,74,00,69,00,6f,00,6e,00,3d,00,31,00,30,\

00,32,00,34,00,2c,00,31,00,32,00,32,00,38,00,38,00,2c,00,35,00,31,00,32,00,\

20,00,57,00,69,00,6e,00,64,00,6f,00,77,00,73,00,3d,00,4f,00,6e,00,20,00,53,\

00,75,00,62,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,54,00,79,00,70,00,65,00,\

3d,00,57,00,69,00,6e,00,64,00,6f,00,77,00,73,00,20,00,53,00,65,00,72,00,76,\

00,65,00,72,00,44,00,6c,00,6c,00,3d,00,62,00,61,00,73,00,65,00,73,00,72,00,\

76,00,2c,00,31,00,20,00,53,00,65,00,72,00,76,00,65,00,72,00,44,00,6c,00,6c,\

00,3d,00,77,00,69,00,6e,00,73,00,72,00,76,00,3a,00,55,00,73,00,65,00,72,00,\

53,00,65,00,72,00,76,00,65,00,72,00,44,00,6c,00,6c,00,49,00,6e,00,69,00,74,\

00,69,00,61,00,6c,00,69,00,7a,00,61,00,74,00,69,00,6f,00,6e,00,2c,00,33,00,\

20,00,53,00,65,00,72,00,76,00,65,00,72,00,44,00,6c,00,6c,00,3d,00,77,00,69,\

00,6e,00,73,00,72,00,76,00,3a,00,43,00,6f,00,6e,00,53,00,65,00,72,00,76,00,\

65,00,72,00,44,00,6c,00,6c,00,49,00,6e,00,69,00,74,00,69,00,61,00,6c,00,69,\

00,7a,00,61,00,74,00,69,00,6f,00,6e,00,2c,00,32,00,20,00,50,00,72,00,6f,00,\

66,00,69,00,6c,00,65,00,43,00,6f,00,6e,00,74,00,72,00,6f,00,6c,00,3d,00,4f,\

00,66,00,66,00,20,00,4d,00,61,00,78,00,52,00,65,00,71,00,75,00,65,00,73,00,\

74,00,54,00,68,00,72,00,65,00,61,00,64,00,73,00,3d,00,31,00,36,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SubSystems\CSRSS]

"CsrSrvSharedSectionBase"=dword:7f6f0000

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for info

but you dumped wrong data :P

according to MS (and other sites)

this is solution:

---------------

The size of each desktop heap allocation is controlled by the following registry value:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SubSystems\Windows

Windows SharedSection specifies the system and desktop heaps using the following format:

Windows SharedSection=xxxx,yyyy,zzzz

For 32-bit operating systems, increase the yyyy value to "12288", increase the zzzz value to "1024"

For 64-bit operating systems, increase the yyyy value to "20480", increase the zzzz value to "1024"

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.