BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 4d, 10h, 48m | CPU: 8% | MEM: 2558MB of 5633MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Picture and Fax Viewer on Windows 2000, and 2000 tweaks?        Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:27 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Right, I just installed 2000 on my new-old small laptop, and it seems good (despite only 48 MB Ram). However, I seem to remember there was a way to get the ME Picture and Fax Viewer installed on 2000, but can't find it anywhere. Do any of you remember how to do this?

Also, what regtweaks would you recommend to improve 2000? I've done the Explorer Ram one that was posted here recently, the disable last access time updating one, and the menu show delay one, but there must be some other good ones.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:40 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Did you disable some services which are unnecessary for you?
And have you already installed a service pack? What's the RAM usage like on startup? Something I'd do is completely disabling Active Desktop. To do that, go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Policies/Explorer in registry, and set NoActiveDesktop to 1. If the value is not present, create it as REG_DWORD. Another thing that might be worth is disabling the Indexing service thing if you haven't done so already. This is done in the properties of the drive/partition in My Computer. Also, you should use Sysinternals' PageDefrag utility to regularly defragment your registry because on Win2k, it's loaded into RAM completely on boot-up (unlike in XP, IIRC).

Would you like some tips about freeing some space on your HD as well?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:04 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
I disabled most of the services, yes. Thanks for the suggestions - I'll give them a try. That tweak that's meant to reduce Explorer ram usage actually gave me problems so I undid it (it made the icon of every program shortcut into a picture of a window with a cog inside it). At the moment, the services running on startup are:

DHCP Client
Event Log
Network Connections
Plug and Play
Print Spooler
Protected Storage
Remote Procedure Call
Removable Storage
Security Accounts Manager
Windows Management Instrumentation
Windows Management Instrumentation driver extensions
Workstation

Which of these could also go? Note that I need network (but not filesharing, just internet over ethernet), USB floppy drive and USB key to work, and printing.

For hard disk space, I know to delete all the backup files for updates, and to delete the contents of %systemroot%\dllcache. Are there any other good places that store unnecessary files?

I installed it from my 4-in-1 SP4-integrated CD, so it had the service pack right form the start. I then loaded the post-SP4 update rollup onto it, but haven't been able to install the latest updates as I can't seem to get on the internet (I think my PC Card-to-Ethernet adapter might not be working - it's one I got ages ago with a load of stuff from a clearout and hasn't been tested before, and it's showing no signs of life at all).

Memory usage is pretty much exactly the same as my Ram, actually - around 48 MB Commit on startup at the moment. 12 processes (not including Task Manager). Windows 2000 seems really nice and lightweight - it uses a lot less hard drive space than XP too. It's actually pretty zippy for a P133 :)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:48 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
that tweak that's meant to reduce Explorer ram usage actually gave me problems so I undid it (it made the icon of every program shortcut into a picture of a window with a cog inside it).

But that's not the problem you have with it, is it? Because this tweak replaces the exe's icon with a default icon.

Quote:
DHCP Client
Event Log
Network Connections
Plug and Play
Print Spooler
Protected Storage
Remote Procedure Call
Removable Storage
Security Accounts Manager
Windows Management Instrumentation
Windows Management Instrumentation driver extensions
Workstation

That's already pretty good, I think you could also disable the "Event Log" and the "Print Spooler" if you don't need the Event Viewer and don't print on the notebook, but I advise you to look at the "Dependencies" tab first before disabling any of the services left because it might be that other services will then stop working. "Network Connections" could be a candidate, too, because IIRC it only shows the available connections in the "Network and Dial-up connections" window, nothing more. I don't know if disabling it will have any more effects, though. Be careful when disabling it. Maybe "Workstation" can be disabled if you don't do any filesharing over ethernet. Can't think of any more of them to turn off, now. I suppose you need "DHCP Client" for your internet? With all your experiments, be sure not to disable "Remote Procedure Call" as doing that will give you severe problems.

Quote:
or hard disk space, I know to delete all the backup files for updates, and to delete the contents of %systemroot%\dllcache. Are there any other good places that store unnecessary files?

What about the Driver Cache? %systemroot%/driver cache/i386
And you can also reveal some hidden components in the "Add/Remove Windows Components" wizard by editing %systemroot%/inf/sysoc.inf and removing the word "hide" or "HIDE" wherver you see it (but keep the commas before and after it).

Quote:
Memory usage is pretty much exactly the same as my Ram, actually - around 48 MB Commit on startup at the moment. 12 processes (not including Task Manager). Windows 2000 seems really nice and lightweight - it uses a lot less hard drive space than XP too. It's actually pretty zippy for a P133
That's after tweaking the services. On a normal install, it'd be way more than 12 processes and 48MB of RAM. My Win2k Server SP4 install has around 30 processes running and uses more than 110MB of RAM, but there's some stuff already installed. A fresh install of Pro would probably use ~70MB, though.

By the way: Have you ever used Windows 2000 before? :wink:

I agree about the HD space bit. XP is... just fat compared to 2000 (aka NT5) But, on the other hand, 2000 uses way more space than NT4 :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:09 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Quote:
Memory usage is pretty much exactly the same as my Ram, actually - around 48 MB Commit on startup at the moment. 12 processes (not including Task Manager). Windows 2000 seems really nice and lightweight - it uses a lot less hard drive space than XP too. It's actually pretty zippy for a P133
That's after tweaking the services. On a normal install, it'd be way more than 12 processes and 48MB of RAM. My Win2k Server SP4 install has around 30 processes running and uses more than 110MB of RAM, but there's some stuff already installed. A fresh install of Pro would probably use ~70MB, though.

By the way: Have you ever used Windows 2000 before? :wink:


Yes, I think it was around 70 MB when I first installed it. I have played around with 2000 in Virtual PC before (I've tried all the versions of Windows to see what they're all like), but I've never installed and used 2000 on a real machine before, and done all the tweaking to get it good on a low-spec PC. There are a few university terminals still running 2000 as well, although you don't really get an idea of how lightweight it is on those as they're always running a million network/antivirus/administration etc services.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:26 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
Yes, I think it was around 70 MB when I first installed it. I have played around with 2000 in Virtual PC before (I've tried all the versions of Windows to see what they're all like), but I've never installed and used 2000 on a real machine before, and done all the tweaking to get it good on a low-spec PC. There are a few university terminals still running 2000 as well, although you don't really get an idea of how lightweight it is on those as they're always running a million network/antivirus/administration etc services.

I also like testing OSes in Virtual PC, VMware or other PC virtualizers, but I enjoy using them on real hardware as well, even more than testing them. That's why I have just bought an IBM ThinkPad 600 on eBay – for running the old Windows versions, especially NT 3.51 and 4.0, again. :) I've been using Windows 2000 since it was in beta 3 stage (in the middle of 1999 IIRC) and I got the final immediately when it came out in February 2000. I think Win2k is one of the best MS OSes. It's a shame they renamed it. They shoulda released it as "Windows NT 5.0".


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:58 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
I don't really have much old PC hardware - I've got quite a few old Mac desktops but only one PC (an old IBM PS/2) and I don't have any accessories for PCs (screen, keyboard), as all my other PCs are laptops (my main laptop, the new-old one with Windows 2000, some old 186/286/386 laptops, and the dead ThinkPad 570, which I think is similar to the 600 but a bit smaller).

I think it must have been quite confusing for people who didn't know that much about these kind of things that 2000 didn't follow on from 98, and that there was a Millennium and a 2000, which someone could believe were the same thing from the names, so keeping NT in the name until they merged the lines with XP might have been a good idea.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:26 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
I don't really have much old PC hardware - I've got quite a few old Mac desktops but only one PC (an old IBM PS/2) and I don't have any accessories for PCs (screen, keyboard), as all my other PCs are laptops (my main laptop, the new-old one with Windows 2000, some old 186/286/386 laptops, and the dead ThinkPad 570, which I think is similar to the 600 but a bit smaller).

That applies to me as well. I primarily have Macs (there are two that belong to me, the 3rd belongs to my father), and only two x86/PC boxes. One system is collecting dust in the cellar now as I've managed to destroy the CPU and the other one is the ThinkPad 600 I'm currently waiting for.

Quote:
I think it must have been quite confusing for people who didn't know that much about these kind of things that 2000 didn't follow on from 98, and that there was a Millennium and a 2000, which someone could believe were the same thing from the names, so keeping NT in the name until they merged the lines with XP might have been a good idea.

Yes, don't remind me of that... :) Almost all of my friends (who were computer users, but no "geeks") thought that Win 2000 was the successor of Win 98, and that Millennium Edition and 2000 were the same. I'd have preferred it if MS had indeed released
    Windows NT Workstation 5.0
    Windows NT Server 5.0
    Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition 5.0
    Windows NT Server Datacenter Edition 5.0
instead of Win2k Pro and its server counterparts. That's the reason why I still run "Windows 2000" beta 2 and some post-beta 2 builds sometimes – because they're all still called NT 5.0. :) They started renaming it to Win2k with the Beta 3 RCs. But anyway, I think Win2k was/is a really good OS. I only wish they had released a 64-bit version of it for x64 systems. There are supposed to be some betas, but I've never ever seen them.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:39 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
That applies to me as well. I primarily have Macs (there are two that belong to me, the 3rd belongs to my father), and only two x86/PC boxes. One system is collecting dust in the cellar now as I've managed to destroy the CPU and the other one is the ThinkPad 600 I'm currently waiting for.


Yeah, I really like the old Mac systems. All of mine are very old as they've all been free from Freecycle or the university clearout list - the oldest one is a Plus from 1987, with all the original manuals and disks etc, and the bag that you can carry it all in :) The newest one is a 6100/60 (the first generation PowerPC!) running MacOS 9.1. Which Macs do you have?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:44 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
Yeah, I really like the old Mac systems. All of mine are very old as they've all been free from Freecycle or the university clearout list - the oldest one is a Plus from 1987, with all the original manuals and disks etc, and the bag that you can carry it all in Smile The newest one is a 6100/60 (the first generation PowerPC!) running MacOS 9.1. Which Macs do you have?

Wow, you have some really old goodies :) The three Macs in my house:

    Mac mini with PowerPC G4
    MacBook with Intel Core Duo
    iBook with PowerPC G4


They're all running Mac OS X (10.4.8 currently), and the MacBook is very rarely dual-booted to Windows XP if I need it. I usually use Parallels to run it in a windowed VM so I don't have to shut down Mac OS X.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:56 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Ahh cool - all new Macs for you :) I'd really like an OS X-capable Mac - I love OS X and it would also be quite a good platform to learn some UNIX on too, I think (as it's a lot more user-friendly than Linux for someone who knows nothing about UNIX, but all the hardcore UNIX stuff is there as well).

My dad's office is replacing all their beige G3 towers with iMacs at the moment - I asked him to ask the systems people what's happening to the old ones but I don't know if anything will come of that or not :) One of those would be great though, as they can run 10.4 with XPostFacto, and their ones have 512 MB Ram too (they're used for QuarkXPress, Photoshop etc)! They've got the original Apple Studio Display LCD screens too (the translucent dark blue ones, still with the old rainbow Apple logo). I went and looked at their new iMacs the other day and they are awesome - great screens, very fast (despite being G5s, as they need to use Adobe CS2), and OS X which I really like. They must have cost an absolute fortune - rows and rows of 20-inch iMac G5s, some G5 towers, and every one with the full CS2 suite (including Acrobat Pro), InCopy CS2, and MS Office 2004 installed...

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:36 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
Ahh cool - all new Macs for you Smile

Yeah. :D I'd love to have an original G4 Cube, too, but thse things are unaffordable, especially if it's been upgraded with a faster CPU and stuff.

Quote:
I'd really like an OS X-capable Mac - I love OS X and it would also be quite a good platform to learn some UNIX on too, I think (as it's a lot more user-friendly than Linux for someone who knows nothing about UNIX, but all the hardcore UNIX stuff is there as well).

Yes, OS X is a wonderful OS. A beautiful GUI and a rock solid base OS. It's the only Unix on which you'll probably never have to touch the command line :) I personally also use FreeBSD, which OS X is partially based on, Linux and Solaris if I want to do some Unix hacking. :D

Quote:
My dad's office is replacing all their beige G3 towers with iMacs at the moment - I asked him to ask the systems people what's happening to the old ones but I don't know if anything will come of that or not Smile One of those would be great though, as they can run 10.4 with XPostFacto, and their ones have 512 MB Ram too (they're used for QuarkXPress, Photoshop etc)! They've got the original Apple Studio Display LCD screens too (the translucent dark blue ones, still with the old rainbow Apple logo).

If I were you, I'd really hope that you can get one of these as they would run OS X with XPostFacto, as you already said. It wouldn't be a speed daemon, but it would give you a taste of it, just as OSx86 did and maybe still does. One note, though: The dark blue Apple Studio Displays are CRTs, not LCDs. The LCD version of the old Apple Studio Displays and Cinema Displays is white. I have one of these Cinema Displays, and, boy, this is the most beautiful and erotic screen I've ever had!

Quote:
went and looked at their new iMacs the other day and they are awesome - great screens, very fast (despite being G5s, as they need to use Adobe CS2), and OS X which I really like. They must have cost an absolute fortune - rows and rows of 20-inch iMac G5s, some G5 towers, and every one with the full CS2 suite (including Acrobat Pro), InCopy CS2, and MS Office 2004 installed...

Great :D Why do you say "very fast, despite being G5s"? The PowerPC G5s really scream. They are 64-bit RISC CPUs. Anyway, this corresponds a bit to the equipment I have at my school, there are Dual G5 towers with 19" Widescreens, each running Office 2004, Adobe CS2 and that stuff. And the best of it all: I am one of the persons taking care of these babies. :)


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LarryTN7722 and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS