| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows XP--No. 2 with a bullet | |
|
||
| Time: 10:46 EST/15:46 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Twenty percent of Net surfers are now using Microsoft's Windows XP operating system, according to market researcher WebSideStory. The research company said Windows XP is the second most popular OS among Internet users, behind Microsoft's Windows 98 with a 37 percent share. Windows XP's share is up from 2 percent in the first week of November 2001, and Windows 98's is down from 50 percent at that time. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:42:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/1/2002 12:10:59 PM |
| Die Win98 Die! |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/1/2002 12:11:38 PM |
| I'll second that! |
| #3 By 7390 (12.110.198.251) at 10/1/2002 12:47:07 PM |
|
A lot of home users don't have the necessary hardware to run the newer OS. So I suspect that win98 numbers will be strong for a while until those users go through their upgrade cycle. Which I am guessing will be 2-4 years from now.
|
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/1/2002 1:25:06 PM |
| I'm so tired of the bloat comments. Why don't all you wise people who've never seen the Windows source code tell us all about the bloat of the product. |
| #5 By 1124 (165.170.128.68) at 10/1/2002 1:55:17 PM |
|
I think he means better. XP now support usb2 + it has many kernal optimizations.
If they want a none "bloated" os these guys should stick with DOS 3. |
| #6 By 7390 (12.110.198.251) at 10/1/2002 2:34:24 PM |
|
#6 FinancialWiz if by bloated you mean an abundant of usefull tools and utilities then I agree with you. If by bloated you mean that one only has to "click" something rather than spending half their life at the DOS prompt then I agree.
|
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/1/2002 2:44:01 PM |
|
GhostRider - I think you're right, he must have meant better. I can't believe someone intelligent would waste their time trying to present a bloat argument.
|
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/1/2002 3:07:04 PM |
|
Bob, you think 10-30+ MBs of RAM per browser window/process with about 10%+ CPU utilization isn't bloated? Or that the same app, different face runs as an additional process sucking up 15+ MB of RAM, but if one crashes it frequently brings both processes (IEXPLORE.EXE and explorer.exe) with it, is good design that can only be disputed by looking at the source? I don't need source to know that some standard (in-my-book standard, i.e. 2-5 web browser windows and 2-3 explorer windows) background browsing shouldn't require 60+ MBs of RAM and 40% of my CPU. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 at 15:16. |
| #9 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/1/2002 3:51:04 PM |
| Also, in an NT environment, if iexplore.exe crashes, explorer.exe does NOT crash, however, unfortunately, if IE window crashes, all IE windows go down, unless, I guess, if you run them as a separate process. |
| #10 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 10/1/2002 4:25:55 PM |
|
I'd be interested to find out where sodajerk gets his numbers. They are a far cry from the numbers I get. My CPU usage and mem usage is substantially less than what you have proclaimed.
Secondly, if there is a crash (usually by a third party program), the only application that is brought down is that particular app, NOT bringing any additional apps with it. The same holds true with iexplore.exe and explorer.exe. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/1/2002 4:26:52 PM |
|
JVM, comparing IE to Mozilla AND Opera for that matter, MO and Opera grab about 10 Megs - 15 Megs, yes initially, but they don't grab anymore throughout the life of the process... I can easily have a single IE process grab 20, 30+ MBs of RAM if I keep it running.
CPU, actually I used to have it frequently happen where I crashed process of either IEXPLORE, explorer, or even Outlook would crash all three... on NT, yes. And certainly, it happens with 2000... it just happened to me this morning (although it didn't bring down Outlook)! And no, I don't think I've ever had this behavior due to a third party app... It usually starts with IE or explorer. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 at 16:28. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/1/2002 4:29:53 PM |
|
Brian, I'm getting them from Task Manager of course. Yes, rounded, but if you'd like I can report solid figures for you... unfortunately, a pile of shit dropped on me at work so I can't play that much on AW today.
:-( |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/1/2002 4:41:46 PM |
| bin, why this is bloat: on a different platform with different apps performing the same functions, far less memory and CPU are required. Simple. |
| #14 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/1/2002 4:57:54 PM |
|
soda, I'm afriad you have it backwards, Mozilla takes about 20mb-40mb while IE takes between 10mb-20mb.
Finally, I'm sorry, but I've been using Win2000 since it's launch, and even beta tested XP from beta1, and I've NEVER seen IE bring down Explorer (or anything else). |
| #15 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/1/2002 5:00:21 PM |
|
One more thing....
The term bloated is often mis-used. Something that has lots of useful features is NOT bloated. Something that is bloated is something that is full of useless features, slow, buggy, etc... and just overal clunky... this is not Windows. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/1/2002 5:28:09 PM |
|
Stop calling jerky boy soda, it's confusing!
Jerky boy - "Bob, you think 10-30+ MBs of RAM per browser window/process with about 10%+ CPU utilization isn't bloated?" Well the CPU utilization is obviously mistated because iexplore.exe only uses CPU when it's actually doing something. Even then if it takes up 100% of the CPU it'd be no different than other applications actually doing something. As far as memory usage, yes I'd consider that to be a lot if I had 640K of RAM in my machine. But considering I have 640 Megs, no I do not consider it bloated. Further considering I purchased 640 Megs for what 1 Meg of RAM cost 12 years ago, I'm even less concerned. When I run Return to Castle Wolfenstein on my PC it consumes 512 Megs of RAM. Is that game bloated compared to the original Castle Wolfenstein 3D? |
| #17 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/1/2002 10:59:55 PM |
| baarod: good point, memory not allocated is waste. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/1/2002 11:54:07 PM |
|
Right now all of the competing platforms against Windows are Unix based, and quite frankly they are in no position to sit there and complain about bloat considering they invented the concept with emacs back about 15 years ago.
In '93 I was working with a DECstation that had 32 Megs of RAM(an ungodly sum at the time) and it was still bloody slow due to swapping. So we went out and bought another 16 Megs for $1500... Point being, if sodajerk wants to sit there and whine about how he has to spend an extra $30 to put 256 Megs of RAM in a machine to keep WinXP from swapping... Well that's a value decision that I think is just foolish. Cripes, I've just wasted $30 of opportunity time sitting here responding to his complaints. |
| #19 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 12:54:32 AM |
| I have 11 browser windows open right now and I can't seem to get to 10% CPU usage. Oh, and my total memory used by iexplore.exe is 40Mgs. I'm running a PIII 850 with 512 RAM using Windows XP. I don't know your configuration, sodajerk, but you seem to have issues that I don't have with processor and memory utilization. |
| #20 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 12:55:21 AM |
| Baarod, you aren't last. Sorry, I'm not a l33t Linux d00d, so I can't asnwer the Linux questions for you. |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 12:56:04 AM |
| sodablue, great cost analysis! |
| #22 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 12:58:03 AM |
| As for explorer.exe crashing iexplore.exe or vice versa, I haven't had that happen since I upgraded to Windows XP. As a web dev guy, I often have many browser windows open, so I quite welcome the change from Windows 2000. In Windows 2000 the death of one IE was the death of all. That really bugged me! |
| #23 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 1:01:11 AM |
|
I am so excited that we discussed a topic, disagreed with each other, but still kept discussing civilly.
sodajerk, if you can, I'd like to see screen shots of your task manager showing the mem usage and CPU utilization you talked about. Also, what version of Windows are you running with what CPU and how much RAM? |
| #24 By 7390 (165.247.31.134) at 10/2/2002 7:09:31 AM |
|
Now we know how BobSmith go to 1688 posts.
Jeyky boy we question your numbers since none of us can reproduce them. Once again you discredit yourself, which seems to happen every time you post something. I have 2 machines at home both Dell (nothing is better) 1. WinXP pro P4 1.7GHZ with 512 megs of Ram 2. Win2k server p3 550 with 785,976kb ram (which serves as my DC and "prod" hosting) I also have a laptop that the slave pit (my job) gave to me. |
| #25 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/2/2002 7:31:20 AM |
| I'm up to 1693 now. ; - ) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:42:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
