Which XP?

Getting old software/games running on older hardware.

Re: Which XP?

Postby Asaki » 2017-2-17 @ 13:22

Definitely need a lot of RAM if you want to browse the web in XP >_< Everything is poorly programmed scripts, huge unscaled photos, and videos for no reason...I install NoScript, and I use mobile versions of the heavier sites.
Asaki
Newbie
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 2006-6-30 @ 00:32

Re: Which XP?

Postby jade_angel » 2017-2-17 @ 13:42

It's freakish how much memory modern web browsing takes. Last night I had Chrome get OOM-killed on my Linux box because it had gobbled through 20GB of RAM.

Browser dies because it's chewed through more RAM than my whole school district had disk storage in 1997. What the heck?
User avatar
jade_angel
Newbie
 
Posts: 84
Joined: 2017-1-03 @ 00:10
Location: Virginia

Re: Which XP?

Postby jarreboum » 2017-2-17 @ 14:50

Tetrium wrote:
hyoenmadan wrote: And it only gets worse with SP3.


Does that mean it gets better with SP3 on Pentium 4 and AMD64?
jarreboum
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 2013-1-28 @ 10:36

Re: Which XP?

Postby notsofossil » 2017-2-17 @ 16:14

jade_angel wrote:It's freakish how much memory modern web browsing takes. Last night I had Chrome get OOM-killed on my Linux box because it had gobbled through 20GB of RAM.

Browser dies because it's chewed through more RAM than my whole school district had disk storage in 1997. What the heck?


What sites and how many tabs? I use Firefox 50 and upwards of 8 tabs and at worst it'll use up a gigabyte of RAM on XP SP3. I don't do Facebook or Twitter or other popular trash sites, maybe they eat up a ton of RAM.

I do notice Waterfox on 64-bit Windows can be a RAM hog though. I've seen it use up 2GB easy. I haven't tried using a newer version of Linux, got turned off by Gnome resembling Windows 8.

Ironically, Firefox 3.6.28 on Windows ME can work perfectly fine on as little as 512MB RAM. It's a lot for WinME, but it's tiny compared to 20GB. Maybe the problem you're having is caused by modern Linux (also Windows) and modern Chrome being pure bloatware.

jarreboum wrote:Does that mean it gets better with SP3 on Pentium 4 and AMD64?


It was painfully slow on a P4, I upgraded the whole PC up to a Core 2 Duo, massive improvement.
User avatar
notsofossil
Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: 2016-4-07 @ 08:05

Re: Which XP?

Postby Jorpho » 2017-2-17 @ 16:19

jarreboum wrote:Does that mean it gets better with SP3 on Pentium 4 and AMD64?
The article at http://www.zdnet.com/article/xp-sp3-per ... ome-about/ suggests that SP3 does offer a modest performance improvement.

(I never noticed until now that that article actually includes "XP RTM" in the testing. Hmm.)
User avatar
Jorpho
l33t++
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: 2003-2-14 @ 19:50
Location: Canada

Re: Which XP?

Postby jade_angel » 2017-2-17 @ 16:32

notsofossil wrote:
jade_angel wrote:It's freakish how much memory modern web browsing takes. Last night I had Chrome get OOM-killed on my Linux box because it had gobbled through 20GB of RAM.

Browser dies because it's chewed through more RAM than my whole school district had disk storage in 1997. What the heck?


What sites and how many tabs? I use Firefox 50 and upwards of 8 tabs and at worst it'll use up a gigabyte of RAM on XP SP3. I don't do Facebook or Twitter or other popular trash sites, maybe they eat up a ton of RAM.

I do notice Waterfox on 64-bit Windows can be a RAM hog though. I've seen it use up 2GB easy. I haven't tried using a newer version of Linux, got turned off by Gnome resembling Windows 8.

Ironically, Firefox 3.6.28 on Windows ME can work perfectly fine on as little as 512MB RAM. It's a lot for WinME, but it's tiny compared to 20GB. Maybe the problem you're having is caused by modern Linux (also Windows) and modern Chrome being pure bloatware.


It's mostly Chrome and the fact that I had Netflix, Facebook and several other notorious heavyweights running in a whole ratload of tabs (multiple windows on multiple virtual desktops), and that I'd had the browser running for a few weeks. That's not the kind of thing that typically happens - I was more thunderstruck that it can happen at all. If I stay away from the really stupid sites, memory usage pretty much never goes much over 4GB, and that's with me being somewhat profligate - windows everywhere, tabs everywhere. I know some folks keep their browsers assiduously trimmed down to one or two tabs, but I'd probably only do that if I had to.

As for modern Linux and bloat, I'm running Gentoo, so with a few exceptions, I'm mostly not saddled with any cruft I didn't want (other than PulseAudio, which I grudgingly gave up on trying to excise). Some other distros do pull in the kitchen sink whether you want it or not, though. I'm not wild about Gnome, that's for sure. There are reasons I'm sticking with XFCE, belike (and it's not because I'm running on underspec hardware).
User avatar
jade_angel
Newbie
 
Posts: 84
Joined: 2017-1-03 @ 00:10
Location: Virginia

Re: Which XP?

Postby jarreboum » 2017-2-17 @ 16:43

Jorpho wrote:
jarreboum wrote:Does that mean it gets better with SP3 on Pentium 4 and AMD64?
The article at http://www.zdnet.com/article/xp-sp3-per ... ome-about/ suggests that SP3 does offer a modest performance improvement.

(I never noticed until now that that article actually includes "XP RTM" in the testing. Hmm.)

The comparison with XP RTM is really interesting. It seems SP3 restores the performances of original XP on lower end machines, cancelling the problems you guys noticed with SP2 compared to XP RTM. For lower end machines, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to upgrade, and it allows to connect to the internet if needed. More powerful machines have a slightly longer boot time and file copy time with SP3, the rest is equivalent (but the numbers are much better simply for using a better computer.)

In any case, the choice should be between original XP and SP3.
jarreboum
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 2013-1-28 @ 10:36

Re: Which XP?

Postby Asaki » 2017-2-17 @ 22:23

jade_angel wrote:It's freakish how much memory modern web browsing takes. Last night I had Chrome get OOM-killed on my Linux box because it had gobbled through 20GB of RAM.


Oh yeah, Chrome is terrible in that regard, worse than Opera. It's funny that they're both touted as being the fastest browsers, but after 20 minutes, it won't matter because your RAM is all gone =) And I've only got 768 MB on this machine! (my desktop is down for repairs)

I've always found IE to be the most RAM friendly, but obviously you wouldn't want to go that route in XP anymore. Firefox holds up alright.

notsofossil wrote:I don't do Facebook or Twitter or other popular trash sites, maybe they eat up a ton of RAM.


Definitely two sites where you would want to use the mobile versions >_<
Asaki
Newbie
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 2006-6-30 @ 00:32

Re: Which XP?

Postby dr_st » 2017-2-18 @ 09:04

Touting Chrome as the fastest browser is so 2010. :D

Most of the benchmarks comparing browser speed are artificial anyways. In practical usage, I have never found any noticeable differences in rendering speed between the mainstream browsers back when they were actively comparing them. Usually most of the wait is for the content to download. Then there are the heavy videos, which are very CPU/GPU-intensive, but their performance depends on external plugins and not so much the browser.
User avatar
dr_st
Oldbie
 
Posts: 650
Joined: 2015-4-09 @ 07:18

Previous

Return to Software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests