Guest
Show Posts
1
General Mach Discussion / Re: minimum PC requirements for Mach3
« on: October 21, 2009, 03:17:15 AM »What can be gained is a whole lot less 'crap' running that we don't need. I can easily get windows 2000 to a 65 meg footprint. This runs very nicely on a modest under 1 gig processor with 512 meg or ram. This will boot up in about 15 seconds. Nlite allows you to remove IE and Outlook express plus a ton of other crap - IE and Outlook are big security leaks and we are better off without them (they also take up ram even when not in use.) I will happily post a data file that Nlite can use so users can create an optimum version of 2000 and XP once I figure out what can be killed.Is there a list of required windows components that are required by Mach3? I know about the optimization list but would like to go all the way with Nlite and make a 'perfect' XP or 2000 installation that will give maximum performance on my 'old' hardware.
Steve
What do you hope to gain by this? Just following the optimization instructions will get you down to a pretty bare-bones system with very low overhead (typically 1-2%). Going beyond that is not going to give you any measurable, much less perceptible, benefit.
Regards,
Ray L.
Steve
That may all make you feel better, but in terms of actual performance, it'll make no measurable difference whatsoever. Perhaps it'll free up a few Megs of RAM, but that too will not map into any measurable increase in performance. IE and Outlook security? They're perfectly secure as long as you don't USE them. Having services loaded that are not used costs essentially nothing - they'll be swapped out if memory is tight, and they'll be using no measurable CPU, since they're be forever asleep, unless you actually use them. Doing all that work won't make Mach3 run one tiny bit better or faster.
Regards,
Ray L.
I have read in several places that both IE and Outlook express are big security holes - even if never used. Nlite is very easy to use and is actually much easier to install than the full version of XP or 2K because the install is easily automated. This in not MS bashing from me, I just wish they gave us the option of not installing 'stuff' we don't need. I used to be a big OS/2 user and I gave up after many years of lack of driver support - even the big OS/2 software people went over to MS.
Steve