Windows running very slow
Matthew Album
I have installed Windows 3.11 but it operates slower than when it was
running on my 386 with 2 Megs
What could be the problems?????
Thanks
Matthew
David W. Fenton
Make sure your swap file is permanent.
David W. Fenton
New York University
dwf...@is2.nyu.edu
Herbert W Stiel
Windows running very slow by David W. Fen...@is2.nyu.
> From: dwf...@is2.nyu.edu (David W. Fenton)
> Subject: Re: Windows running very slow
> Date: 25 Apr 1995 22:15:49 GMT
How does one do this in Windows 95? My swap file doesn't seem to be
permanent - its small right after I boot windows and gets bigger, but
then after I boot again, its small.
Should it be like this?
Thanks
email to my account as well as posting if possible.
David W. Fenton
: Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.ms-windows.apps.misc: 25-Apr-95 Re:
: Windows running very slow by David W. Fen...@is2.nyu.
: > From: dwf...@is2.nyu.edu (David W. Fenton)
: > Subject: Re: Windows running very slow
: > Date: 25 Apr 1995 22:15:49 GMT
: >
: > Make sure your swap file is permanent.
: How does one do this in Windows 95? My swap file doesn't seem to be
: permanent - its small right after I boot windows and gets bigger, but
: then after I boot again, its small.
: Should it be like this?
Sorry, but I don't do Windows 95. (it's in my newsreader kill file). I
know nothing about it, and plan to learn nothing about it until, say,
September 1996 (_if_ it first comes out in August of 1995).
There's plenty of traffic in Windows newsgroups about Windows 95. You'll
have to get help from someone who cares about Micro$oft's newest monstrosity.
fin...@granite.ciw.edu
The swap file in Win95 is dynamic. It grows to be as large as you
need, which also has the advantage that it can be located on a
compressed drive. The speed advantage with a permanent file under
Win3.1 is mostly on startup, when a large swap region has to be
located and allocated.
Larry W. Finger
fin...@granite.ciw.edu
Chris Huey
: In article <3nmitq$g...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, dwf...@is2.nyu.edu (David W. Fenton) writes:
: >Sorry, but I don't do Windows 95. (it's in my newsreader kill file). I
: >know nothing about it, and plan to learn nothing about it until, say,
: >September 1996 (_if_ it first comes out in August of 1995).
: >
: >There's plenty of traffic in Windows newsgroups about Windows 95. You'll
: >have to get help from someone who cares about Micro$oft's newest monstrosity.
: If you are so ANTI microsoft/windows, then why are you posting this in
: a WINDOWS DISCUSSION AREA. I find it very ironic that all you OS/2 gurus
: find it necessary to come into a foreign territory and reak havoc. If you
: like OS/2, that is perfectly GREAT.. go play with OS/2. If I like Windows,
: I will stay here and talk about windows.
: I think OS/2'ers find it necessary to try to justify OS/2 in this
: area so as to try and get more users to switch. If OS/2 doesn't get new
: users, it is a dead end operating system.
Touchy, Touchy!!!
David did not say ANYTHING negative about "microsoft/windows".
The original poster asked a question about Windows period. Not '95.
A followup post asked about Windows '95. David responded back with his
post ABOUT WINDOWS '95, not about WINDOWS. You are the first one in this
thread to mention OS/2, not David.
Now get off your soapbox and go back to your playing with WinEver.
As for me, I'll take a serious look at it when it has been released and
gone through the obligatory patch cycle. And I refuse to join the
"My Favorite OS is..." club.
Chris
--
Chris Huey Tactix ReEngineering, Inc.
c...@tactix.rain.com Voice: (503) 684-3582
Just another hitch-hiker on the Information Super-highway.
Sergio T. Sartor
>Sorry, but I don't do Windows 95. (it's in my newsreader kill file). I
>know nothing about it, and plan to learn nothing about it until, say,
>September 1996 (_if_ it first comes out in August of 1995).
>
>There's plenty of traffic in Windows newsgroups about Windows 95. You'll
>have to get help from someone who cares about Micro$oft's newest monstrosity.
>
If you are so ANTI microsoft/windows, then why are you posting this in
a WINDOWS DISCUSSION AREA. I find it very ironic that all you OS/2 gurus
find it necessary to come into a foreign territory and reak havoc. If you
like OS/2, that is perfectly GREAT.. go play with OS/2. If I like Windows,
I will stay here and talk about windows.
I think OS/2'ers find it necessary to try to justify OS/2 in this
area so as to try and get more users to switch. If OS/2 doesn't get new
users, it is a dead end operating system.
--
Sergio Sartor \ Internet: SSA...@TRENTU.CA
HBSc Computer Studies/GIS \ Telnet: 192.75.12.103
Trent University \
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada \ "Programmers Give Better Output!"
PHONE: (705)748-3880 \
------------------------------------------------------------------WIN95----
Robert Bailey
From dwf...@is2.NYU.EDUFri Apr 28 12:50:55 1995
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 12:47:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David W. Fenton" <dwf...@is2.NYU.EDU>
To: "Sergio T. Sartor" <SSA...@TrentU.ca>
Subject: Re: your mail
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Sergio T. Sartor wrote:
> In article <3nmitq$g...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, dwf...@is2.nyu.edu (David W. Fenton) writes:
> >Sorry, but I don't do Windows 95. (it's in my newsreader kill file). I
> >know nothing about it, and plan to learn nothing about it until, say,
> >September 1996 (_if_ it first comes out in August of 1995).
> >
> >There's plenty of traffic in Windows newsgroups about Windows 95. You'll
> >have to get help from someone who cares about Micro$oft's newest monstrosity.
> If you are so ANTI microsoft/windows, then why are you posting this in
> a WINDOWS DISCUSSION AREA. I find it very ironic that all you OS/2 gurus
> find it necessary to come into a foreign territory and reak havoc. If you
> like OS/2, that is perfectly GREAT.. go play with OS/2. If I like Windows,
> I will stay here and talk about windows.
> I think OS/2'ers find it necessary to try to justify OS/2 in this
> area so as to try and get more users to switch. If OS/2 doesn't get new
> users, it is a dead end operating system.
Pardon me for saying so, but I think you should read more carefully. I
said I don't do _WINDOWS 95_. That is not, in my opinion, Windows. I make
my living as Windows PC consultant, and I have _never_ run OS/2. I plan
to load it on my next computer (to be purchased in the next month) to see
if I like it. You should read the thread back to the original message --
it asked for help on why Windows was slow; I asked if the swap file was
permanent (I have found temporary swap files to be the most common reason
for slow Windows performances in literally dozens of machines); someone
who didn't read carefully then asked about swap files in Win95. That's
when I posted the message you responded to.
My position on Windows 95 is that it's not a product yet, and it won't be
for at least several months. It probably won't be stable for at least
another year, and it may or may not provide the features Micro$oft has
promised. It is also _not_ Windows as we know it. It's an entirely new
operating system (which I consider a good thing; it just doesn't sound to
me like Micro$oft has done a very good job of it). I think a lot of people
are going to stay with 16-bit Windows for a long time. I'm betting my
paycheck on it.
I dislike Micro$oft as a corporation intensely, but I use their products
because they are on the whole the best available. You were quite wrong to
assume that I was flaming the entire Windows/Windows95/NT world. I was
not.