Fast User Switching in XP

PhoenixRising

I'm trying to turn on fast user switching in XP, but it's not working. I've tried to switch it on from user accounts in control panel, but the check box unchecks itself after I click apply. In services, I've tried to start Fast User Switching but it says that it could not start and gives error 1068 The dependency service or group failed to start. I think I may have disabled another service that is required for fast user switching to operate but i can't remember which one. Anyone have any ideas ?

OfflerCrocGod

The Service should tell you what it needs Double click on it and go to dependencies tab see what it says.

PhoenixRising

Will do. Thanks.

PhoenixRising

Cheers OfflerCrocGod. That did it.

ColmOT [MSFT]

I've just one peice of advice for FUS....make aure that you've loads of RAM when using it.

I see OEMs selling PCs with 128Mb RAM & XP Home, and they have FUS enabled....which really takes away from the whole 'experience' of Windows XP. I'd personally recommend at the extreme minimum 256Mb RAM, and as a minimum, 512Mb RAM.

Just my opinion!

OfflerCrocGod

'experience' of Windows XP

BAHAAAAA!!!!:D LORD Colm you are a laugh a minute!.

sceptre

He's got a point though - leaving aside the idea of the more RAM the merrier on NT-kernel-based systems, having two users both using a load of apps at the same time needs more RAM (unless you're me & the only reason it's switched on is so that GF can check her email on her own OL account without having to disconnect). 128 just doesn't cut it.

OfflerCrocGod

At the same time??? all it has to do is swap to disk when you change user, it doesn't have to keep anything in RAM; keeping stuff there of course makes things faster when changing but it doesn't need to and it shouldn't need to have extra RAM for just one feature.

Kevok

FUS allows any applications to keep running though (like downloads) so you can't dump the RAM state to the HD when switching users. It kinda defeats the purpose.

echomadman

I see OEMs selling PCs with 128Mb RAM & XP Home, and they have FUS enabled....which really takes away from the whole 'experience' of Windows XP.

ROFL, are people still building computers with 128 Mb of RAM, thats criminal.

heheh 'experience' of XP.....

Ste-

I upgraded my ram from 128 to 256 the other week the difference is unreal.

128 should not be sold with XP!

OfflerCrocGod

FUS allows any applications to keep running though (like downloads) so you can't dump the RAM state to the HD when switching users. It kinda defeats the purpose.

WOW timesharing MS are really cutting edge!:rolleyes:.
Come on Kevin seriously though how many PCs are sold with such a small amount of RAM now-adays? firstly, secondly it shouldn't matter how many users are logged in to the OS those apps running in the back should be running just as if the were running on the currently logged in users profile. If the OS is slowing down cause there are programs running on another persons profile _no_matter_how_light_the_program_is (how much strain do you expect a download to put on an OS) then the timeshare is not well implemented. If it could do it in normal Multi-Task single user system it should be able to do it in a small timesharing enviroment.

sceptre

It's not as simple as that though OCG

At the moment I've two IE windows, five Opera windows, one Firebird, one notepad, one Excel, one emule and one windows explorer open with a few small apps running in the taskbar. And firewall and antivirus. Fine and dandy.

Anne (GF) comes along and switches user. She opens Outlook, explorer, IE and Word.

Now it doesn't matter a damn from the POV of memory if they're all running in one profile or two - it's serious overhead for my system. Bottom line is that running all this efficiently in 128 megs of RAM would be a bit of a problem. And suggesting that I (or anyone else) switch the main machine solely to linux instead to msolve the problem isn't much of a solution if the person doesn't want to do that. Given the bloatware nature of MS programs, for people who want to continue using them there's the issue of getting more RAM. Criticising MS is probably a lot of fun (I know I sometimes enjoy it) but it doesn't solve the problem. The solution to the problem (following Occam's Razor and not unnecessarily complicating the issue) is more RAM.

And to answer your question about how many machines are still sold with only 128 megs of memory: quite a few unfortunately. Take a walk into your local ripoff merchant PC chain and you'll at least see that they're on sale. Quuite a few machines were sold with Win95 and only 16 megs (or sometimes even 8) as well. They shouldn't have been but they were. The solution for these people (assuming they liked their OS) was not to go out and write a new unix kernel - it was to buy more memory.

OfflerCrocGod

Where did I suggest you to go and install Linux???, I've read my posts and I dont see where I sayd that.

You seem to be confused as to what I sayd and meant; if its_just_FUS_ that makes you add more RAM and NOT your normal single user mode of operation even though you have 10 apps running on your single user mode and can only afford to run 5 apps between two profiles with FUS, all of similar strain on the RAM/CPU, then FSU is not implemented well _full_stop_.

NOW, if perchance 128Mb is not enough (and I have no prob with this 128 is nothing) to run your single profile with 10 or 5 instances of this hypotetical program then yes you need more RAM. I agree with the suggestion of adding more RAM, I wasn't disputing that, my prob was the fact that FUS on its own meant that you needed more RAM. Understand???. If you dont have enough RAM for 5 programs on single profile mode then you dont have enough for 5 programs between 2 a/c in FUS. Therefore you need to go out and get more RAM.

OfflerCrocGod

By the way I was mainly amused by the 'experience of XP' part:p welcome to Fisher Price house of candy;) .

sceptre

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Where did I suggest you to go and install Linux???, I've read my posts and I dont see where I sayd that.

Ah, didn't mean to imply that but from re-reading my post it might look as if I did. (there's far too much kneejerk evangelising and proselytizing on both sides of the closed or open source divide but I wasn't implying that you were indulging)

You seem to be confused as to what I sayd and meant; if its_just_FUS_ that makes you add more RAM

I'm not confused, really:)

FUS doesn't in itself make anyone go and buy more RAM as it doesn't create a need for it. What creates (or to be correct, may create) the need for it is the possibility of me running say five apps on my own and another user using a different five apps at the same time, doubling the need for memory (obviously depending on the apps used but for the sake of simplicity we're ignoring that and I'm assuming they're memory intensive (hungry/guzzling) apps because that's what happens to me)

In other words, it isn't FUS that creates the need for extra RAM in this situation (FUS itself doesn't need any extra memory). It's how people use it (or may use it) - it's the extra apps being run by two people which probably wouldn't be opened by one sane user who doesn't need every Office app and other things as well open at once.


& I assumed Colm had his tongue firmly in check when putting quotes around 'experience'. If he didn't he should have:)

zAbbo

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
By the way I was mainly amused by the 'experience of XP' part:p welcome to Fisher Price house of candy;) .

KDE and Gnome are just as cutsey ?

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by sceptre
Quite a few machines were sold with Win95 and only 16 megs (or sometimes even 8) as well. They shouldn't have been but they were.

What a laugh when 95 first came out - Gateway were selling desktops with 8Mb and Dell were selling laptops with 8MB. The core files in Windows 95 use 12MB of memory - ie. it will not boot without a swap file. We once measured a time of 16 minutes for a 4Mb machine to boot into a clean install of 95 (ie minimum advertised spec) !!!

So when they say minimum spec - it won't boot ever.
When they say recommended - that's the MINIMUM

BTW: this is one of the reasons not to put a new OS on an old PC (unless you've upgraded the RAM etc.)

Anyway - SHIFT CTRL ESC to open the taskmgr
look in processes - you might need to select View Columns - to see the memory usage of each process

sceptre

UL bought a thousand 4 meg modules in March 1996 to update their machines to 8megs so they could run win95 (can't remember the exact price but it was about 80-90 a pop if I remember rightly, I was working in accounts there at the time). I fell off my chair laughing and sent the invoice through anyway. For some reason they bought about 800 8meg modules a few months later.

OfflerCrocGod

sceptre what you sayd is exactly what I sayd you just rephrased it:rolleyes:, yep KDE and Gnome both look like jokes especially KDE, no one approches the beauty of MacOSX.