"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't
any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific. What do you find it takes longer dto do? I
have not yet found anything that is slower. I have found several
operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much
better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for
example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old
equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main
factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to
run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to
cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I
installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I
would expect it to be slower if anything.


Isn't a 64 bit OS to fully utilise a 64 bit architecture - which shifts more
bytes at a time to go faster?