On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:03:43 -0000, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:00:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:
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:
snip
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.
The responsiveness of a system is dependant on the whole and not one
'process'.
Yes, but there must be something specific that you find slow. Display of graphics? File management? Opening an application?
What do you find it takes longer dto do? I have not yet found anything that is slower.
I don't find it credible when you fail to 'find' what is reported as a
common problem by scores of others.
It is only a problem evident on machines with limited RAM. I insist on at least 1-2GB for XP and 3-4GB for Vista. Memory is dirt cheap, you may aswell put in as much as the motherboard will take.
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).
The extra file copy options are good. Removing the navigation buttons
and folder status is not.
The only thing I've noticed missing is the "up one level" button in some "save as" dialogs.
I'm nowhere near a Vista computer right now, so I don't know what navigation buttons you're referring to exactly.
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.
The 'context' was you guessing as to the ''intent'.
It was me assuming you'd understand.
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.
and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB.
That's three times the memory, not twice.
Who said "twice"?
Me, and it was the thing you were supposedly arguing with. But since
you're unable to remember what the heck you're arguing with, and too
lazy to look in the message to find it, I'll quote it he "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."
All I was arguing about was that it runs just as fast with more memory. The precise amount more that you require I haven't measured, and is unimportant.
And in fact starts twice as fast.
I guess throwing up a splash screen works for you but I judge load
times by when things become fully operational.
From pressing the power switch to the network logon prompt is considerably faster. From the network logon prompt to everything being loaded and at full speed is about the same.
You seem to forget you're not the only one using the thing.
Why would it be slower depending who is using it? Computers don't have favourite users.
And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.
That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.
What a joke.
Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.
I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural.
You mean 'looks pretty'.
Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?
That's a stupid question because there's nothing about a GUI that
'requires' transparent window borders.
A GUI is there so you're not staring at a boring text screen. The nicer it looks the better.
Besides that having nothing to do with whether transparency is
'useful' or not it's utter nonsense.
You don't think a pleasing look is useful? Do you have plain brick walls in your office and not paint them or hang pictures?
LOL
How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?
I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.
Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.
I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.
Then you either don't know as 'many' people as you claim or they only
use the limited software set you do but compatibility problems with
Vista are legion and that's one reason, in addition to all the
hardware incompatibilities, why MS has their 'Vista Upgrade Advisor."
Things have gotten better as vendors struggle to patch and 'upgrade'
their products to work with Vista but that doesn't solve everyone's
problem, especially if they're on an older version where their only
choice might be to buy the latest release or do without.
List a few things that have compatibility problems then. For christ's sake I don't even have many problems with games, and they're usually the worst offender.
For obvious reasons Microsoft doesn't publish a list of incompatible
programs. You get the good news at install when it informs you of what
'might not work right' after the upgrade and which one's it insists
you remove before proceeding further.
I've never seen a complaint from an upgrade apart from the odd utility which was installed years ago and nobody uses anymore. I usually delete it or get a newer version.
And all you're doing is demonstrating your limited experience.
There are 750 computers where I work.
And you do people a disservice by claiming they can upgrade and
'everything' except "perhaps the odd third party freebie utility" is
going to work just fine afterwards.
Haven't had a complaint yet.
I didn't know the world was supposed to copy you on the memo.
What on earth do you mean? Do you think people won't complain when something I did fails?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
What's a Scotsman's cure for seasickness?
He hangs his head over the side of the boat with a pound coin between his teeth!