On Mar 8, 8:53*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...



Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Get rid of all the garbages piled up on the system over time. Keep the
registry clean or modifiy it to your needs. Fine tune your system for
what you mostly do with your system. 32 bit OS has max addressing for
memory at 3 GB. If needed go 64 bit or Linux.

Do not EVER use a "registry cleaner." There is nothing a registry cleaner
purports to do that will improve efficiency. For example, the registry is
not searched sequentially, so whether it contains 1,000 entries or 3
million is irrelevant. The difference to access the proper key between the
two is measured in nanoseconds.

Conversely, use of a registry cleaner can screw up a system beyond repair.
Admittedly, so can a manual modification of the registry, but in this
latter case you at least know what you did.

Next, a 32-bit system has an addressing capability of about 4 GB, not
three (2^32 = 4,294,967,296). Most operating systems snatch some of the
RAM for their internals (i.e. video buffers) so the amount of RAM usable
by application programs is in the neighborhood of 3.1-3.4 GB.

I was using Eusing Registry Fix, freeware, plus Internet Options Delete
Cookies and Files when mine would slow down. *My computer geek said the same
thing you said, not to mess with the registry. *Ever. *So, I think my
problem was memory and not registry. *Still will delete cookies and files,
tho.

Steve

CCleaner is an excellent file/cookie sweeper.
Don't install any add-ons (unless you want them) like tool bars (that
help pay for the freeware).
http://www.ccleaner.com/

bob

David Nebenzahl wrote the following:
On 3/7/2010 4:55 PM Charlie spake thus:

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped up RAM
to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look at yours and
consider this inexpensive easy fix.

The other thing worth doing (and it's free) is to see how many
applications are starting up every time you turn the PC on.
They all want to use some of your RAM even though you might not need
them running every time.

Some common items are Adobe Reader and Microsoft Office. There are
others.

Yes. The Windoze Task Manager comes in quite handy here.



The System Configuration Utility is what you want.
Start - Run.
type - "msconfig" in the run box (no quotes).
Click the 'Startup' tab.
Click on 'Disable All'.
Click 'Close'. Restart computer.
After restart, a System Configuration Utility window will pop up.
Check the 'Don't show this message........ box, then OK

Don't worry, this will not uninstall any apps, they just won't be
automatically started upon a Windows start.
Those disabled files will start when you click on a Desktop or Program
shortcut, some will even enable themselves when you open the app.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:56:33 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

[snip]

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Firefox will give your cat warts. If you don't have a cat, you should be
okay.


"Firefox induced cat warts" can easily be prevented. First, the cat
must be spayed or neutered in a town with a name starting with "M" (or
"F" if you use marijuana). Also, avoid saying 6-letter words beginning
with "C" and ending with "T", or any words derived from one that day.

On Mar 8, 9:29*am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:





On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than dog**** on a
lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed, open-source
software development, where lots of volunteer programmers each write a
little module here and a little module there, there's little or no overall
optimization like you'd have if it were a regular commercial product..
That's because you have module A which calls module B which calls module C
... which calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In
a commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be linearized
so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast* versions of both
Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an older
computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've thought
about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what? It's a shame
that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run programs on. I'm
thinking back to my days as an assembly-language programmer on the PC,
where I could write really small programs (often less than 64K, the
limit of a .COM program--remember those?) that executed really fast.
Today's software, both OS and applications, is so ****ing bloated it's
ridiculous, so we have to resort to the brute-force approach: pile on
the RAM and get ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half a gig
of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a 64-
bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. *Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. 32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

On Mar 8, 3:18*pm, wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29*am, N8N wrote:





On Mar 7, 8:21*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than dog**** on a
lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed, open-source
software development, where lots of volunteer programmers each write a
little module here and a little module there, there's little or no overall
optimization like you'd have if it were a regular commercial product.
That's because you have module A which calls module B which calls module C
... which calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In
a commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be linearized
so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast* versions of both
Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an older
computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've thought
about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what? It's a shame
that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run programs on. I'm
thinking back to my days as an assembly-language programmer on the PC,
where I could write really small programs (often less than 64K, the
limit of a .COM program--remember those?) that executed really fast.
Today's software, both OS and applications, is so ****ing bloated it's
ridiculous, so we have to resort to the brute-force approach: pile on
the RAM and get ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half a gig
of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a 64-
bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. *Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. * *32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

I dunno, AFAIK 32-bit Windows has the same limitation...

here's what I found my exact laptop

http://www.ifrankie.com/?p=70

nate

wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:





On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little module
there, there's little or no overall optimization like you'd have
if it were a regular commercial product. That's because you have
module A which calls module B which calls module C ... which
calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In a
commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be
linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my
breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an
older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've
thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what?
It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run
programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an assembly-language
programmer on the PC, where I could write really small programs
(often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM program--remember those?)
that executed really fast. Today's software, both OS and
applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous, so we have to
resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half
a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a
64- bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. 32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the kernel.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 07:44:52 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:53*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...



Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Get rid of all the garbages piled up on the system over time. Keep the
registry clean or modifiy it to your needs. Fine tune your system for
what you mostly do with your system. 32 bit OS has max addressing for
memory at 3 GB. If needed go 64 bit or Linux.

Do not EVER use a "registry cleaner." There is nothing a registry cleaner
purports to do that will improve efficiency. For example, the registry is
not searched sequentially, so whether it contains 1,000 entries or 3
million is irrelevant. The difference to access the proper key between the
two is measured in nanoseconds.

Conversely, use of a registry cleaner can screw up a system beyond repair.
Admittedly, so can a manual modification of the registry, but in this
latter case you at least know what you did.

Next, a 32-bit system has an addressing capability of about 4 GB, not
three (2^32 = 4,294,967,296). Most operating systems snatch some of the
RAM for their internals (i.e. video buffers) so the amount of RAM usable
by application programs is in the neighborhood of 3.1-3.4 GB.

I was using Eusing Registry Fix, freeware, plus Internet Options Delete
Cookies and Files when mine would slow down. *My computer geek said the same
thing you said, not to mess with the registry. *Ever. *So, I think my
problem was memory and not registry. *Still will delete cookies and files,
tho.

Steve

CCleaner is an excellent file/cookie sweeper.
Don't install any add-ons (unless you want them) like tool bars (that
help pay for the freeware).
http://www.ccleaner.com/

bob

But that is also a registry cleaner. Bub is correct that cleaning the
registry is not necessary.

Bottom line: there has never been anyone that can measure or determine
any speed/optimized increase after the registry is "cleaned". I
stopped using them long ago. Seldom, if ever will I make a manual
change.

On Mar 8, 3:30*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
ters.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little module
there, there's little or no overall optimization like you'd have
if it were a regular commercial product. That's because you have
module A which calls module B which calls module C ... which
calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In a
commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be
linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my
breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an
older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've
thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what?
It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run
programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an assembly-language
programmer on the PC, where I could write really small programs
(often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM program--remember those?)
that executed really fast. Today's software, both OS and
applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous, so we have to
resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half
a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a
64- bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. * *32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the kernel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that's likely it. While you can address 4GB with 32 bits,
they have some address space reserved for other than system RAM

"Oren" wrote


Bottom line: there has never been anyone that can measure or determine
any speed/optimized increase after the registry is "cleaned". I
stopped using them long ago. Seldom, if ever will I make a manual
change.

I learned to not mess with the registry unless you are really really really
really experienced with doing so. Did I mention not to mess with your
registry unless you were very experienced doing so? That is because it is
that important.

Steve

"The Daring Dufas" wrote
Uh, Admin old buddy, homes are full of computers these days. Homes
have garages with cars and trucks. Homes have pets, children and
crotchety old farts. There are also homes out there with preverts,
blowup dolls and nekid people so how could anything be off topic?

Crap, I forgot to pull the shades again.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote
Uh, Admin old buddy, homes are full of computers these days. Homes
have garages with cars and trucks. Homes have pets, children and
crotchety old farts. There are also homes out there with preverts,
blowup dolls and nekid people so how could anything be off topic?

Crap, I forgot to pull the shades again.

THAT WAS YOU??!!

TDD

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:50:02 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote


Bottom line: there has never been anyone that can measure or determine
any speed/optimized increase after the registry is "cleaned". I
stopped using them long ago. Seldom, if ever will I make a manual
change.

I learned to not mess with the registry unless you are really really really
really experienced with doing so. Did I mention not to mess with your
registry unless you were very experienced doing so? That is because it is
that important.

Steve


XP has regedit and regedt32 exe files. A man has to know his
limits.. One does what another won't do

Of course one can backup the registry before they start tampering.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:57:17 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



"The Daring Dufas" wrote
Uh, Admin old buddy, homes are full of computers these days. Homes
have garages with cars and trucks. Homes have pets, children and
crotchety old farts. There are also homes out there with preverts,
blowup dolls and nekid people so how could anything be off topic?

Crap, I forgot to pull the shades again.

There was or used to be software called "Window(s) Blinds". I forget.

Dufas? Prevert or pervert?

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 04:23:09 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:26*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message

.com...



On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
rs.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped up RAM
to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look at yours and
consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than dog**** on a
lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed, open-source
software development, where lots of volunteer programmers each write a
little module here and a little module there, there's little or no
overall optimization like you'd have if it were a regular commercial
product. That's because you have module A which calls module B which
calls module C ... which calls module Z, and this happens many many
times per second. In a commercial product, a lot of these chains of
calls would be linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast* versions of
both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an older
computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've thought about
adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what? It's a shame that we
need such humongous amounts of memory to run programs on. I'm thinking
back to my days as an assembly-language programmer on the PC, where I
could write really small programs (often less than 64K, the limit of a
.COM program--remember those?) that executed really fast. Today's
software, both OS and applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous,
so we have to resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half a gig
of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

And every time you do finally comply, they bump it up again. *A frickin
cheap laptop today has more computing power than those lunar modules.

Steve

I have heard the average car (last ten yrs) has more computing power
than the Apollo Command Module did.

That's not saying very much. Your clothes dryer oven likely has that much
computing power. ;-)

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:31:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 8, 3:30*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
ters.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little module
there, there's little or no overall optimization like you'd have
if it were a regular commercial product. That's because you have
module A which calls module B which calls module C ... which
calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In a
commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be
linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my
breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an
older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've
thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what?
It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run
programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an assembly-language
programmer on the PC, where I could write really small programs
(often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM program--remember those?)
that executed really fast. Today's software, both OS and
applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous, so we have to
resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half
a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a
64- bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. * *32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the kernel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that's likely it. While you can address 4GB with 32 bits,
they have some address space reserved for other than system RAM

Right. Memory mapped I/O requires at least twice the memory that the adapters
use. Linux is much the same, here.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 06:30:18 -0800 (PST), N8N wrote:

On Mar 7, 8:37*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:28:07 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:





On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. *Computer was slow. *Bumped up RAM to 2
GB, and hooey, what a difference. *You might look at yours and consider this
inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than dog**** on a
lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed, open-source
software development, where lots of volunteer programmers each write a
little module here and a little module there, there's little or no
overall optimization like you'd have if it were a regular commercial
product. That's because you have module A which calls module B which
calls module C ... which calls module Z, and this happens many many
times per second. In a commercial product, a lot of these chains of
calls would be linearized so they'd execute faster.

Are you saying that since M$ owns the entire IE product that they optimize the
code and that it's better than Firefox? *;-)

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast* versions of
both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd like to see that too. *That used to BE Firefox, but it's succumbed to
bloat over the years, too. *I tried Opera but there are too many sites I
frequent where it simply doesn't work.

I've found Firefox 3.x to be quicker than 2.x, that is supposedly one
of the things that they workedon for the new release.

I find it slower than hell and every once in a while it'll just get lost for a
few minutes.

On 3/7/2010 4:20 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve wrote:
I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped up RAM to 2
GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look at yours and consider this
inexpensive easy fix.

Steve

How much RAM did you have to start with?

Jimmie

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/




You are really going to like Firefox much better.

On 3/8/2010 3:54 PM Oren spake thus:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:50:02 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote

Bottom line: there has never been anyone that can measure or determine
any speed/optimized increase after the registry is "cleaned". I
stopped using them long ago. Seldom, if ever will I make a manual
change.

I learned to not mess with the registry unless you are really
really really really experienced with doing so. Did I mention not
to mess with your registry unless you were very experienced doing
so? That is because it is that important.

XP has regedit and regedt32 exe files. A man has to know his
limits.. One does what another won't do

Of course one can backup the registry before they start tampering.

I've edited my registry many times, using regedit (which has come with
every version of Windows since 3.x). Guess I just like that "bare metal"
experience ...

I've never caused any problems doing so. I usually use the registry
editor to get rid of some annoying piece of software or other that wants
to pop up even after I remove it through the Windoze "remove software"
tool *and* delete all its damned files. Seems lots of vendors like to
sneak **** into the registry so you'll get bugged at some point or other
into reconsidering your rash decision to nuke their software ...


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 03/08/2010 08:46 PM, zimpzampzormp wrote:
On 3/7/2010 4:20 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve wrote:
I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped up RAM
to 2
GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look at yours and
consider this
inexpensive easy fix.

Steve

How much RAM did you have to start with?

Jimmie

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/




You are really going to like Firefox much better.

IE6? Is that even still supported?

I use IE6 at work, mostly because of some old legacy intranet stuff that
won't run on anything else. (whose brilliant idea was THAT? I don't
wanna know.) It's PAINFUL to use compared to Firefox, esp. 3.x

this sounds stupid but the one thing that I love with 3.x compared to
2.x is that now when I open a new "window" (actually a tab) from a tab I
already have open, but have other tabs already open in the same window,
the new one appears next to its parent, not all the way to the right as
it did in 2.x - sometimes it's the little things that really make a big
difference.

IE6 didn't even HAVE tabs...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:57:17 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote
Uh, Admin old buddy, homes are full of computers these days. Homes
have garages with cars and trucks. Homes have pets, children and
crotchety old farts. There are also homes out there with preverts,
blowup dolls and nekid people so how could anything be off topic?
Crap, I forgot to pull the shades again.

There was or used to be software called "Window(s) Blinds". I forget.

Dufas? Prevert or pervert?

A "prevert" is an apprentice pervert, a "provert" is a professional
pervert. Do you know the difference between a hoar and a ho?

TDD

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:54:26 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

You are really going to like Firefox much better.

IE6? Is that even still supported?

Not on Youtube after the 13th on this month. After 10 years I have to
change my browser.

I could not move from IE6, to IE7 or IE8. At least in Win2K Pro. XP
might have worked for an IE upgrade. to 7 or 8 ?

Firefox - done me good! Spent an hour installing v.3.6, getting what
I needed for the changes.

I feel like I own a new chicken with hen's teeth. Or should I say frog
hairs?

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:28:23 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

A "prevert" is an apprentice pervert, a "provert" is a professional
pervert. Do you know the difference between a hoar and a ho?

Not unless she tells me or demonstrates otherwise.

On Mar 8, 2:49*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 07:44:52 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa



wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:53*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news:G4edna2KmaVFbAnWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink. com...

Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Get rid of all the garbages piled up on the system over time. Keep the
registry clean or modifiy it to your needs. Fine tune your system for
what you mostly do with your system. 32 bit OS has max addressing for
memory at 3 GB. If needed go 64 bit or Linux.

Do not EVER use a "registry cleaner." There is nothing a registry cleaner
purports to do that will improve efficiency. For example, the registry is
not searched sequentially, so whether it contains 1,000 entries or 3
million is irrelevant. The difference to access the proper key between the
two is measured in nanoseconds.

Conversely, use of a registry cleaner can screw up a system beyond repair.
Admittedly, so can a manual modification of the registry, but in this
latter case you at least know what you did.

Next, a 32-bit system has an addressing capability of about 4 GB, not
three (2^32 = 4,294,967,296). Most operating systems snatch some of the
RAM for their internals (i.e. video buffers) so the amount of RAM usable
by application programs is in the neighborhood of 3.1-3.4 GB.

I was using Eusing Registry Fix, freeware, plus Internet Options Delete
Cookies and Files when mine would slow down. *My computer geek said the same
thing you said, not to mess with the registry. *Ever. *So, I think my
problem was memory and not registry. *Still will delete cookies and files,
tho.

Steve

CCleaner is an excellent file/cookie sweeper.
Don't install any add-ons (unless you want them) like tool bars (that
help pay for the freeware).
http://www.ccleaner.com/

bob

But that is also a registry cleaner. Bub is correct that cleaning the
registry is not necessary.

Bottom line: there has never been anyone that can measure or determine
any speed/optimized increase after the registry is "cleaned". *I
stopped using them long ago. Seldom, if ever will I make a manual
change.

You have the "choice" of running the reg. cleaner...it's not the main
function of the utility.

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:28:23 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

A "prevert" is an apprentice pervert, a "provert" is a professional
pervert. Do you know the difference between a hoar and a ho?

Not unless she tells me or demonstrates otherwise.

Who said it was a she?

TDD

Nate Nagel wrote:

IE6? Is that even still supported?


No. MS has officially dropped support for the product and many internet
sites are ripping out the code that made their sites work with IE6.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:39:44 -0600, "
wrote:

[snip]

I find it slower than hell and every once in a while it'll just get lost for a
few minutes.

How do you measure the speed of hell? :-)

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:28:23 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Oren wrote:

[snip]


A "prevert" is an apprentice pervert, a "provert" is a professional
pervert. Do you know the difference between a hoar and a ho?

TDD

A "perscription" is when you really want the drug, and go to multiple
doctors, hoping to get one prescription per visit.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:54:26 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

You are really going to like Firefox much better.

IE6? Is that even still supported?

Not on Youtube after the 13th on this month. After 10 years I have to
change my browser.

I could not move from IE6, to IE7 or IE8. At least in Win2K Pro. XP
might have worked for an IE upgrade. to 7 or 8 ?

Firefox - done me good! Spent an hour installing v.3.6, getting what
I needed for the changes.

I feel like I own a new chicken with hen's teeth. Or should I say frog
hairs?

So, everyone. Give me the short answers on why Firefox is better than IE8.
I'm always interested in a better mouse trap. It brings in a better class
of mice.

Steve

On Mar 9, 10:21*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:54:26 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

You are really going to like Firefox much better.

IE6? *Is that even still supported?

Not on Youtube after the 13th on this month. After 10 years I have to
change my browser.

I could not move from IE6, to IE7 or IE8. At least in Win2K Pro. XP
might have worked for an IE upgrade. to 7 or 8 ?

Firefox - done me good! *Spent an hour installing v.3.6, getting what
I needed for the changes.

I feel like I own a new chicken with hen's teeth. Or should I say frog
hairs?

So, everyone. *Give me the short answers on why Firefox is better than IE8.
I'm always interested in a better mouse trap. *It brings in a better class
of mice.

Steve

IE uses ActiveX, Firefox does not.

I could not move from IE6, to IE7 or IE8. At least in Win2K Pro. XP
might have worked for an IE upgrade. to 7 or 8 ?

XP: I tried IE7 when it first came out..hadalot of conflicts with onboard
programs and hadn't added SP3 at that time.
Uninstalled and went back to IE6. Got the same POPUP from UTUBE and others
recently about IE6 being unsupported soon.

Bit the bullet DL and Installed IE8..painless and I like it..first MS
upgrade I've liked.

Harry L wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:28:23 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Oren wrote:

[snip]

A "prevert" is an apprentice pervert, a "provert" is a professional
pervert. Do you know the difference between a hoar and a ho?

TDD

A "perscription" is when you really want the drug, and go to multiple
doctors, hoping to get one prescription per visit.

Yea, that happens a lot in Florida.

TDD

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:01:31 -0600, Harry L wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:39:44 -0600, "
wrote:

[snip]

I find it slower than hell and every once in a while it'll just get lost for a
few minutes.

How do you measure the speed of hell? :-)

Microsoft is the reference. ;-)

On Mar 8, 8:38*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:31:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:30*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
ters.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little module
there, there's little or no overall optimization like you'd have
if it were a regular commercial product. That's because you have
module A which calls module B which calls module C ... which
calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In a
commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be
linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my
breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an
older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've
thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what?
It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run
programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an assembly-language
programmer on the PC, where I could write really small programs
(often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM program--remember those?)
that executed really fast. Today's software, both OS and
applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous, so we have to
resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half
a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a
64- bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. * *32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the kernel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that's likely it. *While you can address 4GB with 32 bits,
they have some address space reserved for other than system RAM

Right. *Memory mapped I/O requires at least twice the memory that the adapters
use. *Linux is much the same, here.

So if I upgraded my video card to one with more memory, I would lose
the ability to access even more of my system RAM? Or is video memory
different altogether?

nate

(still ****ed at Dell)

N8N wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:38 pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:31:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:30 pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B"
wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow.
Bumped up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You
might look at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little
module there, there's little or no overall optimization like
you'd have if it were a regular commercial product. That's
because you have module A which calls module B which calls
module C ... which calls module Z, and this happens many many
times per second. In a commercial product, a lot of these
chains of calls would be linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding
my breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on
an older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes,
I've thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know
what? It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of
memory to run programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an
assembly-language programmer on the PC, where I could write
really small programs (often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM
program--remember those?) that executed really fast. Today's
software, both OS and applications, is so ****ing bloated it's
ridiculous, so we have to resort to the brute-force approach:
pile on the RAM and get ever-faster processors (or multiple
processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with
half a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade
the RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing
quickness, and apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so
even though I have a 64- bit processor and installed 64-bit
Linux I can only see 3.2GB of memory instead of the 4GB that I
installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell. Fortunately I bought the
machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be ****ed, as Dell's web
site indicates that the machine has a maximum memory capacity of
4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. 32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the
kernel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that's likely it. While you can address 4GB with 32 bits,
they have some address space reserved for other than system RAM

Right. Memory mapped I/O requires at least twice the memory that the
adapters use. Linux is much the same, here.

So if I upgraded my video card to one with more memory, I would lose
the ability to access even more of my system RAM? Or is video memory
different altogether?

nate

(still ****ed at Dell)

it's different. the card gets addressed in a certain set of addresses
reserved from the 4gb no matter what else is done on the card. or how big it
is. the card takes care of it's internals.

On Mar 11, 10:01*am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:38*pm, "
wrote:



On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:31:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:30*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
ters.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little module
there, there's little or no overall optimization like you'd have
if it were a regular commercial product. That's because you have
module A which calls module B which calls module C ... which
calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In a
commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be
linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my
breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an
older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've
thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what?
It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run
programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an assembly-language
programmer on the PC, where I could write really small programs
(often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM program--remember those?)
that executed really fast. Today's software, both OS and
applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous, so we have to
resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half
a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a
64- bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell..
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it..

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. * *32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the kernel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that's likely it. *While you can address 4GB with 32 bits,
they have some address space reserved for other than system RAM

Right. *Memory mapped I/O requires at least twice the memory that the adapters
use. *Linux is much the same, here.

So if I upgraded my video card to one with more memory, I would lose
the ability to access even more of my system RAM? *Or is video memory
different altogether?

nate

(still ****ed at Dell)

Video memory is either dedicated to a limit in system memory or on a
separate card (PCI,AGP,PCIe, real old ISA).
I you have a video card, then system ram is for system only. (other
than minor events)

bob

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:01:22 -0800 (PST), N8N wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:38*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:31:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:30*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:29 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/7/2010 5:02 PM Steve B spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
ters.com...

On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:52 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

I switched from IE7 to 8 recently. Computer was slow. Bumped
up RAM to 2 GB, and hooey, what a difference. You might look
at yours and consider this inexpensive easy fix.

How much RAM did you have to start with?

What version of 'Winders'?

Yesterday I finally moved to Firefox, from IE6 :-/

Ya know, I really like Firefox, certainly over Internet
Exploiter/Exploder. Except for one thing: it's slower than
dog**** on a lot of things. Much slower than it should be.

I know why this is: because of the nature of distributed,
open-source software development, where lots of volunteer
programmers each write a little module here and a little module
there, there's little or no overall optimization like you'd have
if it were a regular commercial product. That's because you have
module A which calls module B which calls module C ... which
calls module Z, and this happens many many times per second. In a
commercial product, a lot of these chains of calls would be
linearized so they'd execute faster.

So it's a tradeoff. I'd really love to someday see *fast*
versions of both Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm not holding my
breath.

How much RAM do you have?

Not enough, obviously, and I meant to mention that: 768 MB, on an
older computer running at below 1 GHz. (Win 2K Pro.) So yes, I've
thought about adding more RAM, and I should. But you know what?
It's a shame that we need such humongous amounts of memory to run
programs on. I'm thinking back to my days as an assembly-language
programmer on the PC, where I could write really small programs
(often less than 64K, the limit of a .COM program--remember those?)
that executed really fast. Today's software, both OS and
applications, is so ****ing bloated it's ridiculous, so we have to
resort to the brute-force approach: pile on the RAM and get
ever-faster processors (or multiple processors).

A web browser *should* be able to run fast on a computer with half
a gig of RAM. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Only if you're running Windows :/

Seriously, I'm running Ubuntu Linux on both of my laptops (dual
booting with WinXP) and the Linux is noticeably faster.

where the peeve comes in in my case is that I decided to upgrade the
RAM in my newer laptop anyway, just for the blazing quickness, and
apparently Dell used a 32-bit Intel chipset so even though I have a
64- bit processor and installed 64-bit Linux I can only see 3.2GB of
memory instead of the 4GB that I installed. Stupid cheap ass Dell.
Fortunately I bought the machine used and cheap otherwise I'd be
****ed, as Dell's web site indicates that the machine has a maximum
memory capacity of 4GB and they even sell a 4GB memory kit for it.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That explanation doesn't make sense. * *32 bits is capable of
addressing 4GB of memory.

the pci cards/bus takes part of the addressable space from the kernel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that's likely it. *While you can address 4GB with 32 bits,
they have some address space reserved for other than system RAM

Right. *Memory mapped I/O requires at least twice the memory that the adapters
use. *Linux is much the same, here.

So if I upgraded my video card to one with more memory, I would lose
the ability to access even more of my system RAM? Or is video memory
different altogether?

Maybe. Sorta. The entire video buffer won't likely be mapped into the
processor memory at once. Part of it will and that part will take memory away
from main memory. If these "windows" into the video memory are larger on one
card than another, yeah, but it's not worth worrying about. IOW, video memory
space is different, but the same. ;-)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:08 -0600, "
wrote:

So if I upgraded my video card to one with more memory, I would lose
the ability to access even more of my system RAM? Or is video memory
different altogether?

Maybe. Sorta. The entire video buffer won't likely be mapped into the
processor memory at once. Part of it will and that part will take memory away
from main memory. If these "windows" into the video memory are larger on one
card than another, yeah, but it's not worth worrying about. IOW, video memory
space is different, but the same. ;-)

Much the video is transacted on the card. In the oldie days it was
different. Remember IRQ? Memory, etc.

These gamers today have figured it out. Many video cards have heat
sinks and fans. Always think of thermal heat - the video card will
process what one was done by 4 megs of RAM (less).

Newer cards are not so taxing on system RAM. They work independent of
each other.