On 3/31/2014 8:37 AM, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:38:02 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

I have two HP systems, two to three years old and have no "crapware"
problems, issues, etc with either of them. They do come with some utilities,
and Norton, but nothing that's intrusive, full of ads, or anything like that.
I'm very happy with them, liked the HP website for configuration and would
buy from them again.

....

... Dell,HP/Compaq,Acer/Gateway,Lenovo, all sell entry level
PC's...and they all come with a certain amount of "crapware" (or
limited use programs) that subsidizes the lowest price!

None of which may be of any _real_ value, but it doesn't really make any
difference, either...just delete anything you don't want (altho w/
_minimum_ enry-level systems supporting 1000 GB drives or larger one is
unlikely to ever care that a few MB are taken up. Only real issue ime
may be some things in Startup folder you'll want to remove but at least
I've seen nothing that would make me refuse to buy from a given vendor
for that reason for the advantage of the bundled deal pricing...

This machine is roughly same age as OP's (a Dell) that bought when went
out on own consulting back in '99 -- it was
decently-middle-to-upper-half at the time. I just added 2GB memory last
week to bring it to 4 total and it made a lot of difference w/ the new
release of Matlab The Mathworks offered. I've since retired from the
consulting gig so there's no incentive/justification for upgrading
otherwise so I don't see anything at all against just getting the new
drive and perhaps another GB of memory and goin' on. This also is XP
and I don't give a hoot about the "end of service life"--it's
stable-enough there's no need to change OS.

--

On Monday, March 31, 2014 9:37:23 AM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:38:02 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:



I have two HP systems, two to three years old and have no "crapware"



problems, issues, etc with either of them. They do come with some utilities,



and Norton, but nothing that's intrusive, full of ads, or anything like that.



I'm very happy with them, liked the HP website for configuration and would



buy from them again.



Most people have brand loyalty not matter how irrational it may be...you may drive a Chrysler branded vehicle that is majority owned by Fiat.

Dell,HP/Compaq,Acer/Gateway,Lenovo, all sell entry level PC's...and they all come with a certain amount of "crapware" (or limited use programs) that subsidizes the lowest price!

Well assuming that's true, which I doubt because every HP PC I've seen
comes with the same software load, who's fault is it if you choose to
buy a cheap PC instead of what I buy? If Honda has one cheap car that's
no good, does that warrant saying don't ever buy a Honda? Good grief.

On Monday, March 31, 2014 9:59:19 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and

| installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".



You mean Virtual XP mode for Win7? I thought you

meant installing a VM. I don't know anything about

Virtual XP mode, but it seems to require Win7 Pro,

which costs quite a bit more than Win7 Home OEM.

Maybe that's worth it to someone who can't give up

XP but *has to* buy a new machine.



| I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25

| years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on

| XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if

| running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive

| (swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the

| hard drive.

|



How is it that so many people in a home repair group

suddenly turn out to build computers for a living?



I wouldn't prefer to install 256 MB RAM, of course, and

there is an issue these days with bloated software, but

256 MB RAM can work OK on a clean machine where people

are doing typical things like Web browsing, email Office

docs, etc.

Good grief. A MB today wouldn't even support installing
the density chips you'd need to make 256MB.




If you're worried about wearing out your hard

disk then turn off the useless indexing service and either

avoid AV or at least don't leave it at default settings,

scanning everything you touch. There are lots of software

causes of running the disk unnecessarily that have nothing

to do with using the swap file.

Or just buy a basic new PC, which sounds like the solution
to the OP's problem, which is a 12 year old PC with a failing disk
and where he wants more performance. Why does it have to get
so complicated?

On Monday, March 31, 2014 9:45:51 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably

| had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's

| more than enough for most uses.

|

| Ridiculous. I recently retired a secondary 1 Ghz XP machine

| with 1 GB of RAM and it's performance was pathetic compared

| to any current basic PC. It's pathetic compared to the 3 year

| old PC I'm using as my main PC.

|



There is a caveat: It won't be fast if you don't run

it clean. XP starts out with dozens of unnecessary

services running by default.

Never had that problem here. Standard XP load was fine, for
it's day. Today, not so much for a lot of reasons, including that
it's EOL'd and new software won't run on it.



Then installed software

often loads at boot without asking. If you run anti-virus

you're adding a huge load with doubtful benefit.

Sure, anti-virus isn't needed. More bad advice assuming it's
going to be used like a typical PC.




When

you install hardware it will often load unnecessary

startup programs. All of that can drag down any

system.

On numerous occasions I've had friends ask for help

because their computer is running in slow motion. It's

not XP that's the problem. And it's not old hardware.

Once the software "barnacles" are cleaned off those

machines run fine.


A 1 ghz, 500mb XP system that is 12 years old is a joke
today. My $100 cell phone has a dual core 1.6ghz cpu and
2GB of RAM.



|

| But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256

| MB RAM for most uses.)

|

| It's also being EOL'd by MSFT. Why would anyone who wants

| more speed invest more money in a 12 year old PC, running XP,

| with a dying disk?



The OP may not want to. I was trying to describe

his options.

Your option didn't address his need for more performance.
You said a 12 year old 1ghz XP machine is just fine for most
people today. It's not.


If he really wants to stay with what he's

using his best option is to replace the hard disk.

He didn't say he wanted to stay with what he had.


If

he's happy moving to Win8 then he can do that for

as little as $300. It's up to him. To my mind, replacing

the hard disk is certainly a viable option. It's the

part most likely to wear out.


Makes no sense to me when he's talking about wanting more
performance, more memory, etc. And the PC he has is 12
years old.





XP EOL could certainly be an issue. If you just want

to buy a box and have it work then it makes the most

sense to simply buy new PCs when the old one seems

inadequate. But if you don't mind spending some time,

there's no reason they can't be maintained.

Sure put it in a museum.



And XP EOL

really means very little.

It means no more security fixes, if any issues are found. It means
the last IDK how many versions of Windows Explorer won't run on it,
nor will an increasing amount of new software.
It means that if you buy a new system now, there is a chance
that the drivers for the hardware won't be there. Unless you think
manufacturers of new video cards, new video chips, etc are testing,
certifying them, issuing fixes, etc for an OS that is EOL.



I run XP with SP3 but don't -- and

wouldn't -- ever allow AutoUpdate to run, installing a

constant drip-feed of barely tested changes... But that

gets into security issues, which is a whole other kettle of

fish.



I recently built myself a new box. I have XP on it.

I built it with cheap parts from TigerDirect. I always buy

older models of motherboard and CPU because the

technology far outstripped the need years ago. I see

no sense paying hundreds for the latest CPU when a

model for $65 is still incredibly fast. I put 4 GB RAM

into my new box, but only because that was the cheapest

option.

Gee, there's a clue. So, why are you talking about 500MB?


Win32 can only use a bit over 3 GB, and 2 GB

would have been more adequate.



Feel free to pull out some chips.




I do some photo editing, some web design work, and

I write Windows software. (I make most of my income

as a carpenter/contractor, but also have a sideline writing

shareware, freeware utilities and components for use

with scripting.)

I've got a dual CPU, super-duper Dell in the other room

that was given to me. It has Win7 on it. I don't like Win7.

I prefer XP. Win7 is a bloated, spyware mess to my mind.

It's salvageable, but barely. Win8 is worse. I use the Win7

box for testing software.

Both the Win7 dual CPU box and my new XP box, with

"mediocre" AMD A6 2-core, respond instantly. I keep them

clean. If you find you need a high-power machine for

speed to do things less intensive than video editing then

you probably have a lot of crap weighing down the system...

And you've probably been reading too many mainstream

media articles written by tech journalists who depend on

hardware and software companies for ad dollars. The world

of tech survives on a dizzying pace of forced obsolescence,

so if you go by what the media tells you you'll end up

replacing gadgets as fast as you buy them.

Unbelievable.

You are opinionated to the point of arrogance...people have their own valid remarks to make! Yours' isn't the be-all, end-all last word on anything!

On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:53:20 AM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:
You are opinionated to the point of arrogance...people have their own valid remarks to make! Yours' isn't the be-all, end-all last word on anything!

I never said it was. You claimed that all HP's come loaded with
crapware. I have two of them, all I said was that it's not true
because mine only came with Norton and some HP utilities, none of
which are intrusive. None of which are popping up ads, or anything
like that. And I said that I'm very happy with my HP's.

YOU then replied with:


"Most people have brand loyalty not matter how irrational it may be...you may drive a Chrysler branded vehicle that is majority owned by Fiat.
Dell,HP/Compaq,Acer/Gateway,Lenovo, all sell entry level PC's...and they all come with a certain amount of "crapware" (or limited use programs) that subsidizes the lowest price!"


So, who exactly is it that's arrongant and only think their answer is
the be-all, end-all? You're saying that I have brand loyalty on an
irrational basis. Besides that, I say you're full of crap. Because
I have the HP's and I don't believe you do. And now it's shifted from
HP's have crapware to just "entry level" PCs do. I think you're full of
crap, but even if it's true, it doesn't make all HP's unacceptable and
if you bought a cheap one that's subsidized with adware from whoever,
who's fault is that?

And having to have the last word makes your opinion valid...give me a ****ing break. You're just an ass-hat. I found your mugshot: http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/...ps63f58639.jpg

On 3/31/2014 7:51 AM, philo wrote:
Don't sell yourself short there philo, you are one of the brightest
folks posting here. You gladly share your experience and knowledge which
makes you a great guy to know. ^_^

TDD
Thanks.

I've said this befo

We learn from our mistakes, therefore I have learned a lot.

There are a very few sincere people on this
list, and we are three of them.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 3/31/2014 8:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:
I just had a friend complaining to me that he was trying to restore
an XP system he has and he said he tried to download service pack 3
for XP and it's no longer available. Not sure that's true, but that's
what he said. If so, that's a real bitch. I can understand not
supporting it anymore, but you would think MSFT would still make
available the existing last updates for it.

I had a rough time trying to find SP3, it's
"for network professionals". From experience,
don't go to the web for sp3, you'll get some
thing that kills your computer. DAMHIKT.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 3/31/2014 11:53 AM, Bob_Villa wrote:
You are opinionated to the point of arrogance...people have their own valid remarks to make! Yours' isn't the be-all, end-all last word on anything!

Sorry, I'll do better.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Monday, March 31, 2014 12:15:58 PM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:
And having to have the last word makes your opinion valid...give me a ****ing break. You're just an ass-hat. I found your mugshot: http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/...ps63f58639.jpg

Idiot, look in the mirror. You said don't buy an HP because they
come loaded with crapware. All I said I have two, that are 2 -3 years old,
they didn't come with crapware and I like my HP's. You responded with
this:


"Most people have brand loyalty not matter how irrational it may be...you may drive a Chrysler branded vehicle that is majority owned by Fiat.
Dell,HP/Compaq,Acer/Gateway,Lenovo, all sell entry level PC's...and they all come with a certain amount of "crapware" (or limited use programs) that subsidizes the lowest price!"

You accuse me of irrational brand loyalty and then you actually
say I'm the one that's arrogant, that has to have the last word?
I don't believe you even own an HP and it's you who's the crapware
guy who can't tolerate another opinion. And if you bought some cheap
crapware loaded PC, because you're a cheap schmuck, don't take it out
on me. My HP's work just fine and I like them.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:45:51 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


| Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably
| had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's
| more than enough for most uses.
|
| Ridiculous. I recently retired a secondary 1 Ghz XP machine
| with 1 GB of RAM and it's performance was pathetic compared
| to any current basic PC. It's pathetic compared to the 3 year
| old PC I'm using as my main PC.
|

There is a caveat: It won't be fast if you don't run
it clean. XP starts out with dozens of unnecessary
services running by default. Then installed software
often loads at boot without asking. If you run anti-virus
you're adding a huge load with doubtful benefit. When
you install hardware it will often load unnecessary
startup programs. All of that can drag down any
system.
On numerous occasions I've had friends ask for help
because their computer is running in slow motion. It's
not XP that's the problem. And it's not old hardware.
Once the software "barnacles" are cleaned off those
machines run fine.

|
| But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
| MB RAM for most uses.)
|
| It's also being EOL'd by MSFT. Why would anyone who wants
| more speed invest more money in a 12 year old PC, running XP,
| with a dying disk?

The OP may not want to. I was trying to describe
his options. If he really wants to stay with what he's
using his best option is to replace the hard disk. If
he's happy moving to Win8 then he can do that for
as little as $300. It's up to him. To my mind, replacing
the hard disk is certainly a viable option. It's the
part most likely to wear out.

XP EOL could certainly be an issue. If you just want
to buy a box and have it work then it makes the most
sense to simply buy new PCs when the old one seems
inadequate. But if you don't mind spending some time,
there's no reason they can't be maintained. And XP EOL
really means very little. I run XP with SP3 but don't -- and
wouldn't -- ever allow AutoUpdate to run, installing a
constant drip-feed of barely tested changes... But that
gets into security issues, which is a whole other kettle of
fish.

I recently built myself a new box. I have XP on it.
I built it with cheap parts from TigerDirect. I always buy
older models of motherboard and CPU because the
technology far outstripped the need years ago. I see
no sense paying hundreds for the latest CPU when a
model for $65 is still incredibly fast. I put 4 GB RAM
into my new box, but only because that was the cheapest
option. Win32 can only use a bit over 3 GB, and 2 GB
would have been more adequate.

I do some photo editing, some web design work, and
I write Windows software. (I make most of my income
as a carpenter/contractor, but also have a sideline writing
shareware, freeware utilities and components for use
with scripting.)
I've got a dual CPU, super-duper Dell in the other room
that was given to me. It has Win7 on it. I don't like Win7.
I prefer XP. Win7 is a bloated, spyware mess to my mind.
It's salvageable, but barely. Win8 is worse. I use the Win7
box for testing software.
Both the Win7 dual CPU box and my new XP box, with
"mediocre" AMD A6 2-core, respond instantly. I keep them
clean. If you find you need a high-power machine for
speed to do things less intensive than video editing then
you probably have a lot of crap weighing down the system...
And you've probably been reading too many mainstream
media articles written by tech journalists who depend on
hardware and software companies for ad dollars. The world
of tech survives on a dizzying pace of forced obsolescence,
so if you go by what the media tells you you'll end up
replacing gadgets as fast as you buy them.

Computers of that age have another common failure mode that slows them
to a crawl - leaky caps. Take a good look at all the electrolytic caps
on the motherboard. They all have score marks in the end. If the end
is convex instead of flat or slightly concave, the cap has failed. The
K marked caps are generally less likely to fail than the X marked
ones, for some reason.

You CAN replace the caps with new Low ESR caps to salvage an otherwise
good board but at $2 and change a piece for the caps,I often question
if it is worth while. Generally 1000 and 1500 mfd caps in 10 and 16
volt DC ratings - minimum 85C temp rating. Using 16 and 25 volt caps
extends the life if you have the physical space on the board.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:59:19 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and
| installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".

You mean Virtual XP mode for Win7? I thought you
meant installing a VM. I don't know anything about
Virtual XP mode, but it seems to require Win7 Pro,
which costs quite a bit more than Win7 Home OEM.
Maybe that's worth it to someone who can't give up
XP but *has to* buy a new machine.

| I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25
| years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on
| XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if
| running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive
| (swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the
| hard drive.
|


Virtual XP IS a VM.
It comes standard on Win7 Pro, and can be downloaded for free from
Microsoft if you need it on a "lesser" OS.

Personally, I ALWAYS buy Pro, so it's not an issue for me (I need the
network capability of Pro - lesser OS cannot join a domain)
How is it that so many people in a home repair group
suddenly turn out to build computers for a living?

I wouldn't prefer to install 256 MB RAM, of course, and
there is an issue these days with bloated software, but
256 MB RAM can work OK on a clean machine where people
are doing typical things like Web browsing, email Office
docs, etc. If you're worried about wearing out your hard
disk then turn off the useless indexing service and either
avoid AV or at least don't leave it at default settings,
scanning everything you touch. There are lots of software
causes of running the disk unnecessarily that have nothing
to do with using the swap file.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:38:36 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 3/31/2014 8:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:
I just had a friend complaining to me that he was trying to restore
an XP system he has and he said he tried to download service pack 3
for XP and it's no longer available. Not sure that's true, but that's
what he said. If so, that's a real bitch. I can understand not
supporting it anymore, but you would think MSFT would still make
available the existing last updates for it.

I had a rough time trying to find SP3, it's
"for network professionals". From experience,
don't go to the web for sp3, you'll get some
thing that kills your computer. DAMHIKT.
It is still available - I downloaded and installed it last week to
resurrect a little Toshibba Portege R200.

You DO need to make sure you are only downloading SP3 and not 1001
other programs the download sites try to stuff in on you.

On Monday, March 31, 2014 1:38:36 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/31/2014 8:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I just had a friend complaining to me that he was trying to restore

an XP system he has and he said he tried to download service pack 3

for XP and it's no longer available. Not sure that's true, but that's

what he said. If so, that's a real bitch. I can understand not

supporting it anymore, but you would think MSFT would still make

available the existing last updates for it.



I had a rough time trying to find SP3, it's

"for network professionals". From experience,

don't go to the web for sp3, you'll get some

thing that kills your computer. DAMHIKT.


Where did you find it? On MSFT website?

On Monday, March 31, 2014 2:24:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:45:51 -0400, "Mayayana"

wrote:





| Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably

| had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's

| more than enough for most uses.

|

| Ridiculous. I recently retired a secondary 1 Ghz XP machine

| with 1 GB of RAM and it's performance was pathetic compared

| to any current basic PC. It's pathetic compared to the 3 year

| old PC I'm using as my main PC.

|



There is a caveat: It won't be fast if you don't run

it clean. XP starts out with dozens of unnecessary

services running by default. Then installed software

often loads at boot without asking. If you run anti-virus

you're adding a huge load with doubtful benefit. When

you install hardware it will often load unnecessary

startup programs. All of that can drag down any

system.

On numerous occasions I've had friends ask for help

because their computer is running in slow motion. It's

not XP that's the problem. And it's not old hardware.

Once the software "barnacles" are cleaned off those

machines run fine.



|

| But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256

| MB RAM for most uses.)

|

| It's also being EOL'd by MSFT. Why would anyone who wants

| more speed invest more money in a 12 year old PC, running XP,

| with a dying disk?



The OP may not want to. I was trying to describe

his options. If he really wants to stay with what he's

using his best option is to replace the hard disk. If

he's happy moving to Win8 then he can do that for

as little as $300. It's up to him. To my mind, replacing

the hard disk is certainly a viable option. It's the

part most likely to wear out.



XP EOL could certainly be an issue. If you just want

to buy a box and have it work then it makes the most

sense to simply buy new PCs when the old one seems

inadequate. But if you don't mind spending some time,

there's no reason they can't be maintained. And XP EOL

really means very little. I run XP with SP3 but don't -- and

wouldn't -- ever allow AutoUpdate to run, installing a

constant drip-feed of barely tested changes... But that

gets into security issues, which is a whole other kettle of

fish.



I recently built myself a new box. I have XP on it.

I built it with cheap parts from TigerDirect. I always buy

older models of motherboard and CPU because the

technology far outstripped the need years ago. I see

no sense paying hundreds for the latest CPU when a

model for $65 is still incredibly fast. I put 4 GB RAM

into my new box, but only because that was the cheapest

option. Win32 can only use a bit over 3 GB, and 2 GB

would have been more adequate.



I do some photo editing, some web design work, and

I write Windows software. (I make most of my income

as a carpenter/contractor, but also have a sideline writing

shareware, freeware utilities and components for use

with scripting.)

I've got a dual CPU, super-duper Dell in the other room

that was given to me. It has Win7 on it. I don't like Win7.

I prefer XP. Win7 is a bloated, spyware mess to my mind.

It's salvageable, but barely. Win8 is worse. I use the Win7

box for testing software.

Both the Win7 dual CPU box and my new XP box, with

"mediocre" AMD A6 2-core, respond instantly. I keep them

clean. If you find you need a high-power machine for

speed to do things less intensive than video editing then

you probably have a lot of crap weighing down the system...

And you've probably been reading too many mainstream

media articles written by tech journalists who depend on

hardware and software companies for ad dollars. The world

of tech survives on a dizzying pace of forced obsolescence,

so if you go by what the media tells you you'll end up

replacing gadgets as fast as you buy them.



Computers of that age have another common failure mode that slows them

to a crawl - leaky caps. Take a good look at all the electrolytic caps

on the motherboard. They all have score marks in the end. If the end

is convex instead of flat or slightly concave, the cap has failed. The

K marked caps are generally less likely to fail than the X marked

ones, for some reason.


How does a bad cap slow it to a crawl? The caps are there to smoooth
out the power, no? I can see a bad cap causing it to freeze, or not
boot, but how does it wind up slowing it down?

On 3/31/2014 12:38 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/31/2014 8:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:
I just had a friend complaining to me that he was trying to restore
an XP system he has and he said he tried to download service pack 3
for XP and it's no longer available. Not sure that's true, but that's
what he said. If so, that's a real bitch. I can understand not
supporting it anymore, but you would think MSFT would still make
available the existing last updates for it.

I had a rough time trying to find SP3, it's
"for network professionals". From experience,
don't go to the web for sp3, you'll get some
thing that kills your computer. DAMHIKT.

You can download XP SP3 directly from Microsoft right he
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=25129

Sheesh.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:38:36 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I had a rough time trying to find SP3, it's
"for network professionals". From experience,
don't go to the web for sp3, you'll get some
thing that kills your computer. DAMHIKT.

What that means is that IT professional will install it across the
network to multiple machines.

You can still use the same SP3 package, instead of using Windows
Update on a single machine.

-- Supported Operating System

Windows XP Home Edition , Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP
Service Pack 1, Windows XP Service Pack 2

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=24

On 3/30/2014 10:15 PM, wrote:

Or buy an off-lease computer with WinXP Pro that is only less than 5
years old with DDR3 ram and SATA hard drive instead of his ancient
ide HD and DDR2 ram.

Bingo. A lot of electronics retailers and electronics recycling
companies sell refurbished second-hand pcs dirt cheap. These are
usually off-lease business models. A guy I know recently replaced his
ancient XP box with a refurbed IBM-era Lenovo running Win 7 Pro from
Microcenter. A big improvement over what he'd had, for only $130.00.

Speaking of which, searching the inventory of retailers such as
Microcenter will still find new pcs running Win 7. In fact, a quick
check of Microcenter's website just turned up more than two dozen Win
7 desktop models. So if you really don't want to wrestle with Win 8
(and I can't blame you), you can still choose new and get an OS that
doesn't require completely relearning how to use the pc.

On 3/30/2014 10:30 PM, Mayayana wrote:

But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
MB RAM for most uses.)

Bull****.

Maybe if you only load XP and then never do a thing on it. Otherwise,
that is turtle time.

You want decent performance, you need more RAM.

The biggest mistake people make is to view a computer as if it is a
major appliance. Sure, ovens and fridges don't change much over time,
so they'll still perform their basic functions just fine even when
newer models are on the market. But computers are dynamic devices. The
software and peripherals that run on/with them are constantly
changing. They gradually lose efficiency, and eventually lose
compatibility. At some point, they won't be good for much anymore.
Bite the bullet and upgrade.

writes:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:45:51 -0400, "Mayayana"

Both the Win7 dual CPU box and my new XP box, with
"mediocre" AMD A6 2-core, respond instantly. I keep them
clean. If you find you need a high-power machine for
speed to do things less intensive than video editing then
you probably have a lot of crap weighing down the system...
And you've probably been reading too many mainstream
media articles written by tech journalists who depend on
hardware and software companies for ad dollars. The world
of tech survives on a dizzying pace of forced obsolescence,
so if you go by what the media tells you you'll end up
replacing gadgets as fast as you buy them.

Computers of that age have another common failure mode that slows them
to a crawl - leaky caps.

Can you clarify how a leaky cap will "slow them to a crawl"?

If the PLL controlling the clock signal doesn't lock at the
target frequency, the processor will never leave reset. I suppose
that qualifies as "slow", for some value of "slow".

writes:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:59:19 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and
| installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".

You mean Virtual XP mode for Win7? I thought you
meant installing a VM. I don't know anything about
Virtual XP mode, but it seems to require Win7 Pro,
which costs quite a bit more than Win7 Home OEM.
Maybe that's worth it to someone who can't give up
XP but *has to* buy a new machine.

| I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25
| years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on
| XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if
| running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive
| (swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the
| hard drive.
|


Virtual XP IS a VM.

A VM (Virtual Machine) is a "container" that appears to software as if it
were running on bare-metal. The "container" usually runs under an
hypervisor (or an existing OS that has hypervisor functionality). Common
hypervisors include VMWare and Xen (Citrix), and both Windows and Linux have hypervisor
functionality using HyperV and KVM (kernel Virtual machine) respectively.

All modern processors (Intel, PowerPC, ARM, Itanium, PARISC, et alia)
have hardware support for virtualization to make virtualization significantly
more efficient than if the processor didn't have the extra support
(often implemented via an additional privilege level, more privileged than
the the operating systems being virtualized (SVM on AMD, VT-X on Intel,
Exception Level 2 on ARMv8)).

Any x86 operating system can be run in a x86 Virtual Machine (VM) including
MsDOS, OS/2, Linux, Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 8, etc.

It comes standard on Win7 Pro, and can be downloaded for free from
Microsoft if you need it on a "lesser" OS.

Personally, I ALWAYS buy Pro, so it's not an issue for me (I need the
network capability of Pro - lesser OS cannot join a domain)
How is it that so many people in a home repair group
suddenly turn out to build computers for a living?

Some of us build very large, very fast, very expensive computers for
a living. Some of us even write hypervisors for a living.

| But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
| MB RAM for most uses.)
|
| Bull****.
|

Interesting reasoning.

| The biggest mistake people make is to view a computer as if it is a
| major appliance. Sure, ovens and fridges don't change much over time,
| so they'll still perform their basic functions just fine even when
| newer models are on the market. But computers are dynamic devices. The
| software and peripherals that run on/with them are constantly
| changing. They gradually lose efficiency, and eventually lose
| compatibility. At some point, they won't be good for much anymore.

In practice that's often true, and in Jerry's case
it might be easiest to just buy a new machine,
especially considering how cheap they are now.
But if you know how to re-install the system and
manage your software -- or if you have a friend
who can help -- then there's no reason to have the
problems you describe. Software doesn't "lose
efficiency", and most people rarely if ever change
their software. But if you don't manage startup
programs, if you allow browser toolbars to be installed,
etc then the system will get bogged down.

I was working on a friend's PC just yesterday.
He had wanted to download an audio file. The only
option was iTunes. In order to download he had
to install the iTunes software. For one audio file
he ended up with *4* nonsense Apple programs
running at startup. Most people don't understand
about such things. Even if the Apple installer provided
a choice about installing their junk (which I doubt)
my friend would have just gone along with the
suggested default install, as most people do. That's
the kind of thing that causes what appears to you to
be ageing and "lost efficiency".

So there might be a question as to whether it's
feasible for Jerry to "revivify" his old PC. But it
probably is a realistic option. I stress this point because
I think it's a shame that people waste so much money
out of ignorance. I've got a number of PCs that I
hold onto in case someone needs one. I get them
from people who think the way you do: Their system
gets mucked up, they think it must be dying of old
age, they go and buy another PC, then they give the
old one to me for parts. I do a factory restore in 30
minutes (which most PCs can do) and I've got a PC
as fresh as the day it was bought.... in most cases
still far more powerful than the person in question
actually needs.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:29:49 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

You want decent performance, you need more RAM.

The biggest mistake people make is to view a computer as if it is a
major appliance.

Exactly. People try to make one machine perform to many things.

1) Purpose the machine and consider what it does. Limit making it do
"everything" (Say a person runs AutoCAD, best done a dedicated machine
IMHO) Surfing the Web, E-mail, watching videos is a simple but clean
machine.

2) Give Windows every bit of RAM you can

3) Give Windows every bit of drive space you can

On Monday, March 31, 2014 4:07:30 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256

| MB RAM for most uses.)

|

| Bull****.

|



Interesting reasoning.



| The biggest mistake people make is to view a computer as if it is a

| major appliance. Sure, ovens and fridges don't change much over time,

| so they'll still perform their basic functions just fine even when

| newer models are on the market. But computers are dynamic devices. The

| software and peripherals that run on/with them are constantly

| changing. They gradually lose efficiency, and eventually lose

| compatibility. At some point, they won't be good for much anymore.



In practice that's often true, and in Jerry's case

it might be easiest to just buy a new machine,

especially considering how cheap they are now.

But if you know how to re-install the system and

manage your software -- or if you have a friend

who can help -- then there's no reason to have the

problems you describe. Software doesn't "lose

efficiency", and most people rarely if ever change

their software.

Really? People don't change software? Not in my experience.
Who for example is still using the same version of a web
browser from 12 years ago? And for what? A browser from back them
would be incompatible with most websites today.
Try to open a new document with Adobe Reader that's 12 years old,
play a newly created video with a 12 year old video player app, etc.
It's rarely going to work. Software is constantly evolving. You
can almost always open an old file with the new app, but not vice
versa.




But if you don't manage startup

programs, if you allow browser toolbars to be installed,

etc then the system will get bogged down.



I was working on a friend's PC just yesterday.

He had wanted to download an audio file. The only

option was iTunes. In order to download he had

to install the iTunes software.


Perfect example of why new software gets installed all the time.



For one audio file

he ended up with *4* nonsense Apple programs

running at startup. Most people don't understand

about such things. Even if the Apple installer provided

a choice about installing their junk (which I doubt)

my friend would have just gone along with the

suggested default install, as most people do.
That's

the kind of thing that causes what appears to you to

be ageing and "lost efficiency".


That can certainly contribute to decreased performance, sure.
But it still doesn't
mean that a 12 year old XP machine is up to what most people typically
want or find acceptable today for their PC. And if he wants to stick
with XP, he's going to find less and less software that runs on it.
If he uses Windows Explorer, IDK when the last version was that runs
on XP. It's sure not the last couple versions, so he can expect increasing
compatibility trouble there. I'm sure someone will say he can use
some other browser, which is true, but it's an example of the kind of
frustration,work arounds etc that are going to become more common
with an EOL OS.

Trader4ickt responded thusly:

Window Explorer is the file/folder manager, Internet Explorer is a browser! *L*

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:32:59 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

Trader4ickt responded thusly:

Window Explorer is the file/folder manager, Internet Explorer is a browser! *L*

IE will do both: neener neener. You can make it open files, say *.doc
files from Office.

Where do you libs get your Kool-Aid?

"...But you may not know that you can use your web file browser as
your own computer file browser..."

"...IF your want to browser “C” drive, then enter the address C: or
file:///IF your want to browser “C” drive, then enter the address C:
or file:///C:// in your browser address bar. Samely if your want oto
explore “D” drive, then enter the address D: or file:///D:// in your
browsers address bar.

Just put C: in the IE address bar. Then tell me IE is not a file
browser.

- See more at:
http://www.techgainer.com/how-to-use-your-web-browser-as-local-computerfile-explorer-or-manager-in-windows-linux/#sthash.4KAJxEeM.dpuf

I'm also still waiting for your link that Global Warming is man made.

| "...But you may not know that you can use your web file browser as
| your own computer file browser..."
|
| "...IF your want to browser "C" drive, then enter the address C: or
| file:///IF your want to browser "C" drive, then enter the address C:
| or file:///C:// in your browser address bar. Samely if your want oto
| explore "D" drive, then enter the address D: or file:///D:// in your
| browsers address bar.
|
| Just put C: in the IE address bar. Then tell me IE is not a file
| browser.
|

That's left over from Active Desktop, when Microsoft
was trying to equate Windows with the Internet and
embedding IE as a part of the OS. Before XP, a folder
window actually had an IE browser window in it. The
"listview" that shows the files was actually an object
in a webpage.

Some of that blending still remains, partly for backward
compatibility and partly because Microsoft still wants to
present IE as integral to the OS.

None of that means Explorer and IE are the same. Once
you "browse" to a folder path, it's an Explorer window in
an IE frame and there's no longer a browser window there.
(You can confirm that with a program that shows all open
windows and their sub-windows. The actual browser window
itself is of class "Internet Explorer_Server". There's no such
sub-window remaining after you navigate to a folder.) The
appearance of IE and Explorer being the same is just a
leftover quinky dink. (Though it is a good reason not to
use IE online, due to the security risks of blending IE and
Windows so intimately.)

...Not that any of this has anything to do with poor Jerry's
attempt to solve his computer problems.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:29:49 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

On 3/30/2014 10:30 PM, Mayayana wrote:

But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
MB RAM for most uses.)

Bull****.

Maybe if you only load XP and then never do a thing on it. Otherwise,
that is turtle time.

You want decent performance, you need more RAM.

The biggest mistake people make is to view a computer as if it is a
major appliance. Sure, ovens and fridges don't change much over time,
so they'll still perform their basic functions just fine even when
newer models are on the market. But computers are dynamic devices. The
software and peripherals that run on/with them are constantly
changing. They gradually lose efficiency, and eventually lose
compatibility. At some point, they won't be good for much anymore.
Bite the bullet and upgrade.

But if all you want to do is run Lotus Symphony and Lotus Magellan,
better to stick with a Dos6 or Windows 3.1 OS on a 386SX

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:57:54 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:45:51 -0400, "Mayayana"

Both the Win7 dual CPU box and my new XP box, with
"mediocre" AMD A6 2-core, respond instantly. I keep them
clean. If you find you need a high-power machine for
speed to do things less intensive than video editing then
you probably have a lot of crap weighing down the system...
And you've probably been reading too many mainstream
media articles written by tech journalists who depend on
hardware and software companies for ad dollars. The world
of tech survives on a dizzying pace of forced obsolescence,
so if you go by what the media tells you you'll end up
replacing gadgets as fast as you buy them.

Computers of that age have another common failure mode that slows them
to a crawl - leaky caps.

Can you clarify how a leaky cap will "slow them to a crawl"?

If the PLL controlling the clock signal doesn't lock at the
target frequency, the processor will never leave reset. I suppose
that qualifies as "slow", for some value of "slow".
I'm not a computer engineer, but I have experienced computers slowing
to a crawl with bad caps, that came right back to life when I replaced
the caps. It's not just the processor clock - it's the IO from the
hard drive, the refresh rate on the RAM, and the output to the video
that can all slow down. The processor misses clock cycles if the
voltage goes off spec too, from what I've been told.

Some bad caps will also make the computer not boot. Or make the
computer crash when it gets warm.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:32:59 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

Trader4ickt responded thusly:

Window Explorer is the file/folder manager, Internet Explorer is a browser! *L*

BTW, Bob, Trader is exactly correct.

Laugh about that.

wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:30:48 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:



-- | Sometimes the smart thing to do in the OP's case is to get a win7
| machine that supports virtualization and put on a virtual XP - so he
| can still use his favourite programs like outlook express.
|

He probably has OEM XP. Putting it on a Win7 box
would require buying a new OEM CD, for probably
about $100 if he could find it. There's no reason he
can't keep the old machine running. And it doesn't
sound like he's the sort of person to be setting up
VMs.

The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and
installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".

| Or buy an off-lease computer with WinXP Pro that is only less than 5
| years old with DDR3 ram and SATA hard drive instead of his ancient
| ide HD and DDR2 ram.

Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably
had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's
more than enough for most uses. Nothing is faster than
instant, no matter how new it is. *A lot* of money is
wasted on loads of RAM that never gets used. If he wants
to do a lot of editing of 30 MB images then he probably
needs a new box. For most other things, the cheapest PCs
have been more than adequate for many years now. (That's
a nice aspect of XP. Microsoft went to great lengths to
build bloat into Vista/7 so that their hardware partners
could sell more stock. Win8 needs 1 GB RAM just to sit there.
But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
MB RAM for most uses.)

I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25
years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on
XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if
running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive
(swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the
hard drive.

Huh?
Wonder what kinda stuffs you have been working for 25 years?
When I started out I was working on vacuum tube and transistor
driven systems. Today's apps size is often bigger than 256, LOL! One
example, look at the Photo shop Pro..... Wonder what people do with
computers these days. Just doing word processing? emailing? that's it?

trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:54:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:30:48 -0400, "Mayayana"

wrote:







-- | Sometimes the smart thing to do in the OP's case is to get a win7

| machine that supports virtualization and put on a virtual XP - so he

| can still use his favourite programs like outlook express.

|



He probably has OEM XP. Putting it on a Win7 box

would require buying a new OEM CD, for probably

about $100 if he could find it. There's no reason he

can't keep the old machine running. And it doesn't

sound like he's the sort of person to be setting up

VMs.



The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and

installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".


You could do that, but I wouldn't be so sure it's a piece of cake.
XP is being EOL's by MSFT right now. No more support, no more
updates for security fixes, nada. Also, I wouldn't assume that XP
has all the necessary drivers, with bug fixes, etc for any new
PC that he's about to buy. For example if he buys an HP with a
particular vidoe card in it, how can you be sure that driver is
certified to work with XP? And if you buy a new HP, screw it up,
and can't get XP installed, then what? And the point to installing
an old OS is what exactly? He can't just use Windows Mail or
switch to an alternate?

Then add in the fact that IDK what browser he's using, but if it's
Windows Explorer, the newer versions of that no longer run on XP,
so he's very likely to run into big problems there, trying to access
web content for example, that won't run on an old unsupported browser.

In short, just buy a new PC and use it out of the box.






| Or buy an off-lease computer with WinXP Pro that is only less than 5

| years old with DDR3 ram and SATA hard drive instead of his ancient

| ide HD and DDR2 ram.



Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably

had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's

more than enough for most uses. Nothing is faster than

instant, no matter how new it is. *A lot* of money is

wasted on loads of RAM that never gets used. If he wants

to do a lot of editing of 30 MB images then he probably

needs a new box. For most other things, the cheapest PCs

have been more than adequate for many years now. (That's

a nice aspect of XP. Microsoft went to great lengths to

build bloat into Vista/7 so that their hardware partners

could sell more stock. Win8 needs 1 GB RAM just to sit there.

But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256

MB RAM for most uses.)



I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25

years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on

XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if

running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive

(swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the

hard drive.

And the 6GB or whatever that you get with a basic PC today, combined
with a multi-core 3 ghz CPU will work even better. Even a $100 Android cell
phone has 2GB of memory today.

"Moe DeLoughan" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/2014 10:15 PM, wrote:

Or buy an off-lease computer with WinXP Pro that is only less than 5
years old with DDR3 ram and SATA hard drive instead of his ancient
ide HD and DDR2 ram.

Bingo. A lot of electronics retailers and electronics recycling companies
sell refurbished second-hand pcs dirt cheap. These are usually off-lease
business models. A guy I know recently replaced his ancient XP box with a
refurbed IBM-era Lenovo running Win 7 Pro from Microcenter. A big
improvement over what he'd had, for only $130.00.

Speaking of which, searching the inventory of retailers such as
Microcenter will still find new pcs running Win 7. In fact, a quick check
of Microcenter's website just turned up more than two dozen Win 7 desktop
models. So if you really don't want to wrestle with Win 8 (and I can't
blame you), you can still choose new and get an OS that doesn't require
completely relearning how to use the pc.

I was not familiar with Microcenter until you posted it here. There is one
about 20 miles from me. This may be the ticket.

trader_4 wrote:

If the MB can handle the extra memory, there isn't an OS in the last
couple decades that won't make use of it.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Unless it is a 32bit x86 version.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:05:48 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:30:48 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:



-- | Sometimes the smart thing to do in the OP's case is to get a win7
| machine that supports virtualization and put on a virtual XP - so he
| can still use his favourite programs like outlook express.
|

He probably has OEM XP. Putting it on a Win7 box
would require buying a new OEM CD, for probably
about $100 if he could find it. There's no reason he
can't keep the old machine running. And it doesn't
sound like he's the sort of person to be setting up
VMs.

The new or off-lease computer would come with the OS installed, and
installing virtual XP is litterally a "piece of cake".

| Or buy an off-lease computer with WinXP Pro that is only less than 5
| years old with DDR3 ram and SATA hard drive instead of his ancient
| ide HD and DDR2 ram.

Even in 2002 the machine he has would have probably
had about a 1 Ghz CPU and maybe 500 MB RAM. That's
more than enough for most uses. Nothing is faster than
instant, no matter how new it is. *A lot* of money is
wasted on loads of RAM that never gets used. If he wants
to do a lot of editing of 30 MB images then he probably
needs a new box. For most other things, the cheapest PCs
have been more than adequate for many years now. (That's
a nice aspect of XP. Microsoft went to great lengths to
build bloat into Vista/7 so that their hardware partners
could sell more stock. Win8 needs 1 GB RAM just to sit there.
But XP is zippy on old hardware, and does just fine with 256
MB RAM for most uses.)

I've been in the PC business now for 25 years (well, will be 25
years in August). 256 is inadequate to run anything of consequence on
XP. 512 will work, but 1024 really wakes it up, particularly if
running 2 programs at a time. Takes all the load off the hard drive
(swap file/virtual ram issues). With 256 ram, you WILL wear out the
hard drive.

Huh?
Wonder what kinda stuffs you have been working for 25 years?
When I started out I was working on vacuum tube and transistor
driven systems. Today's apps size is often bigger than 256, LOL! One
example, look at the Photo shop Pro..... Wonder what people do with
computers these days. Just doing word processing? emailing? that's it?
Don't know what you are getting at or what your problem is.
I just said 256 is inadequate - 512 is bare minimum, and 1024 wakes it
up. Where's your beef??? I also said using too little ram and
multitasking is hard on the hard drive due to page filing (virtual
ram).. That is true. What's your beef?

I started working for a computer manufacturer locally 25 years ago,
when the XT was hot stuff - the PC with 2 single side 5 1/4" floppies
was standard - with 16K of ram being a "full load"
We were the largest distributor of hard drives in Canada at the time,
and went on to be, fo a short time, the largest distributor of CD Rom
equipment in Canada - and I put CD Roms on networks across Canada back
before CD Rom was supported by the operating systems or networks
(novell, Banyan Vines, SCO, etc)

After 5 years in that position I went off on my own - been 20 years
now servicing small/medium business computers and networks.

Most (small/medium) businesses today could get along just fine with XP
Pro and 1 or 2 gb of Ram with 340gb hard drives, with a Windows 2003
server with a terrabyte or two.

My major clients are being forced into Windows 7 as their old systems
die off - not because they need the capability (other than not being
able to run more than IE8 - and the application not being Firfox or
Chrome friendly)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:18:27 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

If the MB can handle the extra memory, there isn't an OS in the last
couple decades that won't make use of it.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Unless it is a 32bit x86 version.
Yup - with 32 bit OS, anything over 4Gb is a total waste.

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:09:45 -0400, "Jerry"
wrote:

"The Belarc Advisor builds a detailed profile of your installed
software and hardware, network inventory, missing Microsoft hotfixes,
anti-virus status, security benchmarks, and displays the results in
your Web browser. All of your PC profile information is kept private
on your PC and is not sent to any web server.

http://belarc.com/free_download.html

Hi Oren,

Here's some information. I did have 53 updates to download and install!
Still 3 to go. Thank you

I snipped your report. Belarc is a fine tool for finding things out.

From what I've read in the past, Belarc works closely with MSFT. IOW
they have deals and insight into information.

Belarc showed me stuff I didn't know...

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:18:27 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

If the MB can handle the extra memory, there isn't an OS in the last
couple decades that won't make use of it.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx


Link broke.

Unless it is a 32bit x86 version.

Are you saying a RAM drive will not work - loaded on boot?

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:27:24 -0400, Frank
wrote:

Spend more time on my wife's computer problems than I do mine.

Why am I not surprised?

I tell my wife a computer will only do what you tell it too. G