On 09/01/2014 21:17, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:39:33 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 08/01/2014 17:13, Jim Hawkins wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 07/01/2014 18:21, Jim Hawkins wrote:
What do you gain by upgrading from
XP Pro to Win 7 Pro ?

Support/patches.
64 bit if you're sensible and hence ability to use more than 3G memory.
Task manager is better.
It's more stable IME.

And what do you lose ?

Money if the upgrade costs?
UAC can be a bit of a pain if you set it up wrong.


Is it possible to upgrade a 32bit machine (whatever the OS)
to its 64 bit equivalent - or do you have to buy new ?

If the hardware is already 64 bit, then yes you can just upgrade OS. If
the hardware is 32 only, then you will need new mobo, cpu and ram
probably.

Not exactly, if you change from 32 to 64 you lose things:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...#1TC=windows-7

The question was about hardware...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:05:14 -0000, Bob Eager wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:20:25 +0000, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:14:29 -0000, soup
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

Seriously, three hours? What on earth were you doing to it?
I ran XP for 7 years( fair enough it was switched off each night and
restarted the next day) and only once saw a BSOD.

Have ran 7 for four years now (also did my HNC in Networking in
it),
it has never blue screened. There is one program (A game. Which
runs
fine on XP [youngest son now has the XP machine]) it refuses to run
have tried (halfheartedly) to get to the bottom of this but have pretty
much chalked it down to 'one of those things'.

Leaving XP on 24/7 can be problematic. I think it leaks memory.

I ran it for years and rarely rebooted (never powered off). Never had a
problem.

What sort of programs did you use on it?

/msg Bob, Uncle Peter/Gefreiter Krueger/Troll etc etc etc has a degree you
know.
http://s556.photobucket.com/user/bra...e.jpg.html?o=0

On 09/01/2014 21:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/01/2014 21:20, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:14:29 -0000, soup
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

Seriously, three hours? What on earth were you doing to it?
I ran XP for 7 years( fair enough it was switched off each night and
restarted the next day) and only once saw a BSOD.

Have ran 7 for four years now (also did my HNC in Networking in it),
it has never blue screened. There is one program (A game. Which runs
fine on XP [youngest son now has the XP machine]) it refuses to run
have tried (halfheartedly) to get to the bottom of this but have pretty
much chalked it down to 'one of those things'.

Leaving XP on 24/7 can be problematic. I think it leaks memory.

That memory leak was fixed *many* years ago.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641

The infamous 49.7 day bug.

And that was not even in the NT code base...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 09/01/2014 21:24, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:21:04 -0000, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

What do you gain by upgrading from
XP Pro to Win 7 Pro ?
And what do you lose ?

If you're going to change, why not go straight to 8 and have a more up
to date OS with better hardware support (it does UEFI properly for a
start) and nicer more sensible interfaces for file copying etc? The
metro interface is the only thing that's annoying, but you don't have to
use it.

That's mostly true, but there are a few irritating vestiges that I have
yet to find a way to get rid of...

Annoying ones like the slide in panel that now goes with wireless
networking and VPN connection control. It won't stay on screen while you
access other windows - and particularly annoying - will consume a click
anywhere on screen and use it as an indication that it should close. So
if you want to go copy and past a username and password into a VPN
connection for example, you can't in Win 8.

Simply delete all the links to the stupid news and weather
apps and use the metro screen like a huge full screen start menu. And
the start button, contrary to popular belief, is still there,

Most peoples concern with the start button, is the lack of launcher menu
that was associated with it. On a multiscreen desktop the start screen
is a very poor and rather jarring replacement.

(there are fortunately plenty of third party addons like Classic Shell
that restore normal operation as well as making other welcome usability
improvements)

it's just
invisible - you can click bottom left as though it was there. And if
you apply the patch to 8.1 it puts it back anyway. Oh and it starts
MUCH faster than 7.

Hardly matters if you never turn it off... ;-)





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 09/01/2014 23:36, Uncle Peter wrote:

Why bother? The metro screen IS a start menu, just larger.

Larger, butt ugly, badly organised, non hierarchical, and obscures a
whole frigging screen!

The only
thing I miss is "recently used programs" and "recent documents", which I
think are both missing from classic shell.

They are both present.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/01/2014 23:36, Uncle Peter wrote:

Why bother? The metro screen IS a start menu, just larger.

Larger, butt ugly, badly organised, non hierarchical, and obscures a whole
frigging screen!

The only
thing I miss is "recently used programs" and "recent documents", which I
think are both missing from classic shell.

They are both present.

He has a degree you know -
http://s556.photobucket.com/user/bra...e.jpg.html?o=0

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:35:24 +0000, bm wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:05:14 -0000, Bob Eager
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:20:25 +0000, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:14:29 -0000, soup
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

Seriously, three hours? What on earth were you doing to it?
I ran XP for 7 years( fair enough it was switched off each night and
restarted the next day) and only once saw a BSOD.

Have ran 7 for four years now (also did my HNC in Networking in
it),
it has never blue screened. There is one program (A game. Which
runs
fine on XP [youngest son now has the XP machine]) it refuses to run
have tried (halfheartedly) to get to the bottom of this but have
pretty much chalked it down to 'one of those things'.

Leaving XP on 24/7 can be problematic. I think it leaks memory.

I ran it for years and rarely rebooted (never powered off). Never had
a problem.

What sort of programs did you use on it?

/msg Bob, Uncle Peter/Gefreiter Krueger/Troll etc etc etc has a degree
you know.
http://s556.photobucket.com/user/bra...e.jpg.html?o=0

I teach degrees!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:35:24 +0000, bm wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:05:14 -0000, Bob Eager
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:20:25 +0000, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:14:29 -0000, soup
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

Seriously, three hours? What on earth were you doing to it?
I ran XP for 7 years( fair enough it was switched off each night and
restarted the next day) and only once saw a BSOD.

Have ran 7 for four years now (also did my HNC in Networking in
it),
it has never blue screened. There is one program (A game. Which
runs
fine on XP [youngest son now has the XP machine]) it refuses to run
have tried (halfheartedly) to get to the bottom of this but have
pretty much chalked it down to 'one of those things'.

Leaving XP on 24/7 can be problematic. I think it leaks memory.

I ran it for years and rarely rebooted (never powered off). Never had
a problem.

What sort of programs did you use on it?

/msg Bob, Uncle Peter/Gefreiter Krueger/Troll etc etc etc has a degree
you know.
http://s556.photobucket.com/user/bra...e.jpg.html?o=0

I teach degrees!

Then maybe you can f*** some sense into him
Nobody else seems able to.

Uncle Peter wrote
John Williamson wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
soup wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

Seriously, three hours? What on earth were you doing to it?
I ran XP for 7 years( fair enough it was switched off each night and
restarted the next day) and only once saw a BSOD.

oh its never a BSOD - it just hangs - runs out of memory.

You must be doing something extremely odd then, as I have had XP SP3
running reliably (As in days between reboots for other reasons) in 2
gigabytes of RAM and no swapfile, all held on a 4 gigabyte SSD. It was
slow, but then again, it *was* running on the EEEPC.

XP SP3 is v e r y s l o w with less than a gigabyte of RAM due to the
paging needed, but I've never had the OS hang due to memory problems as
long as the swapfile is enabled and big enough. XP SP1 and SP2 used to
run quite nicely in 128 megabytes of RAM using a Pentium 300 processor.
The bloat didn't arrive until SP3 was released.

With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails. Less memory is not
only slower, but wears tou the hard disk swapping.

Swapping doesn't wear out the hard disk.

charles wrote
Rod wrote
Jim Hawkins wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mr Pounder wrote

My XP machine has NEVER crashed or froze.

Apply to Microsoft for a distinguished service medal.

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

I apply the patches 'cos I'm too ignorant to do anything else:-)

This m/c runs permanently; keeping the office warm. AFAIK XP
has not crashed although there have been issues with Explorer.

I see from my news client files that it was commissioned in May 2005.

Another vote for XP (pro) here. Been superbly stable for the last
couple of years at any rate. Just as well as I haven't backed up for
about that long!

Yes, my XP pro has only failed when I have mucked it up myself. But
don't forget the hardware can fail too - you'll need a backup then |

Not necessarily. Most of the time replacing the failed hardware works
fine.

not if the hardware is the Hard disc on which you've stored all your
precious data.

That's why I said MOST OF THE TIME.

And plenty don’t have any precious data too.

Jim Hawkins wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jim Hawkins wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mr Pounder wrote

My XP machine has NEVER crashed or froze.

Apply to Microsoft for a distinguished service medal.

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

I apply the patches 'cos I'm too ignorant to do anything else:-)

This m/c runs permanently; keeping the office warm. AFAIK XP has not
crashed although there have been issues with Explorer.

I see from my news client files that it was commissioned in May 2005.

Another vote for XP (pro) here. Been superbly stable for the last
couple
of years at any rate. Just as well as I haven't backed up for about
that long!

Yes, my XP pro has only failed when I have mucked it up myself.
But don't forget the hardware can fail too - you'll need a backup then |

Not necessarily. Most of the time replacing the failed hardware works
fine.

Failed hard disks don't.

That’s why I said MOST OF THE TIME.

And plenty don’t have anything that matters on the hard drive.

In article , Rod Speed
wrote:
charles wrote
Rod wrote
Jim Hawkins wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mr Pounder wrote

My XP machine has NEVER crashed or froze.

Apply to Microsoft for a distinguished service medal.

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

I apply the patches 'cos I'm too ignorant to do anything else:-)

This m/c runs permanently; keeping the office warm. AFAIK XP has
not crashed although there have been issues with Explorer.

I see from my news client files that it was commissioned in May
2005.

Another vote for XP (pro) here. Been superbly stable for the last
couple of years at any rate. Just as well as I haven't backed up for
about that long!

Yes, my XP pro has only failed when I have mucked it up myself. But
don't forget the hardware can fail too - you'll need a backup then |

Not necessarily. Most of the time replacing the failed hardware works
fine.

not if the hardware is the Hard disc on which you've stored all your
precious data.

That's why I said MOST OF THE TIME.

And plenty don’t have any precious data too.

The only faults I've ever had have been due to the hard disc - so to me
that's "most of the time"

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:29:09 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 09/01/2014 21:17, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:39:33 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 08/01/2014 17:13, Jim Hawkins wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 07/01/2014 18:21, Jim Hawkins wrote:


Support/patches.
64 bit if you're sensible and hence ability to use more than 3G memory.
Task manager is better.
It's more stable IME.



Money if the upgrade costs?
UAC can be a bit of a pain if you set it up wrong.


Is it possible to upgrade a 32bit machine (whatever the OS)
to its 64 bit equivalent - or do you have to buy new ?

If the hardware is already 64 bit, then yes you can just upgrade OS. If
the hardware is 32 only, then you will need new mobo, cpu and ram
probably.

Not exactly, if you change from 32 to 64 you lose things:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...#1TC=windows-7

The question was about hardware...

The question was can you "UPGRADE", which implies not reinstalling the OS from scratch.

--
63% of men have had sex in the shower.
The other 37% have never been to prison.

charles wrote
Rod Speed wrote
charles wrote
Rod wrote
Jim Hawkins wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mr Pounder wrote

My XP machine has NEVER crashed or froze.

Apply to Microsoft for a distinguished service medal.

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

I apply the patches 'cos I'm too ignorant to do anything else:-)

This m/c runs permanently; keeping the office warm. AFAIK XP
has not crashed although there have been issues with Explorer.

I see from my news client files that it was commissioned in May
2005.

Another vote for XP (pro) here. Been superbly stable for the last
couple of years at any rate. Just as well as I haven't backed up for
about that long!

Yes, my XP pro has only failed when I have mucked it up myself. But
don't forget the hardware can fail too - you'll need a backup then |

Not necessarily. Most of the time replacing the failed hardware works
fine.

not if the hardware is the Hard disc on which you've stored all your
precious data.

That's why I said MOST OF THE TIME.

And plenty don't have any precious data too.

The only faults I've ever had have been due to the hard disc

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

- so to me that's "most of the time"

Your problem.

On 10/01/2014 08:21, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Rod Speed wrote
charles wrote
Rod wrote
Jim Hawkins wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
Tim Lamb wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mr Pounder wrote

My XP machine has NEVER crashed or froze.

Apply to Microsoft for a distinguished service medal.

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

I apply the patches 'cos I'm too ignorant to do anything else:-)

This m/c runs permanently; keeping the office warm. AFAIK XP
has not crashed although there have been issues with Explorer.

I see from my news client files that it was commissioned in May
2005.

Another vote for XP (pro) here. Been superbly stable for the last
couple of years at any rate. Just as well as I haven't backed up for
about that long!

Yes, my XP pro has only failed when I have mucked it up myself. But
don't forget the hardware can fail too - you'll need a backup then |

Not necessarily. Most of the time replacing the failed hardware works
fine.

not if the hardware is the Hard disc on which you've stored all your
precious data.

That's why I said MOST OF THE TIME.

And plenty don't have any precious data too.

The only faults I've ever had have been due to the hard disc

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

- so to me that's "most of the time"

Your problem.

Our problem

On 09/01/2014 23:34, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:41:28 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/01/2014 21:21, Uncle Peter wrote:

With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails. Less memory is not
only slower, but wears tou the hard disk swapping.

You're obviously not on a normal laptop, then.

What has lap/desktop to do with it? It's what programs I use.

My point, which you seem to have either missed or deliberately ignored,
is that very few laptops can take more than 4 Gigabytes of RAM on the
motherboard.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:46:52 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 09/01/2014 21:24, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:21:04 -0000, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

What do you gain by upgrading from
XP Pro to Win 7 Pro ?
And what do you lose ?

If you're going to change, why not go straight to 8 and have a more up
to date OS with better hardware support (it does UEFI properly for a
start) and nicer more sensible interfaces for file copying etc? The
metro interface is the only thing that's annoying, but you don't have to
use it.

That's mostly true, but there are a few irritating vestiges that I have
yet to find a way to get rid of...

Annoying ones like the slide in panel that now goes with wireless
networking and VPN connection control. It won't stay on screen while you
access other windows - and particularly annoying - will consume a click
anywhere on screen and use it as an indication that it should close. So
if you want to go copy and past a username and password into a VPN
connection for example, you can't in Win 8.

Never used VPN in 8, but I've used wireless in 8 and I have no idea what panel you're talking about. I use the utility that came with the wireless adapter.

Simply delete all the links to the stupid news and weather
apps and use the metro screen like a huge full screen start menu. And
the start button, contrary to popular belief, is still there,

Most peoples concern with the start button, is the lack of launcher menu
that was associated with it. On a multiscreen desktop the start screen
is a very poor and rather jarring replacement.

Define "launcher menu".

(there are fortunately plenty of third party addons like Classic Shell
that restore normal operation as well as making other welcome usability
improvements)

I tried that and as far as I remember it didn't have recent programs or recent documents. That's all I miss from 7 start menu.

it's just
invisible - you can click bottom left as though it was there. And if
you apply the patch to 8.1 it puts it back anyway. Oh and it starts
MUCH faster than 7.

Hardly matters if you never turn it off... ;-)

I used to sleep mine so I had all my programs still there where I left them. Now it has something to do 24/7 I leave it on.

--
How do you scare a man?
Sneak up behind him and start throwing rice.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:50:13 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 09/01/2014 23:36, Uncle Peter wrote:

Why bother? The metro screen IS a start menu, just larger.

Larger,

More room, nice pictures, quicker to find something.

butt ugly,

Explain.

badly organised, non hierarchical,

I wish it ordered them in recently used order, but it's fine just placing them myself. I put the common ones in the leftmost section, then the less common ones in a 2nd section, then things I rarely use in a 3rd section.

and obscures a whole frigging screen!

You only open it for a second to start a program.

The only
thing I miss is "recently used programs" and "recent documents", which I
think are both missing from classic shell.

They are both present.

I don't remember these, at least not in the original version, or I would have kept using it. I will have a look....

Thanks! I've now made it exactly as I had 7. I guess there weren't all those options when I first tried it (about when 8 was officially released).

--
A weekend wasted is not a wasted weekend.

On 10/01/2014 19:21, Uncle Peter wrote:
Thanks! I've now made it exactly as I had 7. I guess there weren't all
those options when I first tried it (about when 8 was officially released).

MS finally saw sense when they put a lot of the Windows 7 stuff back in
to Windows 8.1.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:06:14 -0000, Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:35:24 +0000, bm wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:05:14 -0000, Bob Eager
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:20:25 +0000, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:14:29 -0000, soup
wrote:



Leaving XP on 24/7 can be problematic. I think it leaks memory.

I ran it for years and rarely rebooted (never powered off). Never had
a problem.

What sort of programs did you use on it?

/msg Bob, Uncle Peter/Gefreiter Krueger/Troll etc etc etc has a degree
you know.
http://s556.photobucket.com/user/bra...e.jpg.html?o=0

I teach degrees!

Which degrees?

--
The average lifespan of electronic devices is between zero and infinity, or 2 days after the warranty runs out, whichever comes first.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:31:39 -0000, John Williamson wrote:

On 09/01/2014 23:34, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:41:28 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/01/2014 21:21, Uncle Peter wrote:

With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails. Less memory is not
only slower, but wears tou the hard disk swapping.

You're obviously not on a normal laptop, then.

What has lap/desktop to do with it? It's what programs I use.

My point, which you seem to have either missed or deliberately ignored,
is that very few laptops can take more than 4 Gigabytes of RAM on the
motherboard.

2920 results for 8GB laptops on Ebay:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_od...77&_from=R4 0

1112 results for 16GB laptops on Ebay:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_od...6gb&_sacat=177

--
If you mated a bulldog and a ****su, would it be called a bull****?

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:03:43 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/01/2014 23:34, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:41:28 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/01/2014 21:21, Uncle Peter wrote:

With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails. Less memory is not
only slower, but wears tou the hard disk swapping.

You're obviously not on a normal laptop, then.

What has lap/desktop to do with it? It's what programs I use.

My point, which you seem to have either missed or deliberately ignored,
is that very few laptops can take more than 4 Gigabytes of RAM on the
motherboard.

All MacBooks take at least 8GB.

He said laptops, not those horrid things.

--
You are the only person I know that has ever had a brain tumour removed from their arse.

On 10/01/2014 18:39, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:46:52 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

That's mostly true, but there are a few irritating vestiges that I have
yet to find a way to get rid of...

Annoying ones like the slide in panel that now goes with wireless
networking and VPN connection control. It won't stay on screen while you
access other windows - and particularly annoying - will consume a click
anywhere on screen and use it as an indication that it should close. So
if you want to go copy and past a username and password into a VPN
connection for example, you can't in Win 8.

Never used VPN in 8, but I've used wireless in 8 and I have no idea what
panel you're talking about. I use the utility that came with the
wireless adapter.

If you use the windows management interface for wireless connections,
they appear on a slide in panel on the right hand edge of the screen -
roughly under where the network connection icon normally appears on the
tray.

Simply delete all the links to the stupid news and weather
apps and use the metro screen like a huge full screen start menu. And
the start button, contrary to popular belief, is still there,

Most peoples concern with the start button, is the lack of launcher menu
that was associated with it. On a multiscreen desktop the start screen
is a very poor and rather jarring replacement.

Define "launcher menu".

The thing that pops up when you click "start" in Win XP through Win 7,
and that which is missing from Win 8 and 8.1


(there are fortunately plenty of third party addons like Classic Shell
that restore normal operation as well as making other welcome usability
improvements)

I tried that and as far as I remember it didn't have recent programs or
recent documents. That's all I miss from 7 start menu.

Either your memory is faulty, or they have changed it since, as I have
them both on mine.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:26:33 -0000, John Williamson wrote:

On 10/01/2014 19:21, Uncle Peter wrote:
Thanks! I've now made it exactly as I had 7. I guess there weren't all
those options when I first tried it (about when 8 was officially released).

MS finally saw sense when they put a lot of the Windows 7 stuff back in
to Windows 8.1.

Like what??! A picture for the start button instead of a blank space? I've seen nothing else come back.

--
Say it with flowers - send her a triffid.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:31:35 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 10/01/2014 18:39, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:46:52 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

That's mostly true, but there are a few irritating vestiges that I have
yet to find a way to get rid of...

Annoying ones like the slide in panel that now goes with wireless
networking and VPN connection control. It won't stay on screen while you
access other windows - and particularly annoying - will consume a click
anywhere on screen and use it as an indication that it should close. So
if you want to go copy and past a username and password into a VPN
connection for example, you can't in Win 8.

Never used VPN in 8, but I've used wireless in 8 and I have no idea what
panel you're talking about. I use the utility that came with the
wireless adapter.

If you use the windows management interface for wireless connections,
they appear on a slide in panel on the right hand edge of the screen -
roughly under where the network connection icon normally appears on the
tray.

Don't know what you mean by "windows management interface". I've used Windows's own popup (from a tray icon) to select wireless when I had no Realtek software on the machine. I se no need for a slider.

Simply delete all the links to the stupid news and weather
apps and use the metro screen like a huge full screen start menu. And
the start button, contrary to popular belief, is still there,

Most peoples concern with the start button, is the lack of launcher menu
that was associated with it. On a multiscreen desktop the start screen
is a very poor and rather jarring replacement.

Define "launcher menu".

The thing that pops up when you click "start" in Win XP through Win 7,
and that which is missing from Win 8 and 8.1

Oh, I call that a "start menu". And on a multiscreen setup, I find metro easier, as it only fills one of the two or more monitors, so I'm not sure why you think it's worse with more monitors.

(there are fortunately plenty of third party addons like Classic Shell
that restore normal operation as well as making other welcome usability
improvements)

I tried that and as far as I remember it didn't have recent programs or
recent documents. That's all I miss from 7 start menu.

Either your memory is faulty, or they have changed it since, as I have
them both on mine.

See other post, it's got LOADS of options now. Those were not there with the original or I would have played with them immediately.

--
An English woman who has been blind for 26 years got her sight back after suffering a heart attack.
Unfortunately, after she was able to see her doctors bill she had several more heart attacks.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

All MacBooks take at least 8GB.

My MacBook can only take 4GB (Core2Duo late 2008).

Darren

Uncle Peter wrote:

If you don't use IE, who cares?

Try getting drivers, security wear etc in a few(FSVOfew) months for XP.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 08:46:48 -0000, soup wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:

If you don't use IE, who cares?

Try getting drivers, security wear etc in a few(FSVOfew) months for XP.

You already can't get drivers. I tried to put XP on a brand new high spec computer about 9 months ago and I simply couldn't. Companies don't make XP drivers.

Security, who needs that? AVG and it's own firewall have aways done me. But then I'm not stupid enough to use IE or to go to weird sites.

--
Peter is listening to The Who - Behind Blue Eyes

In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
On 09/01/2014 21:24, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:21:04 -0000, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

What do you gain by upgrading from
XP Pro to Win 7 Pro ?
And what do you lose ?

If you're going to change, why not go straight to 8 and have a more up
to date OS with better hardware support (it does UEFI properly for a
start) and nicer more sensible interfaces for file copying etc? The
metro interface is the only thing that's annoying, but you don't have to
use it.

That's mostly true, but there are a few irritating vestiges that I have
yet to find a way to get rid of...

Annoying ones like the slide in panel that now goes with wireless
networking and VPN connection control. It won't stay on screen while you
access other windows - and particularly annoying - will consume a click
anywhere on screen and use it as an indication that it should close. So
if you want to go copy and past a username and password into a VPN
connection for example, you can't in Win 8.

Simply delete all the links to the stupid news and weather
apps and use the metro screen like a huge full screen start menu. And
the start button, contrary to popular belief, is still there,

Most peoples concern with the start button, is the lack of launcher menu
that was associated with it. On a multiscreen desktop the start screen
is a very poor and rather jarring replacement.

(there are fortunately plenty of third party addons like Classic Shell
that restore normal operation as well as making other welcome usability
improvements)

it's just
invisible - you can click bottom left as though it was there. And if
you apply the patch to 8.1 it puts it back anyway. Oh and it starts
MUCH faster than 7.

Hardly matters if you never turn it off... ;-)






No great fan of m$ but we still have a couple of olde WIN2K machines one
has been up for 8500 odd hrs and as to the main machine WIN 7 and I
really can't fault it at all!...

Plus the odd couple of XP machines no problems there either..
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:13 -0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
On 09/01/2014 21:24, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:21:04 -0000, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

What do you gain by upgrading from
XP Pro to Win 7 Pro ?
And what do you lose ?

If you're going to change, why not go straight to 8 and have a more up
to date OS with better hardware support (it does UEFI properly for a
start) and nicer more sensible interfaces for file copying etc? The
metro interface is the only thing that's annoying, but you don't have to
use it.

That's mostly true, but there are a few irritating vestiges that I have
yet to find a way to get rid of...

Annoying ones like the slide in panel that now goes with wireless
networking and VPN connection control. It won't stay on screen while you
access other windows - and particularly annoying - will consume a click
anywhere on screen and use it as an indication that it should close. So
if you want to go copy and past a username and password into a VPN
connection for example, you can't in Win 8.

Simply delete all the links to the stupid news and weather
apps and use the metro screen like a huge full screen start menu. And
the start button, contrary to popular belief, is still there,

Most peoples concern with the start button, is the lack of launcher menu
that was associated with it. On a multiscreen desktop the start screen
is a very poor and rather jarring replacement.

(there are fortunately plenty of third party addons like Classic Shell
that restore normal operation as well as making other welcome usability
improvements)

it's just
invisible - you can click bottom left as though it was there. And if
you apply the patch to 8.1 it puts it back anyway. Oh and it starts
MUCH faster than 7.

Hardly matters if you never turn it off... ;-)






No great fan of m$ but we still have a couple of olde WIN2K machines one
has been up for 8500 odd hrs and as to the main machine WIN 7 and I
really can't fault it at all!...

Plus the odd couple of XP machines no problems there either..

M$ gets blamed for blue screens. 99% of them are due to faulty memory. Always run 3 passes of memtest on a new machine.

--
Legalise drugs now and stop the crime
http://www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/

On 11/01/2014 19:32, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:13 -0000, tony sayer wrote:


No great fan of m$ but we still have a couple of olde WIN2K machines one
has been up for 8500 odd hrs and as to the main machine WIN 7 and I
really can't fault it at all!...

Plus the odd couple of XP machines no problems there either..

M$ gets blamed for blue screens. 99% of them are due to faulty memory.
Always run 3 passes of memtest on a new machine.

Most BSODs that I've had have turned out to be faulty hardware drivers,
mostly video card ones, and the others to badly written programmes or HD
corruption. I've never yet had one that could be traced to faulty memory.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

En el artículo , Uncle Peter
escribió:

I have no idea

Quite. Glad you're able to admit it.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 12:47:29 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

On 08/01/2014 12:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/01/14 09:14, soup wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think my longest up on XP without a crash is 3 hours.

Seriously, three hours? What on earth were you doing to it?
I ran XP for 7 years( fair enough it was switched off each night and
restarted the next day) and only once saw a BSOD.

oh its never a BSOD - it just hangs - runs out of memory.

You must be doing something extremely odd then, as I have had XP SP3
running reliably (As in days between reboots for other reasons) in 2
gigabytes of RAM and no swapfile, all held on a 4 gigabyte SSD. It was
slow, but then again, it *was* running on the EEEPC.

XP SP3 is v e r y s l o w with less than a gigabyte of RAM due to the
paging needed, but I've never had the OS hang due to memory problems as
long as the swapfile is enabled and big enough. XP SP1 and SP2 used to
run quite nicely in 128 megabytes of RAM using a Pentium 300 processor.
The bloat didn't arrive until SP3 was released.

With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails.


Does that mean you only use 64bit OSs ?

Jim Hawkins

On 12/01/2014 18:48, Jim Hawkins wrote:
"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails.


Does that mean you only use 64bit OSs ?

Uses a third party utility to let 32 bit Windows 8 see all the RAM and
then use it as a RAMdisk with the swapfile on it?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 12/01/2014 18:48, Jim Hawkins wrote:
"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails.


Does that mean you only use 64bit OSs ?

Uses a third party utility to let 32 bit Windows 8 see all the RAM and
then use it as a RAMdisk with the swapfile on it?


Which utility might that be ?

On 12/01/2014 11:52, John Williamson wrote:
On 11/01/2014 19:32, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:13 -0000, tony sayer wrote:


No great fan of m$ but we still have a couple of olde WIN2K machines one
has been up for 8500 odd hrs and as to the main machine WIN 7 and I
really can't fault it at all!...

Plus the odd couple of XP machines no problems there either..

M$ gets blamed for blue screens. 99% of them are due to faulty memory.
Always run 3 passes of memtest on a new machine.

Most BSODs that I've had have turned out to be faulty hardware drivers,
mostly video card ones, and the others to badly written programmes or HD
corruption. I've never yet had one that could be traced to faulty memory.

I have, on three different machines.

On the first, Win NT ran, crashing once or twice a day, but otherwise
okay. I needed USB support for something and tried to install Win ME,
which would not even get past the installer (Win 98 would, but crashed
every half hour or so). A memory test proved one stick of memory faulty.
Replacing it cured the problem.

Years later, on the other two machines, both running the same
motherboards, same processors and same memory but different version of
Windows (Vista and 7) , first one stick and then the other of each
failed - again the machines became crash prone, a memory check showed
the fault and removing the faulty stick cured the problem until the
other stick went faulty a few months later. Replacing the memory has
kept both machines running (one is now running Windows 8 and I am using
the other to try out Zentyal).

SteveW

On 12/01/2014 18:57, Jim Hawkins wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 12/01/2014 18:48, Jim Hawkins wrote:
"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news With Windows 7 and 8 I never use less than 8GB. 16GB if you're doing
anything more than just word processing or emails.


Does that mean you only use 64bit OSs ?

Uses a third party utility to let 32 bit Windows 8 see all the RAM and
then use it as a RAMdisk with the swapfile on it?


Which utility might that be ?


It's as real as the need for 8 Gig of RAM to do more than e-mail or word
processing.

However....

http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipp...r.html?lang=EN

Claims it has been done for Windows 7.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 12/01/2014 11:52, John Williamson wrote:
Most BSODs that I've had have turned out to be faulty hardware drivers,
mostly video card ones, and the others to badly written programmes or HD
corruption. I've never yet had one that could be traced to faulty memory.

I have. And then the memory test failed.

So I took the DIMM out and sent a guarantee claim. They wanted proof, so
I put it back in. It's worked ever since...

I also saw loads when I worked on HW development, but I don't suppose
that counts.

Andy

On 12/01/2014 19:06, SteveW wrote:

Most BSODs that I've had have turned out to be faulty hardware drivers,
mostly video card ones, and the others to badly written programmes or HD
corruption. I've never yet had one that could be traced to faulty memory.

I have, on three different machines.

On the first, Win NT ran, crashing once or twice a day, but otherwise
okay. I needed USB support for something and tried to install Win ME,
which would not even get past the installer (Win 98 would, but crashed
every half hour or so). A memory test proved one stick of memory faulty.
Replacing it cured the problem.

Years later, on the other two machines, both running the same
motherboards, same processors and same memory but different version of
Windows (Vista and 7) , first one stick and then the other of each
failed - again the machines became crash prone, a memory check showed
the fault and removing the faulty stick cured the problem until the
other stick went faulty a few months later. Replacing the memory has
kept both machines running (one is now running Windows 8 and I am using
the other to try out Zentyal).

Ditto on various servers - reseating or replacing memory has helped a
few times.

En el artículo , John Williamson
escribió:

Most BSODs that I've had have turned out to be faulty hardware drivers,
mostly video card ones, and the others to badly written programmes or HD
corruption. I've never yet had one that could be traced to faulty memory.

I'm very surprised. STOP errors due to bad memory are common. Usually
STOP 0x7E or 0x7F.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")