On 03/05/15 22:11, Simon Brown wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I
have seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the
OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend
money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly
because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to
change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.
There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got big
enough.

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64 bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..

You can use more than 4GB of ram. Plenty of users find that useful.
I'm currently using 6GB.


Well so am I but I only really need it when running 2GB of it as a XP
virtual machine ;-)

As I write its only using 1.7GB for a browser with a flash movie in it,
and thunderbird.

The rest is file caching.

Makes it pretty fast to use the file cache tho, especially as its SSD
based for the operating system.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 03/05/15 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word,
then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

I'm running Office 2008 on my Mac.

2008 !?

What's wrong with '97?

On 03/05/15 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
Office 98 doesn't run on my machine. I don't think I even have a copy
any longer.

I am not sure I ever did. Not a legal one anyway..

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64 bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..

You can use more than 4GB of ram. Plenty of users find that useful.
I'm currently using 6GB.


Well so am I but I only really need it when running 2GB of it as a XP
virtual machine ;-)

As I write its only using 1.7GB for a browser with a flash movie in it,
and thunderbird.

The rest is file caching.

Makes it pretty fast to use the file cache tho, especially as its SSD
based for the operating system.



Now that SS drive is around the best upgrade You can do to most any
machine

Its a big bit of RAM really;-)...



--
Tony Sayer

In article , Simon Brown
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I have seen
a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM

That is just plain wrong.

I thin we made the distinction betwixt 32 and 64 bit systems a few posts
ago;!...


and thats sod all these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...



--
Tony Sayer

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 22:11, Simon Brown wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I
have seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the
OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend
money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly
because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to
change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.
There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got
big
enough.

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64 bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..

You can use more than 4GB of ram. Plenty of users find that useful.
I'm currently using 6GB.


Well so am I but I only really need it when running 2GB of it as a XP
virtual machine ;-)

As I write its only using 1.7GB for a browser with a flash movie in it,
and thunderbird.

I leave everything running all the time, dont close stuff at all,
so I can do an instant switch when I want to use it again.

The rest is file caching.

Makes it pretty fast to use the file cache tho, especially as its SSD
based for the operating system.

On 03/05/15 23:24, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 22:11, Simon Brown wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I
have seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the
OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend
money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly
because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to
change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.
There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how
much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they
got big
enough.

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64
bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..

You can use more than 4GB of ram. Plenty of users find that useful.
I'm currently using 6GB.


Well so am I but I only really need it when running 2GB of it as a XP
virtual machine ;-)

As I write its only using 1.7GB for a browser with a flash movie in
it, and thunderbird.

I leave everything running all the time, dont close stuff at all,
so I can do an instant switch when I want to use it again.


With SSDD and generally the program in tje file cache anyway., I shut em
down - only stuff that runs all day is browser and mail

I have more issues from lack of CPU when running flash video and two
instances of a MMORPG.

Still its an old and free pre loved computer here. RAM disk and video
upgarded but original CPU.



The rest is file caching.

Makes it pretty fast to use the file cache tho, especially as its SSD
based for the operating system.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/2015 22:11, Simon Brown wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I
have seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the
OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend
money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly
because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to
change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.
There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got big
enough.

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64 bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..

You can use more than 4GB of ram. Plenty of users find that useful.
I'm currently using 6GB.

8 here.

On 03/05/2015 22:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 22:11, Simon Brown wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I
have seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the
OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend
money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly
because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to
change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.
There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got
big
enough.

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64 bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..

You can use more than 4GB of ram. Plenty of users find that useful.
I'm currently using 6GB.


Well so am I but I only really need it when running 2GB of it as a XP
virtual machine ;-)

As I write its only using 1.7GB for a browser with a flash movie in it,
and thunderbird.

The rest is file caching.

Makes it pretty fast to use the file cache tho, especially as its SSD
based for the operating system.




Same here, two my machines have SSD system drives. They positively fly
along.

On 03/05/2015 22:40, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 03/05/15 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with
laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word,
then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

I'm running Office 2008 on my Mac.

2008 !?

What's wrong with '97?

Pah! that was a rubbish system. I'll stick to my Windows 3.1 thanks.

On 03/05/2015 22:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 22:45, Tim Streater wrote:
Office 98 doesn't run on my machine. I don't think I even have a copy
any longer.

I am not sure I ever did. Not a legal one anyway..

Did *anyone* own a legal copy !? :-)

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2015 22:11, Simon Brown wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I
have seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the
OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend
money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly
because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to
change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.
There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got
big
enough.

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64 bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..

You can use more than 4GB of ram. Plenty of users find that useful.
I'm currently using 6GB.

8 here.

Yeah, mine does sometimes get that high but not very often.
Usually only when converting a video into a format that is
visible on one of the more primitive video players like an Xbox
and I don’t need to do that often enough to leave that loaded
all the time.

On Mon, 04 May 2015 00:34:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 03/05/2015 22:40, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 03/05/15 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with
laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word,
then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

I'm running Office 2008 on my Mac.

2008 !?

What's wrong with '97?

Pah! that was a rubbish system. I'll stick to my Windows 3.1 thanks.

small voice
Actually, I've still got Windows 3.1 (3.11 to be precise)

I loved Word for Windows, V1, which came out in 1989. It did
everything I wanted in exactly the way I wanted it to. It was great!
Then along came V2 - which "improved away" all the bits I really
liked. So I keep a small, separate computer running Win 3.11 and Word
1 (but not running t'internet) hooked up to a printer for all the
arty-farty things I write and send to people in envelopes with stamps
and I suppose I use that setup like a typewriter.

small voice
I also have a typewriter.


Nick

On 04/05/2015 02:59, Nick Odell wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2015 00:34:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 03/05/2015 22:40, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 03/05/15 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with
laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word,
then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

I'm running Office 2008 on my Mac.

2008 !?

What's wrong with '97?

Pah! that was a rubbish system. I'll stick to my Windows 3.1 thanks.

small voice
Actually, I've still got Windows 3.1 (3.11 to be precise)

I loved Word for Windows, V1, which came out in 1989. It did
everything I wanted in exactly the way I wanted it to. It was great!
Then along came V2 - which "improved away" all the bits I really
liked. So I keep a small, separate computer running Win 3.11 and Word
1 (but not running t'internet) hooked up to a printer for all the
arty-farty things I write and send to people in envelopes with stamps
and I suppose I use that setup like a typewriter.

small voice
I also have a typewriter.


Nick

Lol.

On 04/05/15 02:59, Nick Odell wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2015 00:34:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 03/05/2015 22:40, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 03/05/15 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with
laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word,
then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

I'm running Office 2008 on my Mac.

2008 !?

What's wrong with '97?

Pah! that was a rubbish system. I'll stick to my Windows 3.1 thanks.

small voice
Actually, I've still got Windows 3.1 (3.11 to be precise)

I loved Word for Windows, V1, which came out in 1989. It did
everything I wanted in exactly the way I wanted it to. It was great!
Then along came V2 - which "improved away" all the bits I really
liked. So I keep a small, separate computer running Win 3.11 and Word
1 (but not running t'internet) hooked up to a printer for all the
arty-farty things I write and send to people in envelopes with stamps
and I suppose I use that setup like a typewriter.

small voice
I also have a typewriter.



Theres a word proccesor that runs in a linux console - no GUI required -
that behaves JUST LIKE WORDSTAR.

Somewhere I have word perfect for linux as well.

TBH wordstar and word perfect are all 99.99% of people actually need.

WORD is an abortion these days. Its neither a text editor nor a page
layout editor.

Nor is it much good for scientific work.

I really hate it and its clone, libre office, because they do an awful
lot really badly.

Sigh if relief when I discovered Scribus: Now the pictures stay where I
put them.


Nick



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 04/05/15 00:27, Bod wrote:


Same here, two my machines have SSD system drives. They positively fly
along.

+1 - I would not recommend anyone buy a laptop now without an SSD drive
- at least as the primary.

Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 22:40, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 03/05/15 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with
laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word,
then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

I'm running Office 2008 on my Mac.

2008 !?

What's wrong with '97?

Pah! that was a rubbish system. I'll stick to my Windows 3.1 thanks.

With Word?

On 04/05/2015 10:36, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 22:40, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 03/05/15 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to
get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with
laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word,
then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

I'm running Office 2008 on my Mac.

2008 !?

What's wrong with '97?

Pah! that was a rubbish system. I'll stick to my Windows 3.1 thanks.

With Word?

That might be a tad difficult cough

On 03/05/2015 10:05, Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/05/15 09:45, stuart noble wrote:

We also get the Times Digital Archive from 1785, and a few other useful
things, with a library card. Not very well promoted though. For Which
and Ancestry you need to be at a library computer

That's interesting - might get a library card...

Gets you into BSI online as well...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 04/05/2015 19:29, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2015 10:05, Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/05/15 09:45, stuart noble wrote:

We also get the Times Digital Archive from 1785, and a few other useful
things, with a library card. Not very well promoted though. For Which
and Ancestry you need to be at a library computer

That's interesting - might get a library card...

Gets you into BSI online as well...

Hmm, very handy, we have a library card. Thanks for the info.

On 03/05/2015 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word, then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

Most word users don't though.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 04/05/2015 20:04, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2015 08:36, Bod wrote:
On 03/05/2015 00:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
since just about the only reason most people buy Windows is to get
Word
compatibility,

More bollox.

I'd say the majority of OEM versions of Windows included with laptops
don't include Word.

I think you are missing the point, that if you plan to buy Word, then in
general you need windows.


I run Windows Word on a Linux Distro.

Most word users don't though.

Ok.

On Friday, 1 May 2015 19:10:49 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 01/05/2015 17:01, whisky-dave wrote:

8

its included in the price of the hardware.

Not really. At the weekend I installed the latest version
yosmite (free) on my Mac mini I brought new in 2010. Before that
I'd installed mavericks (free) I instaleld phots for free last
night, photos didn;t exist when the hardware was made, although
prhaps that's just a name change.

Where do you think Apple used to get their money from before they
started creaming off the app store?

My point was that I doubt much of the money I paid for the mac mini
in 2010 went into the delevopment of yosmite. Before snow leaopard
most of the OS's you had to buy unless you got them free with the
hardware. So NOW the money they cream off the i devices and
software/.AP store is also used.


Upgrades are only free until Apple decide your hardware is too
old and that they want you to buy new hardware,
or keep yuor old hardware.

then you find the upgrade wont install. This happens even when
the hardware is actually quite capable of running the upgrade
as can be seen on youtube where people have hacked the upgrade
to run on hardware to old to run it.

yes but you can run into other problems so those that want an
easy life will use recommened OS's for the hardware. In most
cases it's a waste of time running the latest software on out fo
date machine whether it's mac or PC. Can you think of any
advantages to running XP on a new laptop ? MS don't support it.

What are you on about? That is the exact opposite of what anyone
would want to do.

So why are so many still running XP ? 25% ? I wouldn't and can't run
yosmite on a Mac plus. So little point in doing so. The only time I
came across this so called problem was with my G4. It;d worlked on
9.02 right up to 10.4 but couldn't install 10.5 because Apple
considered that the 500MHz was too slow and requirement was for a
867MHz processor. But using the advice gioven on line it could be
installed but not recommented, but as I had a dual core 500MHz I
installed it. Seems to work OK but a friend that had a 867MHz tower
noticed a bit of a slow donw when he did his. I can't see much point
in installing a new OS that slows things down. I admit that when I
fist installed OS X 10.01 it was pig slow far slower than OS9. I
stayed at 0s9 until at least 10.2 came out.

You will see the point when they do any of the following..

stop releasing security fixes

Like MS have with XP.

release apps that use stuff in the new OS but not in yours
..

Maybe it's time to update your OS then, it's the persons choice.
if you want to use something youre old OS doesn't ssupport.

You have to remember Microsoft develops and sells *software*,
Yep, how many differnt versions for teh same computer ? MS
disable certain aspects of the cheaper software installs, because
they don't want all their customers getting the full value of
their product.

They sell different versions, you can buy whichever one you want.

why have differnt versions that's the point I can undertand 2
versions but 7 ! They'll copy Apple soon anyway and just have 2
versions. They have already done so by calling it windows 10 , 9
would have been seen as lower than 10 or Apples OS X. 11 would have
been suspicious. Why they missed windows 9 well you take a guess at
that.


MS disable some aspects of the software the day you purchase it,

Which ones?

Then why have difernt versions if nothing is missing ?

You buy an OS and M$ do not disable anything.
You know what you are buying.

Most don;t as they buy from 3rd party's. Yopu usually buy oit with a copy of windows, it's the same software as the pro windows but on the hokme editions and education editions they remove certain things. On the last one I came across is was teh abilitye to reisntall windows on a new machine, because that wasnt; part of the home edition.


Apple let you use it on any sytem it will install on. Apple
will disable things after 5,6, or 7 years.

They disable it from installing, you can noble it and install it
and it will work perfectly well but then Apple doesn't get a
hardware sale.

Old Apple copmputers tend to work far longer than others do, which is
one of teh reason Aplpe products keep thier valuse far more than PCs
do especially labtops.


Rubbish.
No it isn't people have to replace their PCs far more often than Mac users do.

Old apple computers cost so much to replace people don't throw them away
like they do with windows PCs.

Thta's because they are still usable

You can get a perfectly good windows laptop for £150 or less so people
just treat them as disposable items.

Because they are.



Apple gets *hardware* developed and sells it. (They don't
develop much hardware themselves.)

apart from some chips, such as the specail controller for the
retina displays. and a lopt of the ipad/iphone chips.

They don't develop hardware, they sub contract it out.

They do the A chips for the ipad and iphone they develop the chip and
get intel or someone to make it.

They didn't design the original Intel macs at all, Intel did it.

Yes they did Intel designed the chips. The foirst imacs had PPC
chips intel didn't design those macs and niether did IBM.


Read what I said instead of making stuff up.

I did and you are wrong. Aple do their own hardware.
That's why PC companies play catchup with the ultrabook trying to copy the macbook air. Lok at virtually every single PC laptop the vast majority are trying to look like apple devices.

On Friday, 1 May 2015 23:43:09 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 01/05/2015 22:18, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 01/05/2015 21:45, Dennis@home wrote:
On 01/05/2015 20:15, stuart noble wrote:

It does everything the vast majority of users need. Why they buy Windows
machines or Macs is beyond me.


Maybe because windows laptops are cheaper and don't need an internet
connection.

??????

Not so. One of the reasons I'm considering Chrome Book is the much
lower price. You can buy cheap windows laptops but the spec is low & you
have to pay extra for word, excel etc.

?? No you don't. I suggest you look at Libre Office.

Libre Office is NOT word and NOT excel.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 1 May 2015 19:10:49 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 01/05/2015 17:01, whisky-dave wrote:

8

its included in the price of the hardware.

Not really. At the weekend I installed the latest version
yosmite (free) on my Mac mini I brought new in 2010. Before that
I'd installed mavericks (free) I instaleld phots for free last
night, photos didn;t exist when the hardware was made, although
prhaps that's just a name change.

Where do you think Apple used to get their money from before they
started creaming off the app store?

My point was that I doubt much of the money I paid for the mac mini
in 2010 went into the delevopment of yosmite. Before snow leaopard
most of the OS's you had to buy unless you got them free with the
hardware. So NOW the money they cream off the i devices and
software/.AP store is also used.


Upgrades are only free until Apple decide your hardware is too
old and that they want you to buy new hardware,
or keep yuor old hardware.

then you find the upgrade wont install. This happens even when
the hardware is actually quite capable of running the upgrade
as can be seen on youtube where people have hacked the upgrade
to run on hardware to old to run it.

yes but you can run into other problems so those that want an
easy life will use recommened OS's for the hardware. In most
cases it's a waste of time running the latest software on out fo
date machine whether it's mac or PC. Can you think of any
advantages to running XP on a new laptop ? MS don't support it.

What are you on about? That is the exact opposite of what anyone
would want to do.

So why are so many still running XP ? 25% ? I wouldn't and can't run
yosmite on a Mac plus. So little point in doing so. The only time I
came across this so called problem was with my G4. It;d worlked on
9.02 right up to 10.4 but couldn't install 10.5 because Apple
considered that the 500MHz was too slow and requirement was for a
867MHz processor. But using the advice gioven on line it could be
installed but not recommented, but as I had a dual core 500MHz I
installed it. Seems to work OK but a friend that had a 867MHz tower
noticed a bit of a slow donw when he did his. I can't see much point
in installing a new OS that slows things down. I admit that when I
fist installed OS X 10.01 it was pig slow far slower than OS9. I
stayed at 0s9 until at least 10.2 came out.

You will see the point when they do any of the following..

stop releasing security fixes

Like MS have with XP.

release apps that use stuff in the new OS but not in yours
..

Maybe it's time to update your OS then, it's the persons choice.
if you want to use something youre old OS doesn't ssupport.

You have to remember Microsoft develops and sells *software*,
Yep, how many differnt versions for teh same computer ? MS
disable certain aspects of the cheaper software installs, because
they don't want all their customers getting the full value of
their product.

They sell different versions, you can buy whichever one you want.

why have differnt versions that's the point I can undertand 2
versions but 7 ! They'll copy Apple soon anyway and just have 2
versions. They have already done so by calling it windows 10 , 9
would have been seen as lower than 10 or Apples OS X. 11 would have
been suspicious. Why they missed windows 9 well you take a guess at
that.


MS disable some aspects of the software the day you purchase it,

Which ones?

Then why have difernt versions if nothing is missing ?

You buy an OS and M$ do not disable anything.
You know what you are buying.

Most don;t as they buy from 3rd party's. Yopu usually buy oit with a copy
of windows, it's the same software as the pro windows but on the hokme
editions and education editions they remove certain things. On the last
one I came across is was teh abilitye to reisntall windows on a new
machine, because that wasnt; part of the home edition.


Apple let you use it on any sytem it will install on. Apple
will disable things after 5,6, or 7 years.

They disable it from installing, you can noble it and install it
and it will work perfectly well but then Apple doesn't get a
hardware sale.

Old Apple copmputers tend to work far longer than others do, which is
one of teh reason Aplpe products keep thier valuse far more than PCs
do especially labtops.


Rubbish.
No it isn't people have to replace their PCs far more often than Mac users
do.

Old apple computers cost so much to replace people don't throw them away
like they do with windows PCs.

Thta's because they are still usable

You can get a perfectly good windows laptop for £150 or less so people
just treat them as disposable items.

Because they are.



Apple gets *hardware* developed and sells it. (They don't
develop much hardware themselves.)

apart from some chips, such as the specail controller for the
retina displays. and a lopt of the ipad/iphone chips.

They don't develop hardware, they sub contract it out.

They do the A chips for the ipad and iphone they develop the chip and
get intel or someone to make it.

They didn't design the original Intel macs at all, Intel did it.

Yes they did Intel designed the chips. The foirst imacs had PPC
chips intel didn't design those macs and niether did IBM.


Read what I said instead of making stuff up.

I did and you are wrong. Aple do their own hardware.
That's why PC companies play catchup with the ultrabook trying to copy the
macbook air. Lok at virtually every single PC laptop the vast majority are
trying to look like apple devices.

Like hell they are.

On Sat, 2 May 2015 18:49:30 +0100
Davey wrote:

On Sat, 2 May 2015 15:19:15 +0100
Davey wrote:

On Sat, 2 May 2015 13:18:21 +0100
tony sayer wrote:

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
On 01/05/15 23:43, Fredxxx wrote:

Not so. One of the reasons I'm considering Chrome Book is the
much lower price. You can buy cheap windows laptops but the
spec is low & you have to pay extra for word, excel etc.

?? No you don't. I suggest you look at Libre Office.

+1 I have not used Word, Excel or PP for at least 5 years - just
libreoffice - and that includes dealing and resending work's MS
office documents.


Gave up with Open orifice and Libre office, use this now and its
free 'tho there is a paid for version that does a bit more...


http://www.kingsoftstore.com/

That sounds as though it might be worth a try. If it operates more
'smoothly' than Libre Office, it should be worth keeping. I missed
some of the details that Excel could do, but Libre Office can't.
Now I'll have to remember them.......


Oh-oh:
"Windows 2000 / Windows XP / Windows Vista (32bit, 64bit) / Windows 7
(32bit, 64bit) / Windows 8".

No Linux version?

Ah, here it is, well hidden:
http://www.kingsoftstore.com/news/33...x-alpha11.html


I installed it, and it wouldn't open any spreadsheets created in Libre
Office, a standard .ods file. No use to me, all my sheets are .ods.

--
Davey.

On 05/05/2015 12:59, whisky-dave wrote:


stop releasing security fixes

Like MS have with XP.

But they haven't.


release apps that use stuff in the new OS but not in yours ..

Maybe it's time to update your OS then, it's the persons choice. if
you want to use something youre old OS doesn't ssupport.

Well yes its easy on a PC but try that with Apple and they will refuse
to install the new OS on the grounds that you won't have a good
experience, which others have shown to be untrue in many cases.



MS disable some aspects of the software the day you purchase
it,

Which ones?

Then why have difernt versions if nothing is missing ?

You buy an OS and M$ do not disable anything. You know what you are
buying.

Most don;t as they buy from 3rd party's. Yopu usually buy oit with a
copy of windows, it's the same software as the pro windows but on the
hokme editions and education editions they remove certain things. On
the last one I came across is was teh abilitye to reisntall windows
on a new machine, because that wasnt; part of the home edition.


They don't disable anything, its a cheap OEM version that they get for a
reduced price because it is tied to that machine. If you buy a retail
version you can move it when you like.

Apple won't let you put their OS onto anything that isn't their hardware
even though it runs on PCs.


Old Apple copmputers tend to work far longer than others do,
which is one of teh reason Aplpe products keep thier valuse far
more than PCs do especially labtops.


Rubbish.
No it isn't people have to replace their PCs far more often than Mac
users do.

Old apple computers cost so much to replace people don't throw them
away like they do with windows PCs.

Thta's because they are still usable

So are the PCs.


You can get a perfectly good windows laptop for £150 or less so
people just treat them as disposable items.

Because they are.

And?

Apple gets *hardware* developed and sells it. (They don't
develop much hardware themselves.)

apart from some chips, such as the specail controller for
the retina displays. and a lopt of the ipad/iphone chips.

They don't develop hardware, they sub contract it out.

They do the A chips for the ipad and iphone they develop the chip
and get intel or someone to make it.

They didn't design the original Intel macs at all, Intel did
it.

Yes they did Intel designed the chips. The foirst imacs had PPC
chips intel didn't design those macs and niether did IBM.


Read what I said instead of making stuff up.

I did and you are wrong. Aple do their own hardware. That's why PC
companies play catchup with the ultrabook trying to copy the macbook
air. Lok at virtually every single PC laptop the vast majority are
trying to look like apple devices.

Intel have been driving Mac designs for a while now.
They also drive PCs to a lesser extent.

Its odd that many of the new PCs have touch screens and pen input unlike
the apple ones you think they are copying.
Apple even had to copy the idea for tablets from the PC world.
Come to think about it they copied mice (and got it wrong!), computers,
laptops, tablets, phones, watches, ..
Is there anything apple have done that someone else hadn't done first?

On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:11:28 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 05/05/2015 12:59, whisky-dave wrote:


stop releasing security fixes

Like MS have with XP.

But they haven't.

Really.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/w...d-support-help
How do I stay protected?

To stay protected now that support has ended, you have two options:
Upgrade your current PC

Get a new PC
---------------------------
up their on their own website.



release apps that use stuff in the new OS but not in yours ..

Maybe it's time to update your OS then, it's the persons choice. if
you want to use something youre old OS doesn't ssupport.

Well yes its easy on a PC but try that with Apple and they will refuse
to install the new OS on the grounds that you won't have a good
experience, which others have shown to be untrue in many cases.

Wrong.
on my 2010 manin I've installed teh lasted OS yosmite and that's on a 5 year old mac and it cost NOTHING.



MS disable some aspects of the software the day you purchase
it,

Which ones?

Then why have difernt versions if nothing is missing ?

You buy an OS and M$ do not disable anything. You know what you are
buying.

Most don;t as they buy from 3rd party's. Yopu usually buy oit with a
copy of windows, it's the same software as the pro windows but on the
hokme editions and education editions they remove certain things. On
the last one I came across is was teh abilitye to reisntall windows
on a new machine, because that wasnt; part of the home edition.


They don't disable anything, its a cheap OEM version that they get for a
reduced price because it is tied to that machine.

Yep tied to that machine exactly.


If you buy a retail
version you can move it when you like.

Depends which retail version doesn;t it.
And teh features of that retail version are differnt from other retail versions.


Apple won't let you put their OS onto anything that isn't their hardware
even though it runs on PCs.

Peolpe can do it if they want to, they do it's called hackintosh.
and as Apple are using their hardware sales to suport softeare so why should they give it way free to PC users MS don;t give office or their OS away free to Mac users.



Old Apple copmputers tend to work far longer than others do,
which is one of teh reason Aplpe products keep thier valuse far
more than PCs do especially labtops.


Rubbish.
No it isn't people have to replace their PCs far more often than Mac
users do.

Old apple computers cost so much to replace people don't throw them
away like they do with windows PCs.

Thta's because they are still usable

So are the PCs.

so why aren't more older PC laptoips still in use.
check out teh price of a 5 year old PC laptop and compare that to a 5 year old Mac laptop.



You can get a perfectly good windows laptop for £150 or less so
people just treat them as disposable items.

Because they are.

And?
Peole use disposable nappies, disposable hander chiefs.
There's a reason why they aer disposable.


Apple gets *hardware* developed and sells it. (They don't
develop much hardware themselves.)

apart from some chips, such as the specail controller for
the retina displays. and a lopt of the ipad/iphone chips.

They don't develop hardware, they sub contract it out.

They do the A chips for the ipad and iphone they develop the chip
and get intel or someone to make it.

They didn't design the original Intel macs at all, Intel did
it.

Yes they did Intel designed the chips. The foirst imacs had PPC
chips intel didn't design those macs and niether did IBM.


Read what I said instead of making stuff up.

I did and you are wrong. Aple do their own hardware. That's why PC
companies play catchup with the ultrabook trying to copy the macbook
air. Lok at virtually every single PC laptop the vast majority are
trying to look like apple devices.

Intel have been driving Mac designs for a while now.

complete rubbish.
The design of teh mac has little to do with the processor.


They also drive PCs to a lesser extent.

Its odd that many of the new PCs have touch screens and pen input unlike
the apple ones you think they are copying.

Apple won;t go down that route until it works properly.


Apple even had to copy the idea for tablets from the PC world.
PC world aren't manufactors

Come to think about it they copied mice (and got it wrong!),

they got it right a $300 mouse came down to about $15 to make.
That was steve jobs directive when his saw who the mice ran on the xerox workstatiions. PC where still command line.


computers we has computers,
laptops, tablets, phones, watches, ..
Is there anything apple have done that someone else hadn't done first?

but not properly or to make a profit or availble to the average users.
Word asd a WYSIWYG ran on a mac before windows even came out.
Windows copied Mac . Mac 1984 windows 1985 (novemeber)
They are still playing catch up, why do you think they are calling it windows 10 because it's the tenth version of windows ?

On 05/05/2015 17:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:11:28 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 05/05/2015 12:59, whisky-dave wrote:


stop releasing security fixes

Like MS have with XP.

But they haven't.

Really.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/w...d-support-help
How do I stay protected?

Download the fixes produced for the NHS as they are still running XP and
M$ is still releasing fixes for it. The UK taxpayer is paying for it BTW.


To stay protected now that support has ended, you have two options:
Upgrade your current PC

Get a new PC
---------------------------
up their on their own website.



release apps that use stuff in the new OS but not in yours ..

Maybe it's time to update your OS then, it's the persons choice. if
you want to use something youre old OS doesn't ssupport.

Well yes its easy on a PC but try that with Apple and they will refuse
to install the new OS on the grounds that you won't have a good
experience, which others have shown to be untrue in many cases.

Wrong.
on my 2010 manin I've installed teh lasted OS yosmite and that's on a 5 year old mac and it cost NOTHING.

But 2010 is nothing, I have PCs from 2007 running windows.

MS disable some aspects of the software the day you purchase
it,

Which ones?

Then why have difernt versions if nothing is missing ?

You buy an OS and M$ do not disable anything. You know what you are
buying.

Most don;t as they buy from 3rd party's. Yopu usually buy oit with a
copy of windows, it's the same software as the pro windows but on the
hokme editions and education editions they remove certain things. On
the last one I came across is was teh abilitye to reisntall windows
on a new machine, because that wasnt; part of the home edition.


They don't disable anything, its a cheap OEM version that they get for a
reduced price because it is tied to that machine.

Yep tied to that machine exactly.


If you buy a retail
version you can move it when you like.

Depends which retail version doesn;t it.
And teh features of that retail version are differnt from other retail versions.


Apple won't let you put their OS onto anything that isn't their hardware
even though it runs on PCs.

Peolpe can do it if they want to, they do it's called hackintosh.

but apple try and stamp it out everytime they release an update.

Have you tried fitting a graphics card to a mac?
They are *identical* to the PC ones except that apple wont run them
unless it says "paid through the nose for it" in the ROM.


and as Apple are using their hardware sales to suport softeare so why should they give it way free to PC users MS don;t give office or their OS away free to Mac users.


Yes they do give office away free to apple users.


Old Apple copmputers tend to work far longer than others do,
which is one of teh reason Aplpe products keep thier valuse far
more than PCs do especially labtops.


Rubbish.
No it isn't people have to replace their PCs far more often than Mac
users do.

Old apple computers cost so much to replace people don't throw them
away like they do with windows PCs.

Thta's because they are still usable

So are the PCs.

so why aren't more older PC laptoips still in use.
check out teh price of a 5 year old PC laptop and compare that to a 5 year old Mac laptop.



You can get a perfectly good windows laptop for £150 or less so
people just treat them as disposable items.

Because they are.

And?
Peole use disposable nappies, disposable hander chiefs.
There's a reason why they aer disposable.

I fail to see any point in what you said, please expand?



Apple gets *hardware* developed and sells it. (They don't
develop much hardware themselves.)

apart from some chips, such as the specail controller for
the retina displays. and a lopt of the ipad/iphone chips.

They don't develop hardware, they sub contract it out.

They do the A chips for the ipad and iphone they develop the chip
and get intel or someone to make it.

They didn't design the original Intel macs at all, Intel did
it.

Yes they did Intel designed the chips. The foirst imacs had PPC
chips intel didn't design those macs and niether did IBM.


Read what I said instead of making stuff up.

I did and you are wrong. Aple do their own hardware. That's why PC
companies play catchup with the ultrabook trying to copy the macbook
air. Lok at virtually every single PC laptop the vast majority are
trying to look like apple devices.

Intel have been driving Mac designs for a while now.

complete rubbish.
The design of teh mac has little to do with the processor.

Just why do you think apple gave up their own processor and switched to
Intel?



They also drive PCs to a lesser extent.

Its odd that many of the new PCs have touch screens and pen input unlike
the apple ones you think they are copying.

Apple won;t go down that route until it works properly.


Apple even had to copy the idea for tablets from the PC world.
PC world aren't manufactors

Oh yes they are.
Mutters about him being obtuse.


Come to think about it they copied mice (and got it wrong!),

they got it right a $300 mouse came down to about $15 to make.
That was steve jobs directive when his saw who the mice ran on the xerox workstatiions. PC where still command line.

You call a one button round mouse correct, you are having a laff.



computers we has computers,
laptops, tablets, phones, watches, ..
Is there anything apple have done that someone else hadn't done first?

but not properly or to make a profit or availble to the average users.
Word asd a WYSIWYG ran on a mac before windows even came out.
Windows copied Mac . Mac 1984 windows 1985 (novemeber)
They are still playing catch up, why do you think they are calling it windows 10 because it's the tenth version of windows ?

windows copied the same ones that apple copied.
None of those things were anything other than copies of something else.

Is there anything apple have done that someone else hadn't done first?

On 04/05/2015 19:44, Bod wrote:
On 04/05/2015 19:29, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2015 10:05, Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/05/15 09:45, stuart noble wrote:

We also get the Times Digital Archive from 1785, and a few other useful
things, with a library card. Not very well promoted though. For Which
and Ancestry you need to be at a library computer

That's interesting - might get a library card...

Gets you into BSI online as well...

Hmm, very handy, we have a library card. Thanks for the info.

Only annoying thing is they are no longer easy to download as PDFs...
(although the silverlight interface is not as bad as it was at first now)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 19:17:06 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 05/05/2015 17:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:11:28 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 05/05/2015 12:59, whisky-dave wrote:


stop releasing security fixes

Like MS have with XP.

But they haven't.

Really.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/w...d-support-help
How do I stay protected?

Download the fixes produced for the NHS as they are still running XP and
M$ is still releasing fixes for it. The UK taxpayer is paying for it BTW.


To stay protected now that support has ended, you have two options:
Upgrade your current PC

Get a new PC
---------------------------
up their on their own website.



release apps that use stuff in the new OS but not in yours ..

Maybe it's time to update your OS then, it's the persons choice. if
you want to use something youre old OS doesn't ssupport.

Well yes its easy on a PC but try that with Apple and they will refuse
to install the new OS on the grounds that you won't have a good
experience, which others have shown to be untrue in many cases.

Wrong.
on my 2010 manin I've installed teh lasted OS yosmite and that's on a 5 year old mac and it cost NOTHING.

But 2010 is nothing, I have PCs from 2007 running windows.

MS disable some aspects of the software the day you purchase
it,

Which ones?

Then why have difernt versions if nothing is missing ?

You buy an OS and M$ do not disable anything. You know what you are
buying.

Most don;t as they buy from 3rd party's. Yopu usually buy oit with a
copy of windows, it's the same software as the pro windows but on the
hokme editions and education editions they remove certain things. On
the last one I came across is was teh abilitye to reisntall windows
on a new machine, because that wasnt; part of the home edition.


They don't disable anything, its a cheap OEM version that they get for a
reduced price because it is tied to that machine.

Yep tied to that machine exactly.


If you buy a retail
version you can move it when you like.

Depends which retail version doesn;t it.
And teh features of that retail version are differnt from other retail versions.


Apple won't let you put their OS onto anything that isn't their hardware
even though it runs on PCs.

Peolpe can do it if they want to, they do it's called hackintosh.

but apple try and stamp it out everytime they release an update.

Have you tried fitting a graphics card to a mac?
They are *identical* to the PC ones except that apple wont run them
unless it says "paid through the nose for it" in the ROM.


and as Apple are using their hardware sales to suport softeare so why should they give it way free to PC users MS don;t give office or their OS away free to Mac users.


Yes they do give office away free to apple users.


Old Apple copmputers tend to work far longer than others do,
which is one of teh reason Aplpe products keep thier valuse far
more than PCs do especially labtops.


Rubbish.
No it isn't people have to replace their PCs far more often than Mac
users do.

Old apple computers cost so much to replace people don't throw them
away like they do with windows PCs.

Thta's because they are still usable

So are the PCs.

so why aren't more older PC laptoips still in use.
check out teh price of a 5 year old PC laptop and compare that to a 5 year old Mac laptop.



You can get a perfectly good windows laptop for £150 or less so
people just treat them as disposable items.

Because they are.

And?
Peole use disposable nappies, disposable hander chiefs.
There's a reason why they aer disposable.

I fail to see any point in what you said, please expand?

Disposable stuff has a use doesn't it. So if that's what's required then fine.
Biut don;t expext disposable stuff and reusable to be the same stuff.






Apple gets *hardware* developed and sells it. (They don't
develop much hardware themselves.)

apart from some chips, such as the specail controller for
the retina displays. and a lopt of the ipad/iphone chips.

They don't develop hardware, they sub contract it out.

They do the A chips for the ipad and iphone they develop the chip
and get intel or someone to make it.

They didn't design the original Intel macs at all, Intel did
it.

Yes they did Intel designed the chips. The foirst imacs had PPC
chips intel didn't design those macs and niether did IBM.


Read what I said instead of making stuff up.

I did and you are wrong. Aple do their own hardware. That's why PC
companies play catchup with the ultrabook trying to copy the macbook
air. Lok at virtually every single PC laptop the vast majority are
trying to look like apple devices.

Intel have been driving Mac designs for a while now.

complete rubbish.
The design of teh mac has little to do with the processor.

Just why do you think apple gave up their own processor and switched to
Intel?

Apple didn't give up their processor. What you call their processors was made by Motorola. Motorola were having trouble providing faster chips at the right price point and the faster chips were being sold to MS for use in the xbox. Also Apple were looking for a better chip than the PPCs, they wanted lower power options for laptops and motorola couldn't make them and intel did. Apple had already written OS X for Intel because they wanted better lower power laptops.





They also drive PCs to a lesser extent.

Its odd that many of the new PCs have touch screens and pen input unlike
the apple ones you think they are copying.

Apple won;t go down that route until it works properly.


Apple even had to copy the idea for tablets from the PC world.
PC world aren't manufactors

Oh yes they are.
Mutters about him being obtuse.

PC world are a store, box shifters. They sell Macs too.




Come to think about it they copied mice (and got it wrong!),

they got it right a $300 mouse came down to about $15 to make.
That was steve jobs directive when his saw who the mice ran on the xerox workstatiions. PC where still command line.

You call a one button round mouse correct, you are having a laff.

yes compared to command line editing. Rember DOS MS DOS.
And the fist Apple mouse was NOT round idiot that was in the late 90s we're talking mid 80s.
http://ismh.s3.amazonaws.com/2012-11...lus_mouse.jpeg

At the time to copy a file on a PC you'd type "copy A:/file C:/filec"
on a Mac you'd drag the icon over.
if you cant;' reemebr what computers were like in 1984
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=PC...1255 &bih=656

I brought my first computer in late 1982, I'd been using them a couple of years the fist being a Commodore PET
http://oldcomputers.net/pics/pet4032.JPG

think I have the manual somewhere.


computers we has computers,
laptops, tablets, phones, watches, ..
Is there anything apple have done that someone else hadn't done first?

but not properly or to make a profit or availble to the average users.
Word asd a WYSIWYG ran on a mac before windows even came out.
Windows copied Mac . Mac 1984 windows 1985 (novemeber)
They are still playing catch up, why do you think they are calling it windows 10 because it's the tenth version of windows ?

windows copied the same ones that apple copied.
None of those things were anything other than copies of something else.

Is there anything apple have done that someone else hadn't done first?

The Apple II, also invented by Wozniak, was introduced on April 16, 1977. It differed from its major rivals, the TRS-80 and Commodore PET, because of its character cell-based color graphics and open architecture.

Anyway it's not about being first, the first computer wasn't made by IBM either or MS. The first man in space wasnt american either.
China were making rockets in the 14th century.

On 03/05/2015 15:55, Dennis@home wrote:
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I have
seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.

You do if your apps are 16 bit...

There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got big
enough.

They are not bad apps, they just use a deprecated API call to get the
information. Alas the API designers did not have the foresight to
allocate large enough return parameters.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 03/05/2015 20:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 17:33, Dennis@home wrote:
On 03/05/2015 17:07, tony sayer wrote:
In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I
have seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the
OS and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend
money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly
because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to
change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.
There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got
big
enough.

Well over on turnpike support they say that it doesn't run under 64 bit.

Mind you its a very olde programme now but I really like the interface
and the way it works..

No plans here to go 4 bit for a while yet, but the second hand laptop
came with WIN 7 64 bit ..

What's the big user advantage of 64 ?..



Unless you have more RAM not a lot.

Well CPU intensive stuff runs twice as fast.

Some things may run faster - but by no means all. Quite often the
available memory bandwidth will get in the way of any real gains.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 04/05/2015 10:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On 04/05/15 00:27, Bod wrote:


Same here, two my machines have SSD system drives. They positively fly
along.

+1 - I would not recommend anyone buy a laptop now without an SSD drive
- at least as the primary.

I would - but only for the reason its usually cheaper to buy and
otherwise high spec spinning rust lappy, and upgrade the drive yourself
from new, that stump up the silly money the makers often want for a
laptop with one in as standard.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 08/05/15 11:24, John Rumm wrote:
On 04/05/2015 10:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On 04/05/15 00:27, Bod wrote:


Same here, two my machines have SSD system drives. They positively fly
along.

+1 - I would not recommend anyone buy a laptop now without an SSD drive
- at least as the primary.

I would - but only for the reason its usually cheaper to buy and
otherwise high spec spinning rust lappy, and upgrade the drive yourself
from new, that stump up the silly money the makers often want for a
laptop with one in as standard.



True - that's what I did as Dell did not have a sensible SSD offering.

On 08/05/2015 11:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2015 15:55, Dennis@home wrote:
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I have
seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the OS
and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.

You do if your apps are 16 bit...

Or in the case of TP too closely integrated with a particular version of
Explorer. ISTR that TP5 will run OK on Win7 x64 with a bit of fiddling
but that the later TP6 will not due to its "improvements".

I abandoned TP in favour of TB on moving to Win7 x64.

There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got big
enough.

They are not bad apps, they just use a deprecated API call to get the
information. Alas the API designers did not have the foresight to
allocate large enough return parameters.

Not the first time it has happened either.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 08/05/2015 11:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2015 15:55, Dennis@home wrote:
On 03/05/2015 14:49, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2015 13:30, tony sayer wrote:
In just the five or so years that I have been using Linux, I have
seen a
huge improvement in the way it recognises stuff, including the
inbuilt
NVIDIA card in the PC. It's all getting better and better.

+1

The worst thing about windows is the updating, which bloats the OS
and
eventually slows the machine to a crawl. Then you need to spend money
upgrading RAM. A mug's game.

Fer Christ sakes!, WIN 7 can only use 4 G of RAM and thats sod all
these
days.

This WIN machine updates no and again and its very fast mainly because
of a solid state drive.

But using spinning rust it was no slouch before either...

Windows 7 64 bit system can use up to 193GB of ram.
It's only the 32 bit system that's restricted to use just a bit less
than 4GB.


Yes thats what we have the 32 bit, can't really see any reason to change
couldn't use me Turnpike on that...


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.

You do if your apps are 16 bit...

64 bit runs 16 bit applications and 32 bit.


There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got big
enough.

They are not bad apps, they just use a deprecated API call to get the
information. Alas the API designers did not have the foresight to
allocate large enough return parameters.

On 08/05/2015 13:19, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/05/2015 11:19, John Rumm wrote:

Or in the case of TP too closely integrated with a particular version of
Explorer. ISTR that TP5 will run OK on Win7 x64 with a bit of fiddling
but that the later TP6 will not due to its "improvements".

I abandoned TP in favour of TB on moving to Win7 x64.

There were some really bad apps that didn't work as they asked how much
disk/ram was there and thought the answer was negative once they got big
enough.

They are not bad apps, they just use a deprecated API call to get the
information. Alas the API designers did not have the foresight to
allocate large enough return parameters.

Not the first time it has happened either.

It also highlights why Charles Simonyi's insistence on using Hungarian
Notation[1] for all the formal parameter names in the Win16 API was a
daft idea - win32 is still lumbered with LParam and WParam where the W
version is 32 bit, and even the Win64 API has them and they are both 64 bit!

[1] Never a good system IMHO, and only plausibly justified in the days
of K&R style C compilers with untyped formal function parameters and lax
type checking.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 08/05/2015 13:43, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/05/2015 11:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/05/2015 15:55, Dennis@home wrote:


It should run on the 64 bit version, you don't need new apps just
because you use 64 bit windows.

You do if your apps are 16 bit...

64 bit runs 16 bit applications and 32 bit.

Not natively - the capability was explicitly removed. Vis:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...itAppError.jpg

You can get round it if you run a complete visualised 32bit version of
windows on your 64 bit platform of course.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 26/04/2015 12:22, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Time has come to replace the tower PC with a laptop, so I'm after some
advice from the learned people here, since I'm a computer numpty.

I'm looking for something around 16". I don't play games (only
solitaire) I don't watch films or download music. Don't want a
touchscreen, much prefer keyboard/mouse.

I use Word & Excel frequently, sometime quite big documents. I surf the
net often & use e-mail a lot. We have 4G WiFi at home, probably won't
ever take it out, but will use upstairs in the office, on the deck &
downstairs in the lounge.

Reluctant to change from MS Windows simply because I know how to use it.

Any advice on processor type, memory, make, supplier much appreciated.



Finally decided on this;

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/laptop...28808-pdt.html

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk