On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:05:34 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

====snip====


I feel lost without a watch, even when I have my phone to hand. Plus I
can glance at it at any time, without having to retrieve it from my
pocket and turn screen on. Plus the battery is unlikely to go flat for
the next 18 months or so.

In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

--
Johnny B Good

"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:05:34 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

====snip====


I feel lost without a watch, even when I have my phone to hand. Plus I
can glance at it at any time, without having to retrieve it from my
pocket and turn screen on. Plus the battery is unlikely to go flat for
the next 18 months or so.

In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but
not ten. I was surprised that when I changed from a quartz analogue watch to
a digital one, the battery life wasn't much different. Evidently the
frictional losses in the mechanical movement of the hands are about the same
as the current needed to operate the LCD display, assuming that the
time-keeping part of the watch (quartz crystal oscillator) is the same in
both cases.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:00:48 +0100, NY wrote:

"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:05:34 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

====snip====


I feel lost without a watch, even when I have my phone to hand. Plus I
can glance at it at any time, without having to retrieve it from my
pocket and turn screen on. Plus the battery is unlikely to go flat for
the next 18 months or so.

In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but
not ten. I was surprised that when I changed from a quartz analogue watch to
a digital one, the battery life wasn't much different. Evidently the
frictional losses in the mechanical movement of the hands are about the same
as the current needed to operate the LCD display, assuming that the
time-keeping part of the watch (quartz crystal oscillator) is the same in
both cases.

Try getting a decent watch that does things like thermometer, altimeter, barometer, then see how long the battery lasts.

--
What if there is air in space, and the government doesn't want us to escape?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:54:24 +0100, Johnny B Good wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:05:34 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

====snip====


I feel lost without a watch, even when I have my phone to hand. Plus I
can glance at it at any time, without having to retrieve it from my
pocket and turn screen on. Plus the battery is unlikely to go flat for
the next 18 months or so.

In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

Have you got one of those watches that charges up from er.... wrist action?

--
Old statisticians never die. They just get broken down by age and sex.

NY expressed precisely :
In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but not
ten.

Mine did, it uses a rechargeable and the face is a photocell.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 19:13:26 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

NY expressed precisely :
In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but not
ten.

Mine did, it uses a rechargeable and the face is a photocell.

I had a calculator like that once, but I've not seen another calculator or a watch like that for decades. I thought they'd gone out of fashion. I tend to find the watch is broken or lost before I've gone through two batteries anyway. My last watch, the strap broke while I was swimming in the sea, so it disappeared. Batteries are 10 for a £, so why bother trying to save them?

--
Men, here's a tip for dealing with the little lady.
If you upset your wife or girlfriend then she will nag you.
However, if you upset her EVEN MORE, you will get the silent treatment.

On 24/04/2018 17:54, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:05:34 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

====snip====


I feel lost without a watch, even when I have my phone to hand. Plus I
can glance at it at any time, without having to retrieve it from my
pocket and turn screen on. Plus the battery is unlikely to go flat for
the next 18 months or so.

In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

You can't complain at that!

The battery in mine usually last 18 to 24 months. I then change it
myself, as it's 50/50 when I take it to a jewellers or watch place,
whether they will actually do it or will attempt to send it off to be
done ... at a cost of £60! The watch itself I've had for 18 years.

My father still wears his Seiko LCD digital watch pretty well all day,
every day - he's had it since the late '70s, when it replaced his
battery eating LED watch!

For a real battery eating watch, Google "Nixie watch".

SteveW

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but
not ten. I was surprised that when I changed from a quartz analogue watch
to
a digital one, the battery life wasn't much different. Evidently the
frictional losses in the mechanical movement of the hands are about the
same
as the current needed to operate the LCD display, assuming that the
time-keeping part of the watch (quartz crystal oscillator) is the same in
both cases.

Try getting a decent watch that does things like thermometer, altimeter,
barometer, then see how long the battery lasts.

I've got a phone if I want those features :-) Try explaining the logic of
either a watch or a telephone being used for measuring altitude, lat/long,
barometric pressure, to a hypothetical visitor from the 1970s of earlier.

My old phone would barely last the waking hours of the day (ie between being
removed from charge and going back on charge) if I left wifi turned on, and
GPS and/or mobile internet would drain the battery in a few hours if left on
for more than just the precise time I needed them. My new phone lasts fine
with GPS, wifi and mobile internet left on 24/7, for a similar 8 AM to 10 PM
time off charge.

I think there was something wrong with the software that was running on my
old phone (though I don't know what) because when my wife had to borrow it
for a few months between breaking her own phone and getting a new one, she
wiped it and set it up with her config and therefore her set of apps, and it
lasted a lot longer.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
NY expressed precisely :
In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but
not ten.

Mine did, it uses a rechargeable and the face is a photocell.

Ah, if the battery can be recharged, either by what JWK refers to as "wrist
action" (!) or by photocell, then I can understand the battery lasting a
long time - indefinitely unless the battery gradually loses its ability to
hold its charge.

Talking of batteries losing their ability to hold charge... I'm not sure
what I do wrong with laptop batteries, but they only seem to last about 2
years before they stop holding their charge. Each time, I try to plug the
laptop into the mains only while I'm actually using it (to keep it fully
charged) or when the battery has become discharged, and I run it off battery
to about 1/3 charged every so often even though I have access to mains. I
don't leave the laptop on charge 24/7 for months on end. And yet my battery
dies after a couple of years whereas other people who abuse their batteries
by leaving the laptop on permanent mains seem to get much longer battery
life.

It's happened on the last 3 laptops I've had (Acer, HP and Samsung) covering
the period from XP, via Vista to Win 7.

In each case I end up with a laptop than can only be used on mains. The HP
went through 3 batteries, though in fairness only the first was a genuine HP
battery and the other two were Chinese clones, and I didn't get full use out
of the last battery because the laptop died (refused to turn on, reporting a
hardware motherboard error).

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
For a real battery eating watch, Google "Nixie watch".

Are Nixie tubes the neon tubes that had a stack of electrodes in the shape
of the digits 0-9? If so, I'm amazed that those could be made small enough
and thin enough to fit four of them (HH:MM) into a watch.

NY formulated on Tuesday :
Ah, if the battery can be recharged, either by what JWK refers to as "wrist
action" (!) or by photocell, then I can understand the battery lasting a long
time - indefinitely unless the battery gradually loses its ability to hold
its charge.

I had to fit a new rechargeable to my watch a month or two back. Its
analogue hands would loose time compared to the digital side which was
always correct - MSF receiver.


Talking of batteries losing their ability to hold charge... I'm not sure what
I do wrong with laptop batteries, but they only seem to last about 2 years
before they stop holding their charge. Each time, I try to plug the laptop
into the mains only while I'm actually using it (to keep it fully charged) or
when the battery has become discharged, and I run it off battery to about 1/3
charged every so often even though I have access to mains. I don't leave the
laptop on charge 24/7 for months on end. And yet my battery dies after a
couple of years whereas other people who abuse their batteries by leaving the
laptop on permanent mains seem to get much longer battery life.

My old Compaq's battery is fine, as is my 2 year old Acer's battery. I
don't usually run on battery at all, rather I have them on charge, when
I'm actually using them/ unplug when finished. That usually means on
maybe 16 hours per day, when I'm at home.

On 24/04/2018 21:13, NY wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
For a real battery eating watch, Google "Nixie watch".

Are Nixie tubes the neon tubes that had a stack of electrodes in the
shape of the digits 0-9? If so, I'm amazed that those could be made
small enough and thin enough to fit four of them (HH:MM) into a watch.

They are a bit bulky and I don't think anyone made such watches at the
time, but they have become popular "steampunk" items. There are
definitely 4-digit ones available.

SteveW

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:05:57 +0100, NY wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
NY expressed precisely :
In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but
not ten.

Mine did, it uses a rechargeable and the face is a photocell.

Ah, if the battery can be recharged, either by what JWK refers to as "wrist
action" (!) or by photocell, then I can understand the battery lasting a
long time - indefinitely unless the battery gradually loses its ability to
hold its charge.

Talking of batteries losing their ability to hold charge... I'm not sure
what I do wrong with laptop batteries, but they only seem to last about 2
years before they stop holding their charge. Each time, I try to plug the
laptop into the mains only while I'm actually using it (to keep it fully
charged) or when the battery has become discharged, and I run it off battery
to about 1/3 charged every so often even though I have access to mains. I
don't leave the laptop on charge 24/7 for months on end. And yet my battery
dies after a couple of years whereas other people who abuse their batteries
by leaving the laptop on permanent mains seem to get much longer battery
life.

It's happened on the last 3 laptops I've had (Acer, HP and Samsung) covering
the period from XP, via Vista to Win 7.

In each case I end up with a laptop than can only be used on mains. The HP
went through 3 batteries, though in fairness only the first was a genuine HP
battery and the other two were Chinese clones, and I didn't get full use out
of the last battery because the laptop died (refused to turn on, reporting a
hardware motherboard error).

AFAIK batteries hold 1000 charges, or 4-8 years, whichever is the soonest. 4-8 years meaning they're not so good after 4 years, but still usable till 8. So if you usually use the laptop plugged in and rarely on battery, it should last 8 years. Modern rechargeables don't have a memory effect, so only half using them isn't bad for them any more. I've never come across a laptop which has a battery problem younger than about 5 years old. How often do you run it to 1/3 full? You should be able to do that 1500 times, or 3 times a day in 2 years.

--
What are the "Man's Three Rules When Getting Old?"
Never pass a bathroom, don't waste a hard-on, and never trust a fart.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:47:23 +0100, NY, the demented, troll-feeding retard,
blabbered:

FLUSH the mentally handicapped idiot's idiotic drivel

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:25:23 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

NY formulated on Tuesday :
Ah, if the battery can be recharged, either by what JWK refers to as "wrist
action" (!) or by photocell, then I can understand the battery lasting a long
time - indefinitely unless the battery gradually loses its ability to hold
its charge.

I had to fit a new rechargeable to my watch a month or two back. Its
analogue hands would loose time compared to the digital side which was
always correct - MSF receiver.

Terrible design! It actually corrected the digital side and didn't pass that data onto the analogue side?! So effectively you actually have two timepieces in one case!

Talking of batteries losing their ability to hold charge... I'm not sure what
I do wrong with laptop batteries, but they only seem to last about 2 years
before they stop holding their charge. Each time, I try to plug the laptop
into the mains only while I'm actually using it (to keep it fully charged) or
when the battery has become discharged, and I run it off battery to about 1/3
charged every so often even though I have access to mains. I don't leave the
laptop on charge 24/7 for months on end. And yet my battery dies after a
couple of years whereas other people who abuse their batteries by leaving the
laptop on permanent mains seem to get much longer battery life.

My old Compaq's battery is fine, as is my 2 year old Acer's battery. I
don't usually run on battery at all, rather I have them on charge, when
I'm actually using them/ unplug when finished. That usually means on
maybe 16 hours per day, when I'm at home.

You can get replacements on Ebay for **** all anyway.

--
Does the Little Mermaid wear an algebra?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:26:20 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/04/2018 17:54, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:05:34 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

====snip====


I feel lost without a watch, even when I have my phone to hand. Plus I
can glance at it at any time, without having to retrieve it from my
pocket and turn screen on. Plus the battery is unlikely to go flat for
the next 18 months or so.

In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

You can't complain at that!

The battery in mine usually last 18 to 24 months. I then change it
myself, as it's 50/50 when I take it to a jewellers or watch place,
whether they will actually do it or will attempt to send it off to be
done ... at a cost of £60! The watch itself I've had for 18 years.

My neighbour paid £70 for a Calvin Klein watch. Fair enough, it looks quite stylish and is fairly thin. But.... it isn't waterproof, at all. He has to take it off if he goes walking and it rains, or if he washes the dishes. Completely useless. I thought they invented waterproof watches in the 80s.

I replace my own battery at a cost of 10p. Pack of 10 CR2025 for £1 on Ebay.

My father still wears his Seiko LCD digital watch pretty well all day,
every day - he's had it since the late '70s, when it replaced his
battery eating LED watch!

The Sinclair?

For a real battery eating watch, Google "Nixie watch".

Those tilt things don't work. I had a Casio which turned on the light (if you chose that mode) whenever you tilted it. I found it just switched on 1000s of times a day whenever I was doing this and that, and also in bed it kept coming on and waking me up. Both of which used the battery up quickly.

--
Maybe the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence because that is where the leaky septic tank is buried.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:47:23 +0100, NY wrote:

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long. A few years, but
not ten. I was surprised that when I changed from a quartz analogue watch
to
a digital one, the battery life wasn't much different. Evidently the
frictional losses in the mechanical movement of the hands are about the
same
as the current needed to operate the LCD display, assuming that the
time-keeping part of the watch (quartz crystal oscillator) is the same in
both cases.

Try getting a decent watch that does things like thermometer, altimeter,
barometer, then see how long the battery lasts.

I've got a phone if I want those features :-)

I don't understand people who carry phones all the time. My watch is on my wrist, I don't have to carry it or worry about it staying in my pocket. Also it's completely waterproof, even for swimming. A phone dies in some rain, unfit for purpose.

Try explaining the logic of
either a watch or a telephone being used for measuring altitude, lat/long,
barometric pressure, to a hypothetical visitor from the 1970s of earlier.

Wouldn't they just think you'd miniaturised whatever they used? I mean making a grandfather clock into a clockwork watch isn't unimaginable.

My old phone would barely last the waking hours of the day (ie between being
removed from charge and going back on charge) if I left wifi turned on,

Er.... doesn't Wifi turn on as you use it then go off again?

and
GPS and/or mobile internet would drain the battery in a few hours if left on
for more than just the precise time I needed them. My new phone lasts fine
with GPS, wifi and mobile internet left on 24/7, for a similar 8 AM to 10 PM
time off charge.

Not an Apple then. Every iphone user I know is constantly asking if they can charge their phone somewhere.

I think there was something wrong with the software that was running on my
old phone (though I don't know what) because when my wife had to borrow it
for a few months between breaking her own phone and getting a new one, she
wiped it and set it up with her config and therefore her set of apps, and it
lasted a lot longer.

You must have had a program running constantly accessing the internet. There's no way anyone would design a phone which didn't turn the wifi off as soon as you stopped using the browser.

--
A patient tells the Doctor, "I've been going to a faith healer, but wasn't getting any better."
The Doctor smiled and said, "And what dumb advice did this phony give you?"
"He told me to come see you." replied the new patient.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
My old phone would barely last the waking hours of the day (ie between
being
removed from charge and going back on charge) if I left wifi turned on,

Er.... doesn't Wifi turn on as you use it then go off again?

No, GPS, wifi and mobile data are features that you can choose to enable or
disable. It's useful sometimes to turn on just mobile data and not wifi, to
force any WAN connections (web, email) to go by mobile, because if both wifi
and mobile are turned on, the phone usually (always?) uses wifi in
preference, maybe because that isn't usually subject to a low monthly usage
limit.

All three seem to drain the battery to some extent even if they are not
explicitly being used, though not as quickly as if a package is constantly
requesting a GPS fix or transferring data.


and
GPS and/or mobile internet would drain the battery in a few hours if left
on
for more than just the precise time I needed them. My new phone lasts
fine
with GPS, wifi and mobile internet left on 24/7, for a similar 8 AM to 10
PM
time off charge.

Not an Apple then. Every iphone user I know is constantly asking if they
can charge their phone somewhere.

Why does that not surprise me? :-) Apples must have some redeeming
features, but they do seem to be very prescriptive in what you can and can't
do (with "how do I do X" being answered with "why on earth should you even
want to do X") and they invent their own network protocols (Apple Airprint)
and connectors (Apple Lightning) (which may be better, but they are unique
to Apple). I much prefer Windows for a "real" computer and Android for a
phone/tablet. Shame that Win 10 is becoming more and more dumbed-down and
Apple-like.

I went on a night-school course on digital photography at the local college,
and all the class computers were Apples. A significant portion of each
lesson was taken up with people asking "I know how to do this on Windows,
but how do I do it on Apple" instead of actually learning about the specific
photographic package.

I think there was something wrong with the software that was running on
my
old phone (though I don't know what) because when my wife had to borrow
it
for a few months between breaking her own phone and getting a new one,
she
wiped it and set it up with her config and therefore her set of apps, and
it
lasted a lot longer.

You must have had a program running constantly accessing the internet.

That's what I reckon. I wish I could have found out what it was. Whatever it
was didn't carry over onto the new phone when all my settings and
user-selected apps from the old phone were installed on the new one.

There's no way anyone would design a phone which didn't turn the wifi off
as soon as you stopped using the browser.

I'm not sure whether the phone maintains a connection to the router. It's
difficult to tell without rebooting the router, because a router's list of
known computers (its DHCP list) lasts even after a computer disconnects or
is turned off.

It is plausible that wifi has a fairly short timeout and reconnects
immediately any app needs to access either the internet or another computer
within the house.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
AFAIK batteries hold 1000 charges, or 4-8 years, whichever is the soonest.
4-8 years meaning they're not so good after 4 years, but still usable till
8. So if you usually use the laptop plugged in and rarely on battery, it
should last 8 years. Modern rechargeables don't have a memory effect, so
only half using them isn't bad for them any more. I've never come across
a laptop which has a battery problem younger than about 5 years old. How
often do you run it to 1/3 full? You should be able to do that 1500
times, or 3 times a day in 2 years.

I probably use my laptop mainly on mains (unplugging when I shutdown or
hibernate it), using battery mainly for the fairly short time when I'm
moving the laptop from one place in the house to another, or when taking it
to someone else's house and it's easier not to be tethered to mains.

As things are now, I always have to boot from scratch if I move the laptop,
because as well as the battery dying, the ability to hibernate (save current
computer state to *disk*) as opposed to sleep (keep RAM powered-up) has
mysteriously disappeared with "enable/disable hybrid sleep" greyed-out.

If the laptop wasn't unbearably slow in everything it does, I'd a) buy a new
battery, even if only a cheap clone, b) restore it to factory state and
reinstall and customise it again (as I've already had to do twice when it
took longer and longer to boot and started randomly pausing on trivial tasks
like switching focus from one window to another. I do PC support for other
people as a living, but all my standard "tricks" have not made much
improvement on my own PC: a PC with loads of free memory shouldn't have
times when it hammers the disk as if it's swapping to page file and its CPU
usage on system (ie not user-initiated) tasks shoots up to nearly 100%. And
that's before I try to do CPU-hungry things like playing HD video.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:18:45 +0100, NY, another mentally deficient,
troll-feeding retard, blathered:

FLUSH cocksucker's drivel

Does the unwashed Scottish ******'s cock taste THAT good to you, cocksucker?
BG

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:31:23 +0100, NY, another mentally deficient,
troll-feeding retard, blathered:

FLUSH the cocksucker's drivel

You need to try to get the unwashed gay Scottish ******'s cock out of your
greedy gob some time, you mentally retarded cocksucker!

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
AFAIK batteries hold 1000 charges, or 4-8 years, whichever is the
soonest. 4-8 years meaning they're not so good after 4 years, but still
usable till 8. So if you usually use the laptop plugged in and rarely on
battery, it should last 8 years. Modern rechargeables don't have a
memory effect, so only half using them isn't bad for them any more. I've
never come across a laptop which has a battery problem younger than about
5 years old. How often do you run it to 1/3 full? You should be able to
do that 1500 times, or 3 times a day in 2 years.

I probably use my laptop mainly on mains (unplugging when I shutdown or
hibernate it),

I mostly use mine like that in the kitchen and have it hibernate when you
close it.

using battery mainly for the fairly short time when I'm moving the laptop
from one place in the house to another, or when taking it to someone
else's house and it's easier not to be tethered to mains.

I used to run it on the battery when bottling the beer but don't
anymore, I listen to podcasts on the phone when doing that now.

As things are now, I always have to boot from scratch if I move the
laptop, because as well as the battery dying,

I got a double capacity battery more than a decade ago
so it would do the day's beer brewing on battery and it
has just died. Went back to the original battery, fixed that.

the ability to hibernate (save current computer state to *disk*) as
opposed to sleep (keep RAM powered-up) has mysteriously disappeared with
"enable/disable hybrid sleep" greyed-out.

I never had it on that ancient laptop.

If the laptop wasn't unbearably slow in everything it does,

Yeah, it's a problem. But only really noticeable
when I need to do a full reboot when its XP
eventually gets too screwed every few months.

I'd a) buy a new battery, even if only a cheap clone, b) restore it to
factory state and reinstall and customise it again (as I've already had to
do twice when it took longer and longer to boot and started randomly
pausing on trivial tasks like switching focus from one window to another.

Never had to do it with mine.

I do PC support for other people as a living, but all my standard "tricks"
have not made much improvement on my own PC: a PC with loads of free
memory shouldn't have times when it hammers the disk as if it's swapping
to page file and its CPU usage on system (ie not user-initiated) tasks
shoots up to nearly 100%. And that's before I try to do CPU-hungry things
like playing HD video.

Running which OS ?

NY wrote
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote

My old phone would barely last the waking hours of the day (ie between
being removed from charge and going back on charge) if I left wifi
turned on,

Er.... doesn't Wifi turn on as you use it then go off again?

No, GPS, wifi and mobile data are features that you can choose to enable
or disable. It's useful sometimes to turn on just mobile data and not
wifi, to force any WAN connections (web, email) to go by mobile, because
if both wifi and mobile are turned on, the phone usually (always?) uses
wifi in preference, maybe because that isn't usually subject to a low
monthly usage limit.

All three seem to drain the battery to some extent even if they are not
explicitly being used, though not as quickly as if a package is constantly
requesting a GPS fix or transferring data.

OTOH with my iphones, they don't use enough to need to bother
turning them on and off to get a longer time between charges.

and GPS and/or mobile internet would drain the battery in a few hours if
left on for more than just the precise time I needed them. My new phone
lasts fine with GPS, wifi and mobile internet left on 24/7, for a
similar 8 AM to 10 PM time off charge.

Not an Apple then.

Fraid so. My 6S only needs two charges a week most weeks
and it stays on 24/7 with everything on all the time.

Every iphone user I know is constantly asking if they can charge their
phone somewhere.

Bet that's because they are old phones with ****ed batterys.

Why does that not surprise me? :-) Apples must have some redeeming
features,

Yep, very elegant solid designs most of the time and no need
to give a damn about viruses or snooping on your data because
of the sandboxing that means that even the very very occasional
rogue app has no access to anything you don't want it to.

but they do seem to be very prescriptive in what you can and can't do
(with "how do I do X" being answered with "why on earth should you even
want to do X")

More that they wont let you do what is illegal in some
places, even tho it may be legal in your jurisdiction.

I'd much prefer to be able to record all phone conversations
so I can check what has been said after the call, particularly
with commercial operations that make claims when selling
you something so you can check what they claimed after
it turns out that they don't in fact actually deliver that etc.
But Apple has decided that they wont let you do that
because that is illegal in some jurisdictions.

The other thing you cant configure your iphone to do is
to automatically answering incoming calls which can be
handy in some situations like when driving around etc.

And they wont let the iphone show you what wifi it can
see even when the signal level is too low to be useful
to use. That's a pain when setting up repeaters etc.

and they invent their own network protocols (Apple Airprint) and
connectors (Apple Lightning) (which may be better, but they are unique to
Apple).

Sure.

I much prefer Windows for a "real" computer

Yeah, me too.

and Android for a phone/tablet.

I much prefer iOS for both.

Shame that Win 10 is becoming more and more dumbed-down

Yeah, tho it has some nice features, like being able to pair
windows so they always come up together. Trouble is that
its hard to justify a Win10 system just so I can have a pair
of Freecell Pro and Notepad. It's the only game I play and
normally don't watch TV without playing it etc.

and Apple-like.

Its nothing like iOS or even the Mac OS either.

I went on a night-school course on digital photography at the local
college, and all the class computers were Apples. A significant portion of
each lesson was taken up with people asking "I know how to do this on
Windows, but how do I do it on Apple" instead of actually learning about
the specific photographic package.

Sure, but that's true of any pair of OSs. And if Win10 was
becoming more apple like, they wouldn't be doing that.

I think there was something wrong with the software that was running on
my old phone (though I don't know what) because when my wife had to
borrow it for a few months between breaking her own phone and getting a
new one, she wiped it and set it up with her config and therefore her
set of apps, and it lasted a lot longer.

You must have had a program running constantly accessing the internet.

That's what I reckon. I wish I could have found out what it was. Whatever
it was didn't carry over onto the new phone when all my settings and
user-selected apps from the old phone were installed on the new one.

That's one area where iphones are magnificent, when the old phone
is replaced by another, so effortless to move to the new phone.

Samsungs now do something close, but must later than when apple did it.

There's no way anyone would design a phone which didn't turn the wifi off
as soon as you stopped using the browser.

It done like that because wifi allows it to do much better location
services when gps isnt working well inside buildings etc.

I'm not sure whether the phone maintains a connection to the router. It's
difficult to tell without rebooting the router, because a router's list of
known computers (its DHCP list) lasts even after a computer disconnects or
is turned off.

The better routers show the traffic for each device too.

It is plausible that wifi has a fairly short timeout and reconnects
immediately any app needs to access either the internet or another
computer within the house.

Normally not.

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote
NY wrote
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long.
A few years, but not ten. I was surprised that when
I changed from a quartz analogue watch to a digital
one, the battery life wasn't much different. Evidently
the frictional losses in the mechanical movement of
the hands are about the same as the current needed
to operate the LCD display, assuming that the time
-keeping part of the watch (quartz crystal oscillator)
is the same in both cases.

Try getting a decent watch that does things like thermometer,
altimeter, barometer, then see how long the battery lasts.

I've got a phone if I want those features :-)

And much more feature wise too, like being able
to make and receive phone calls and texts etc.

I don't understand people who carry phones all the time.

I do.

My watch is on my wrist, I don't have to carry
it or worry about it staying in my pocket.

But have to worry about ****ing the watch by hitting
something with it and I only wear shorts and jeans
with decent pockets that phones don't fall out of.

Also it's completely waterproof, even for swimming.

Don't need any of that **** when swimming.

A phone dies in some rain, unfit for purpose.

Plenty of lifeproof cases that are completely waterproof.

Try explaining the logic of either a watch or a telephone
being used for measuring altitude, lat/long, barometric
pressure, to a hypothetical visitor from the 1970s of earlier.

Wouldn't they just think you'd miniaturised whatever they used?

Yep. Just like we do with phones that do that over a PC or laptop.

I mean making a grandfather clock into
a clockwork watch isn't unimaginable.

And neither did moving from a landline phone to a mobile either.

My old phone would barely last the waking hours
of the day (ie between being removed from charge
and going back on charge) if I left wifi turned on,

My old iphone 5 only needed 2 charges a week with wifi
bluetooth and gps left on all the time. Its replacement 6S too.

Er.... doesn't Wifi turn on as you use it then go off again?

NY wrote

Talking of batteries losing their ability to hold charge... I'm not sure
what I do wrong with laptop batteries, but they only seem to last about 2
years before they stop holding their charge. Each time, I try to plug the
laptop into the mains only while I'm actually using it (to keep it fully
charged) or when the battery has become discharged, and I run it off
battery to about 1/3 charged every so often even though I have access to
mains. I don't leave the laptop on charge 24/7 for months on end. And yet
my battery dies after a couple of years whereas other people who abuse
their batteries by leaving the laptop on permanent mains seem to get much
longer battery life.

Yeah, that's what I do, leave it on charge 24/7/365.25 and only very
occasionally
unplug the charger and use it on the battery for a while when I need the
portability.

The dual capacity battery must have lasted more than 10 years. Compaq and
has just died recently. I've gone back to the original battery which will
likely
last another 10 years if I don't give up on that now very slow celeron
laptop.

It's happened on the last 3 laptops I've had (Acer, HP and Samsung)
covering the period from XP, via Vista to Win 7.

In each case I end up with a laptop than can only be used on mains. The HP
went through 3 batteries, though in fairness only the first was a genuine
HP battery and the other two were Chinese clones,

My dual capacity was a non genuine clone, but they are very variable
quality.

and I didn't get full use out of the last battery because the laptop died
(refused to turn on, reporting a hardware motherboard error).

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
I do PC support for other people as a living, but all my standard
"tricks" have not made much improvement on my own PC: a PC with loads of
free memory shouldn't have times when it hammers the disk as if it's
swapping to page file and its CPU usage on system (ie not user-initiated)
tasks shoots up to nearly 100%. And that's before I try to do CPU-hungry
things like playing HD video.

Running which OS ?

Win 7.

AMD E-450 1.7 GHz CPU
6 GB RAM

HDD has about 2 GB free space and is defragmented

Avast (free) anti-virus


I've used MSCONFIG to disable all the Samsung-specific utilities that came
with it. and checked for anything else that gets started automatically to
make sure there's nothing unexpected or unwanted,

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
NY wrote

Talking of batteries losing their ability to hold charge... I'm not sure
what I do wrong with laptop batteries, but they only seem to last about 2
years before they stop holding their charge. Each time, I try to plug the
laptop into the mains only while I'm actually using it (to keep it fully
charged) or when the battery has become discharged, and I run it off
battery to about 1/3 charged every so often even though I have access to
mains. I don't leave the laptop on charge 24/7 for months on end. And yet
my battery dies after a couple of years whereas other people who abuse
their batteries by leaving the laptop on permanent mains seem to get much
longer battery life.

Yeah, that's what I do, leave it on charge 24/7/365.25 and only very
occasionally
unplug the charger and use it on the battery for a while when I need the
portability.

Hmmm. I wonder what I'm doing differently that the battery in each of my
laptops has stopped holding charge after a couple of years. Evidently
leaving it on charge most of the time (both when it's running and when it's
shutdown) with fairly infrequent use on battery hasn't affected yours.

I notice that some laptops sold nowadays have a battery that is
non-removable, so if the battery does the same thing, that means the laptop
is buggered after a couple of years, assuming the battery is soldered in. I
have no qualms about going inside a desktop PC to replace faulty parts, add
more RAM etc, but I'm wary with laptops because they are a nightmare to get
the case off, even after removing all the screws, and even more of a
nightmare to get the case back on afterwards.

A good laptop should, in my mind have:

- DVD drive
- doors for RAM sockets and HDD to be accessed
- mic, line in and line out (headphone) sockets
- a touchpad with buttons that don't make a loud mechanical click (my
Samsung is terrible for this)

Sadly the first three are getting more and more scarce, and some touchpads
have horrible buttons - either vague an imprecise or else with a very loud
clonk-clonk noise every time you left-click. I loathe and detest the
"tapping" feature that is the default in Windows, because I find that I
accidentally left-click as I'm repeatedly moving my finger from one side of
the pad to the other to move the pointer right the way across the screen, so
I turn that OFF! And if I'm using the laptop on a table or other hard
surface, I use a proper mouse.

On 25/04/2018 08:48, NY wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
I do PC support for other people as a living, but all my standard
"tricks" have not made much improvement on my own PC: a PC with loads
of free memory shouldn't have times when it hammers the disk as if
it's swapping to page file and its CPU usage on system (ie not
user-initiated) tasks shoots up to nearly 100%. And that's before I
try to do CPU-hungry things like playing HD video.

Running which OS ?

Win 7.

AMD E-450 1.7 GHz CPU
6 GB RAM

HDD has about 2 GB free space and is defragmented

Avast (free) anti-virus


I've used MSCONFIG to disable all the Samsung-specific utilities that
came with it. and checked for anything else that gets started
automatically to make sure there's nothing unexpected or unwanted,

I have two little PCs.. one with an atom and one with an AMD CPU both
are supposed to be about the same power. The Amd one is far slower even
though it has twice the RAM as the intel one. I really don't know why
its slower other than someone lies about CPU throughput.

They both have SSDs but the intel one is one of the slow ones while the
Amd machine has a proper 2.5inch SSD in it.

Both run the same version of win 10.

The performance difference is a factor of two or more.

On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 18:00:52 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:05:34 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

====snip====


I feel lost without a watch, even when I have my phone to hand. Plus I
can glance at it at any time, without having to retrieve it from my
pocket and turn screen on. Plus the battery is unlikely to go flat for
the next 18 months or so.

In my case, the next 120 months or so (assuming my watch lasts *another*
ten years). :-)

I don't think I've had a watch battery last *that* long.

I'm sure my old LCD watch lasted longer than that battery wise.
It had a 5 year battery but depended on how much the backlight and alarm functions which after the first few weeks I hardly ever used.



A few years, but
not ten. I was surprised that when I changed from a quartz analogue watch to
a digital one, the battery life wasn't much different. Evidently the
frictional losses in the mechanical movement of the hands are about the same
as the current needed to operate the LCD display, assuming that the
time-keeping part of the watch (quartz crystal oscillator) is the same in
both cases.

NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do PC support for other people as a living, but all my standard
"tricks" have not made much improvement on my own PC: a PC
with loads of free memory shouldn't have times when it hammers
the disk as if it's swapping to page file and its CPU usage on system
(ie not user-initiated) tasks shoots up to nearly 100%. And that's
before I try to do CPU-hungry things like playing HD video.

Running which OS ?

Win 7.

32 or 64 bit ?

AMD E-450 1.7 GHz CPU
6 GB RAM

That's the problem, it will fill that eventually and start swapping.

HDD has about 2 GB free space and is defragmented

Avast (free) anti-virus

I've used MSCONFIG to disable all the Samsung-specific utilities
that came with it. and checked for anything else that gets started
automatically to make sure there's nothing unexpected or unwanted,

The problem is that it uses more than 6GB with that more intensive stuff.

NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote

Talking of batteries losing their ability to hold charge... I'm not sure
what I do wrong with laptop batteries, but they only seem to last about
2 years before they stop holding their charge. Each time, I try to plug
the laptop into the mains only while I'm actually using it (to keep it
fully charged) or when the battery has become discharged, and I run it
off battery to about 1/3 charged every so often even though I have
access to mains. I don't leave the laptop on charge 24/7 for months on
end. And yet my battery dies after a couple of years whereas other
people who abuse their batteries by leaving the laptop on permanent
mains seem to get much longer battery life.

Yeah, that's what I do, leave it on charge 24/7/365.25 and only very
occasionally unplug the charger and use it on the battery for a while
when I need the portability.

Hmmm. I wonder what I'm doing differently that the battery in each of my
laptops has stopped holding charge after a couple of years.

Might just be a much better charger design with some
that doesn't overcharge the battery when used like that.

Evidently leaving it on charge most of the time (both when it's running
and when it's shutdown) with fairly infrequent use on battery hasn't
affected yours.

I notice that some laptops sold nowadays have a battery that is
non-removable, so if the battery does the same thing, that means the
laptop is buggered after a couple of years, assuming the battery is
soldered in. I have no qualms about going inside a desktop PC to replace
faulty parts, add more RAM etc, but I'm wary with laptops because they are
a nightmare to get the case off, even after removing all the screws, and
even more of a nightmare to get the case back on afterwards.

And most tablets are even worse, glued together and impossible to get
into to change the battery without buggering them, specially Samsungs.

A good laptop should, in my mind have:

- DVD drive

I don't use those anymore.

- doors for RAM sockets and HDD to be accessed
- mic, line in and line out (headphone) sockets
- a touchpad with buttons that don't make a loud mechanical click (my
Samsung is terrible for this)

And a proper keyboard, rather than the steaming turds you
now get that are the result of the stupid obsession with making
the damned things as thin as possible for no good reason.

Same with phones, makes no sense to make the damned things
as thin a possible and end up with lousy time between charges.

Sadly the first three are getting more and more scarce, and some touchpads
have horrible buttons - either vague an imprecise or else with a very loud
clonk-clonk noise every time you left-click. I loathe and detest the
"tapping" feature that is the default in Windows, because I find that I
accidentally left-click as I'm repeatedly moving my finger from one side
of the pad to the other to move the pointer right the way across the
screen, so I turn that OFF! And if I'm using the laptop on a table or
other hard surface, I use a proper mouse.

I don't but I accept that I am very unusual in that regard.

I prefer a proper full touch screen now but don't use laptops
for full time work much at all anymore. Still use a desktop and
a phone and occasionally a well designed tablet.

dennis@home wrote
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do PC support for other people as a living, but all my standard
"tricks" have not made much improvement on my own PC: a PC with loads
of free memory shouldn't have times when it hammers the disk as if
it's swapping to page file and its CPU usage on system (ie not
user-initiated) tasks shoots up to nearly 100%. And that's before I
try to do CPU-hungry things like playing HD video.

Running which OS ?

Win 7.

AMD E-450 1.7 GHz CPU
6 GB RAM

HDD has about 2 GB free space and is defragmented

Avast (free) anti-virus

I've used MSCONFIG to disable all the Samsung-specific utilities
that came with it. and checked for anything else that gets started
automatically to make sure there's nothing unexpected or unwanted,

I have two little PCs.. one with an atom and one with an AMD CPU both
are supposed to be about the same power. The Amd one is far slower
even though it has twice the RAM as the intel one. I really don't know
why its slower other than someone lies about CPU throughput.

They both have SSDs but the intel one is one of the slow ones
while the Amd machine has a proper 2.5inch SSD in it.

Both run the same version of win 10.

The performance difference is a factor of two or more.

Interesting. I use Intel cpus whenever I can.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:18:45 +0100, NY wrote:

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
My old phone would barely last the waking hours of the day (ie between
being
removed from charge and going back on charge) if I left wifi turned on,

Er.... doesn't Wifi turn on as you use it then go off again?

No, GPS, wifi and mobile data are features that you can choose to enable or
disable. It's useful sometimes to turn on just mobile data and not wifi, to
force any WAN connections (web, email) to go by mobile, because if both wifi
and mobile are turned on, the phone usually (always?) uses wifi in
preference, maybe because that isn't usually subject to a low monthly usage
limit.

How absurd. I leave mine all off, then when I try to access the internet, it switches one on until I'm finished with it.

All three seem to drain the battery to some extent even if they are not
explicitly being used, though not as quickly as if a package is constantly
requesting a GPS fix or transferring data.

Do you leave your house lights on all the time so you don't have to bother turning them on? Do you leave your car engine running all the time?

and
GPS and/or mobile internet would drain the battery in a few hours if left
on
for more than just the precise time I needed them. My new phone lasts
fine
with GPS, wifi and mobile internet left on 24/7, for a similar 8 AM to 10
PM
time off charge.

Not an Apple then. Every iphone user I know is constantly asking if they
can charge their phone somewhere.

Why does that not surprise me? :-) Apples must have some redeeming
features,

They're shiny. That's about it.

but they do seem to be very prescriptive in what you can and can't
do (with "how do I do X" being answered with "why on earth should you even
want to do X") and they invent their own network protocols (Apple Airprint)
and connectors (Apple Lightning) (which may be better, but they are unique
to Apple).

Incompatibility means more money paid to them when you need to do something. Or if the user has any sense, they change to another company.

I much prefer Windows for a "real" computer and Android for a
phone/tablet.

Agreed, although I'd probably buy a Windows phone if only to make it similar to my PC. I just happen to be given my neighbour's previous Androids from his stupidly expensive contract, as he gets a new one every 2 years.

Shame that Win 10 is becoming more and more dumbed-down and Apple-like.

Agreed, although it has a long way to go to be as dumb as an Apple OS.

I went on a night-school course on digital photography at the local college,
and all the class computers were Apples. A significant portion of each
lesson was taken up with people asking "I know how to do this on Windows,
but how do I do it on Apple" instead of actually learning about the specific
photographic package.

When I was a schoolkid, I had a substitute teacher looking after my computing class, and she would ask me the exact opposite. When I showed her what to do, she was surprised at how much more intuitive it was in Windows. After a couple of years she stopped using Apples.

I think there was something wrong with the software that was running on
my
old phone (though I don't know what) because when my wife had to borrow
it
for a few months between breaking her own phone and getting a new one,
she
wiped it and set it up with her config and therefore her set of apps, and
it
lasted a lot longer.

You must have had a program running constantly accessing the internet.

That's what I reckon. I wish I could have found out what it was. Whatever it
was didn't carry over onto the new phone when all my settings and
user-selected apps from the old phone were installed on the new one.

There's no way anyone would design a phone which didn't turn the wifi off
as soon as you stopped using the browser.

I'm not sure whether the phone maintains a connection to the router. It's
difficult to tell without rebooting the router, because a router's list of
known computers (its DHCP list) lasts even after a computer disconnects or
is turned off.

Doesn't it tell you the timestamp of when it last communicated? I think mine does, but I can't access it without the password, which is in a drawer somewhere at the other end of the house. I haven't accessed it for years, I think the last time was to persuade it to allow P2P connections through to download films illegally.

It is plausible that wifi has a fairly short timeout and reconnects
immediately any app needs to access either the internet or another computer
within the house.

--
The "new labour" government has just announced that they are changing their party emblem from a red rose to a condom, as they believe it most accurately represents the governments political stance.
A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a false sense of security when you're actually being screwed.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:31:23 +0100, NY wrote:

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
AFAIK batteries hold 1000 charges, or 4-8 years, whichever is the soonest.
4-8 years meaning they're not so good after 4 years, but still usable till
8. So if you usually use the laptop plugged in and rarely on battery, it
should last 8 years. Modern rechargeables don't have a memory effect, so
only half using them isn't bad for them any more. I've never come across
a laptop which has a battery problem younger than about 5 years old. How
often do you run it to 1/3 full? You should be able to do that 1500
times, or 3 times a day in 2 years.

I probably use my laptop mainly on mains (unplugging when I shutdown or
hibernate it), using battery mainly for the fairly short time when I'm
moving the laptop from one place in the house to another, or when taking it
to someone else's house and it's easier not to be tethered to mains.

As things are now, I always have to boot from scratch if I move the laptop,
because as well as the battery dying, the ability to hibernate (save current
computer state to *disk*) as opposed to sleep (keep RAM powered-up) has
mysteriously disappeared with "enable/disable hybrid sleep" greyed-out..

How strange, batteries really shouldn't do that. Sounds a bit like memory effect (as you never discharge it much) but I thought modern batteries didn't suffer from that.

If the laptop wasn't unbearably slow in everything it does, I'd a) buy a new
battery, even if only a cheap clone, b) restore it to factory state and
reinstall and customise it again (as I've already had to do twice when it
took longer and longer to boot and started randomly pausing on trivial tasks
like switching focus from one window to another.

I've had that on my desktop and I can't remember what it was, I think it was some horrid utility like AVG. But I'd have the focus switching to nothing at all, hence I'd be typing this sentence, look up and realise I'd have to do it again.

I do PC support for other
people as a living, but all my standard "tricks" have not made much
improvement on my own PC: a PC with loads of free memory shouldn't have
times when it hammers the disk as if it's swapping to page file and its CPU
usage on system (ie not user-initiated) tasks shoots up to nearly 100%.. And
that's before I try to do CPU-hungry things like playing HD video.

How much memory do you have and what percentage is in use in the task manager when it's slow?

What tasks are suing the 100% CPU?

--
There are forty £100 million notes in the Bank of England.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
How much memory do you have and what percentage is in use in the task
manager when it's slow?

6 GB (increased from the 4 GB that it came with). CPU usage is around
90-100% when the PC slows down, even though after the initial high usage
after rebooting it normally stablises to about 10-20%. It's often simple
things like redrawing the screen when a window is moved, or when a
background window is clicked to bring it to the foreground.

What tasks are using the 100% CPU?

Often it's a generic process such as system or svchost, so nothing obvious
that points to a process that has been explicitly started by the user or by
one of the various auto-start-at-boot mechanisms such as
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run .

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:10:34 +0100, NY, another mentally deficient,
troll-feeding retard, blathered:

6 GB (increased from the 4 GB that it came with). CPU usage is around
90-100% when the PC slows down, even though after the initial high usage
after rebooting it normally stablises to about 10-20%. It's often simple
things like redrawing the screen when a window is moved, or when a
background window is clicked to bring it to the foreground.

What tasks are using the 100% CPU?

Often it's a generic process such as system or svchost, so nothing obvious
that points to a process that has been explicitly started by the user or by
one of the various auto-start-at-boot mechanisms such as
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run .

Do you really have no one ELSE to talk to other than this abnormal
attention-starved, retarded piece of Scottish ****? BG

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:10:34 +0100, NY wrote:

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
How much memory do you have and what percentage is in use in the task
manager when it's slow?

6 GB (increased from the 4 GB that it came with). CPU usage is around
90-100% when the PC slows down, even though after the initial high usage
after rebooting it normally stablises to about 10-20%. It's often simple
things like redrawing the screen when a window is moved, or when a
background window is clicked to bring it to the foreground.

What tasks are using the 100% CPU?

Often it's a generic process such as system or svchost, so nothing obvious
that points to a process that has been explicitly started by the user or by
one of the various auto-start-at-boot mechanisms such as
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run .

As soon as I saw 6GB I thought "increase that". The absolute minimum I'd ever have in any machine is 8GB. And I only have that in computers with no user interaction, like a server or something just doing processing tasks like BOINC. For a normal computer, 16 or 32 is sensible. What's the % memory usage in the task manager when it's slow? If it's 50% or higher, you need more memory.

--
In case of exposure to lack of substance, please do not continue to refrain from stopping.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:10:34 +0100, NY wrote:

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
How much memory do you have and what percentage is in use in the task
manager when it's slow?

6 GB (increased from the 4 GB that it came with). CPU usage is around
90-100% when the PC slows down, even though after the initial high usage
after rebooting it normally stablises to about 10-20%. It's often simple
things like redrawing the screen when a window is moved, or when a
background window is clicked to bring it to the foreground.

What tasks are using the 100% CPU?

Often it's a generic process such as system or svchost, so nothing
obvious
that points to a process that has been explicitly started by the user or
by
one of the various auto-start-at-boot mechanisms such as
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run .

As soon as I saw 6GB I thought "increase that". The absolute minimum I'd
ever have in any machine is 8GB. And I only have that in computers with
no user interaction, like a server or something just doing processing
tasks like BOINC. For a normal computer, 16 or 32 is sensible. What's
the % memory usage in the task manager when it's slow? If it's 50% or
higher, you need more memory.

It's low, and the amount of free memory is typically 1-2 GB, which I presume
means it hasn't started paging yet. High CPU usage on a system process, but
not high memory usage. I too tend to start to worry if the Physical Memory
Usage goes much above 50%.

It typcally takes about 10 mins to boot: a minute or so to bring up the
desktop but then ages before I can interact with it and apps will open or
fully draw their window. And then once it has booted and settled down, there
will be occasions when it has a fit of slowness.

As far as I know, there's nothing unusual about it. Standard installation of
Win 7 Home Premium, with any customisations/addons that Samsung may have
installed in their standard image, but with some of them then disabled or
uninstalled. Avast Free antivirus. No much set to auto-start at boot.

I don't think adding the extra 2 GB of RAM (it was supplied with 4 GB) made
any difference to the severity or frequency of the go-slows, though it did
increase the amount of reported free memory and *slightly* reduce the
Physical Memory Usage graph.


I could try restoring to factory state again, and then go through the hassle
of restoring all my customisations, reinstalling applications and copying
back data, but that would be a bit like admitting defeat. ;-)

On Thursday, 26 April 2018 15:50:30 UTC+1, NY wrote:


It typcally takes about 10 mins to boot: a minute or so to bring up the
desktop but then ages before I can interact with it.

Wow and I;ve just got a SSD for my mac mini as I was fed up with waiting 1:30sec for it to boot and ANOTHER 9 secs before I could do anything.

and apps will open or
fully draw their window. And then once it has booted and settled down, there
will be occasions when it has a fit of slowness.

sounds like my students, well some.


As far as I know, there's nothing unusual about it. Standard installation of
Win 7 Home Premium, with any customisations/addons that Samsung may have
installed in their standard image, but with some of them then disabled or
uninstalled. Avast Free antivirus. No much set to auto-start at boot.

I don't think adding the extra 2 GB of RAM (it was supplied with 4 GB) made
any difference to the severity or frequency of the go-slows, though it did
increase the amount of reported free memory and *slightly* reduce the
Physical Memory Usage graph.


I could try restoring to factory state again, and then go through the hassle
of restoring all my customisations, reinstalling applications and copying
back data, but that would be a bit like admitting defeat. ;-)

Depending on size and importance I'd consider getting a SSD.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:50:23 +0100, NY, another mentally deficient,
troll-feeding retard, blathered:

It's low, and the amount of free memory is typically 1-2 GB, which I presume
means it hasn't started paging yet. High CPU usage on a system process, but
not high memory usage. I too tend to start to worry if the Physical Memory
Usage goes much above 50%.

It typcally takes about 10 mins to boot: a minute or so to bring up the
desktop but then ages before I can interact with it and apps will open or
fully draw their window. And then once it has booted and settled down, there
will be occasions when it has a fit of slowness.

As far as I know, there's nothing unusual about it. Standard installation of
Win 7 Home Premium, with any customisations/addons that Samsung may have
installed in their standard image, but with some of them then disabled or
uninstalled. Avast Free antivirus. No much set to auto-start at boot.

I don't think adding the extra 2 GB of RAM (it was supplied with 4 GB) made
any difference to the severity or frequency of the go-slows, though it did
increase the amount of reported free memory and *slightly* reduce the
Physical Memory Usage graph.

I could try restoring to factory state again, and then go through the hassle
of restoring all my customisations, reinstalling applications and copying
back data, but that would be a bit like admitting defeat. ;-)

Geezuz Christ! What a load of inane DRIVEL, again! tsk