 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnicalCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)Related Topics CarsBoatsMore Topics ... |
Motorcycle Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / February 2010MotoGp + Question
G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. Question for the computer people in here... Advantages / disadvantages of the new windows 7 in either 32/64 bit set-up? Is the 64 bit o/s the way to go? If you lot were buying a new laptop - your choice of 32/64? Cheers. JohnO Beer? >G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Is the 64 bit o/s the way to go? >If you lot were buying a new laptop - your choice of 32/64? Oops... and why? >Cheers. > >JohnO > >Beer? >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Beer? The main point is you have a 64bit CPU.. so use a 64bit OS. Frequently drivers and the like were harder to find for the 64bit version but that is more 'coz people running that sort of OS were less common. When running a 32bit OS with a 64bit CPU, the CPU receives half a load of instructions each clock cycle whereas the 64bit OS can send a full load. It doesn't slow it down to half speed but it does make a difference. (the only analogy I can think of is using fuel lines with half the diameter/flow the engine needs). > G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Beer? Despite some unnecessarily dire warnings from Microsoft about the availability of drivers, I've seen several installations of Win 7 64-bit on desktops in the last few weeks, and they all worked fine, including drivers for Canon products, which were dragging the chain for a while there. OTOH I'd be nervous about a laptop unless the manufacturer has factory installed Win 7 64-bit - a lot of very proprietary things get squeezed into the laptop format. Since the 64-bit OS only really gives you a huge memory address space, which a laptop typically doesn't support (not enough room), there's probably no point. Personally I'm waiting for SP1 - there is simply no point being an early adopter if you're using Win XP - if you are 'using' Vista, replace it tomorrow (32-bit will serve for at least another 3 - 4 years, which is the useful life of a laptop anyway). > Beer? Virtual Boag's, ta.  SignatureRegards Andrew >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Virtual Boag's, ta. Yeah - wot he said. I tried Win7 on my notebook. Fail. It couldn't cope. I went back to XP. And without the sh.t that Toshiba loaded up when shipped it picked up speed nicely. So Fail turned to Win. I'm inclined to wait for the first SP for Win7 too, although everyone says it seems pretty solid. As my data is on another drive, I'm tempted to give it a go. Having to re-install all my software seems tedious though. I think I'll wait. This install is solid and let's face it, an O/S is really just something to launch apps and XP is doing that fine. > Yeah - wot he said. I tried Win7 on my notebook. Fail. It couldn't > cope. I went back to XP. And without the sh.t that Toshiba loaded up > when shipped it picked up speed nicely. So Fail turned to Win. if you haven't already seen it... xkcd's take on win 7 http://xkcd.com/528/ >> Yeah - wot he said. I tried Win7 on my notebook. Fail. It couldn't >> cope. I went back to XP. And without the sh.t that Toshiba loaded up >> when shipped it picked up speed nicely. So Fail turned to Win. > > if you haven't already seen it... xkcd's take on win 7 > http://xkcd.com/528/ LOL, poor Vista. It wasn't that bad for a half-finished Win7. > G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Beer? I have just bought a new lappy and dual boot it win7 and Debian it's a custom built multi core with a huge drive but winblows wont run everything I do hence the dual boot >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it's a custom built multi core with a huge drive but winblows wont run > everything I do hence the dual boot There ya go Johno. WTF77 seems to have answered your question quite concisely. :) Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 > G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you lot were buying a new laptop - your choice of 32/64? If you have or intend to have more than 4GB of RAM, go 64bit. If not, go 32bit. SignatureToosmoky Work to ride, Ride to Work... http://users.tpg.com.au/smokey61/cafe >If you lot were buying a new laptop - your choice of 32/64? Would depend on the hardware spec on the laptop But I'd go XP downgrade... we do with all our work Laptops. > G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you lot were buying a new laptop - your choice of 32/64? 64 bit allows more system memory to be used. For a powerful high end machine being able to have 8Gb of RAM can be an advantage, most laptops don't fit that description. Also certain archetectures run slightly faster in 64 bit mode than 32 bit, the Mac Pro for example is about 8% faster in 64 bit mode but again that's a high end box. For most entry level computers you probably won't notice the difference but I'd still get 64 bit :) G-S > G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Beer? Ta lads, Narrowed it down to either an HP - 2.4 GHz @ 1066 fsb with ddr3 by 4G + 1GB video card - Windows 7 (32 bit). Dell - almost the same - it runs a 512MB Video card and Windows 7 (64 bit). Any preferences? Johno Nuvver beer? >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Nuvver beer? The cheapest one >>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >The cheapest one ^^^ Wot 'e said I'd be inclined to go with the setup with the 1Gb video card. Unless you are doing some intense processin you are unlikely to notice much difference between 32 and 64 bit. But a better graphics processor will probably be more noticeable. But as George said, they are pretty good specs for laptop. If you need to do anything that is really going to require 64bit above that, I think you'd reallt need a desktop. Go the cheapest one. >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Any preferences? I think all Dell notebooks come with 12month onsite support warranty (after they do telephone/email troubleshooting and determine the cause of the problem they will send a tech (I think Unisys have the contract in Australia) to your house to repair the machine and test it), so any issues can usually be completely sorted out within a couple of days. Most other brands have a return to factory warranty (you tell them something is wrong, they send you a box, you post the machine back to them, they perform the troubleshooting and repair in their factory and then post it back to you. Turnaround time could be a few weeks or more. Nowadays they are less prone to problems than they were 10 years or so ago so it's likely that you won't ever need to make a warranty claim, but I would choose the Dell on the basis of onsite support alone. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 , > but I would choose the Dell on the basis of onsite support alone. Agreed I hate feakin off shore call centres... all of them, except one.. Dell I had to deal with Dell 3 times (twice faulty Fujitsu HDDs other time a ID Ten T problem on my behalf) over about 8 years of Dell laptop ownership and I can say they have been brilliant but my Dells have always been company bought, (both well over $4k ) so I am guessing we might have had a better support deal.. just check what the deal you get at home because I have heard that some Dell plans you night have to send back Funny, now I run a $750 Acer bought from JB, its about 10 times over spec for what I need for work. Why didnt I go with Dell this time, I needed one quickly and work wouldnt sign off on one mh > but my Dells have always been company bought, (both well over $4k ) so > I am guessing we might have had a better support deal.. just check > what the deal you get at home because I have heard that some Dell > plans you night have to send back Dell do have different levels of support plans. Sort of a gold, silver, bronze home sort of thing although they don't tag them that way anymore. But even there basic warranty support is better than most other companies. G-S >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Nuvver beer? To be honest unless you're a gaming nut (and if you were you'd buy a PC rather than a lappy) either card will do fine presuming it's reasonably recent hardware. As others said, whichever's cheapest. Even so these days only the top heavy games are overly affected with only half a gig dedicated to memory. >>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >days only the top heavy games are overly affected with only half a gig >dedicated to memory. Almost correct. I've got a friend who is a good muso and wants me to help set her up live gigs on 2nd Life. I'm out of work and thought it worth a look around. 2nd Life is built around such a specific graphics set that the only thing I can even remotely run it on is my notebook because it has one of the Intel graphics chips that SL was designed for. But the poor little netbook can't cope with the CPU demands, whereas the other two computers here have way more grunt in CPU but not the specific GPUs that SL wants. Bad programming I reckon. If I can do realtime video editing and design in 3D then surely I should be able to go onto a game site . . . sloppy code. I'm still going to help her out, but not until I can afford to run dual GPUs in this machine, which is a while away yet. >>>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > I'm still going to help her out, but not until I can afford to run > dual GPUs in this machine, which is a while away yet. I'd rather use a 486 than be associated with second life myself. :) When I did bother with that, I had a dual core 2.6Ghz and a 7800 - ran fine for me, but lappies -usually- wind up with a mobile chipset which is the stripped down version (ie I highly doubt a lappy would throw 313W at a video card, which is what the 1Gb NVidia 280s use). If someone's gonna spend hours playing in a virtual world .. I'd call that at least social gaming. If they're to the point they're on about chucking a live gig in a virtual world, I'd go back to "gaming nut" as above :) Now second life of course renders a 3d world. With shaders perspectives and all the rest of it. That's more what I'd class as a game. For reference compare it to the browser friendly version of Quake, which would be the only thing I can think of that would be a remotely useful comparison. http://tinyurl.com/96t8xk -- Quake Live Platform: Browser People who were born back when the original quake came out will be going to college in four years. Only slightly harder to get my head around is the fact that Quake 3 arena is not ... >>>>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> dual GPUs in this machine, which is a while away yet. >I'd rather use a 486 than be associated with second life myself. :) I must admit I do not know why she gets so excited about it. But she's a bloody good muso and a good friend. I'd like to see her start playing guitar and singing again if this one way to get her doing it, then so be it. And people actually pay to go these gigs . . . She's taken me to a couple and they are sorta interesting, but I'd get bored pretty quickly. I've got a USB interface (still sitting in Hobart - thanks Jules) that I'll give her when I can get in the game and not be so lagged that it's stoopid. It's not a high priority right now. A day job is much further up the list. And real live gigs are higher as well. So while I'm at it, I selfishly promote tomorrow night's gig for all the Melbournians in here http://tinyurl.com/yzxljc2 > Narrowed it down to either an HP - 2.4 GHz @ 1066 fsb with ddr3 by 4G + > 1GB video card - Windows 7 (32 bit). > > Dell - almost the same - it runs a 512MB Video card and Windows 7 (64 bit). > > Any preferences? Dell service and support are easier to deal with and faster than HP in my experience. G-S >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Any preferences? I have a HP DV7 and installed Win7 immediately - 32bit cos it's only a 32 bit CPU. Had minor driver issues (everything worked though) for about a month, then HP finished releasing all it's win7 drivers and it runs better than anything I've ever had before. Win 7 seems to work better on the same hardware than XP Pro which I have had (I manage about 800 desktops and laptops) and we have are yet to find anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. I only have 4Gb RAM but win7 uses less than Vista did anyway. Pietro > we have are yet to find > anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. There are some Dell network printers which don't 'just work' with Win 7, but there's a work around using Vista Drivers. G-S >> we have are yet to find anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. > > There are some Dell network printers which don't 'just work' with Win 7, > but there's a work around using Vista Drivers. There is your issue - Dell printers ... Pietro >>> we have are yet to find anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. >> There are some Dell network printers which don't 'just work' with Win 7, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pietro Yah... Dell do computers better than they do printers :) Never the less I was just quoting an example of something that doesn't just work with Win 7 (and there are lots of others). G-S >>>> we have are yet to find anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. >>> There are some Dell network printers which don't 'just work' with Win [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > G-S Bar one thing. everything I have was just there and working once I'd plugged it in. The device it doesn't like is an old webcam that even Logotech stopped supporting ages ago (quickcam 3 something). >>>>> we have are yet to find anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. >>>> There are some Dell network printers which don't 'just work' with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > plugged it in. The device it doesn't like is an old webcam that even > Logotech stopped supporting ages ago (quickcam 3 something). My very good Canon scanner wont work with 7 either so it's a boot into the other o/s and fire inkscape up >>>>>> we have are yet to find anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. >>>>> There are some Dell network printers which don't 'just work' with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > My very good Canon scanner wont work with 7 either > so it's a boot into the other o/s and fire inkscape up There is a Canon 64-bit driver for scanners like the 8600F available for download, although it is a Vista driver you run in compatibility mode in Win 7. Would this help? SignatureRegards Andrew >>>>>>> we have are yet to find anything which doesn't 'just work' in win7. >>>>>> There are some Dell network printers which don't 'just work' with [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > download, although it is a Vista driver you run in compatibility mode in > Win 7. Would this help? No , it crashes sadly and you know how it is being very expensive on purchase and much used >> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Any preferences? Toshiba. : ) I've lost count of the amount of laptops I've had and sold and easily the best 2 are Toshibas and Apples. Panasonic toughbooks are awesome if you don't care about speed and want something that will stop a bullet. Fraser >>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Fraser I'll second the Toshiba vote. As long as you don't put a leaky bottle of water in your backpack with them. Then they don't work so well. >>>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I'll second the Toshiba vote. As long as you don't put a leaky bottle > of water in your backpack with them. Then they don't work so well. What does? : ) I spilt a pint of apple juice into my macbook. Oooooh the irony. I thought it was f.cked for sure but other than a sticky keyboard which I replaced it kept working. When I opened it up there was bits of juice on the processor heatsink that resembled treacle. Fraser >>>>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >working. When I opened it up there was bits of juice on the processor heatsink >that resembled treacle. I did quite well actually. I bought the Toshiba brand new for $450 (NB100 notebook). Yes stupid I know to put water bottle in same area as notebook, but I was just walking 4 blocks down the road after work and chucked everything in one go and went out. What I hadn't counted on is that I had just closed the lid on the notebook so it wasn't shut down, just in hibernate mode. Plus I had walked out of airconditioned office that had the aircon cranked as our servers were struggling and temp in the office was around 20C. Outside it was 43C. In four blocks I had got to pub for a beer and some food and started talking to a mate. I think the temperature increase was too much for the air in the half empty bottle and forced the seals. After chatting to said mate for an hour who then headed off home I opened backpack to get notebook out and check train times to find one dead unit. I bought the one I have now (got same model as I had spare batteries and stuff) for $300 virtually brand new. 2nd hand but not a mark on it and clean install. And sold the dead one for spares for $180. So didn't do too bad really. >>> G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Fraser I had an NEC laptop some years ago, which copped a hiding during a motorcycle off - breaking one of the hinges and damaging the casing around the screen. The lappy continued on regardless for a couple of years. Otherwise the Toshiba I have had for a while has been carted all over the countryside on the back of a bike without problem. cheers, Bill > G'day, just your friendly reminder for the 1994 British GP at 20:30. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you lot were buying a new laptop - your choice of 32/64? I'm running Windows 7 64 bit and couldn't be happier. It's what Vista should of been and about 90% as good as a mac. Fraser win7 is the women's version of vista/xp > Question for the computer people in here... > > Advantages / disadvantages of the new windows 7 in either 32/64 bit > set-up? > win7 is the women's version of vista/xp > >> Question for the computer people in here... >> >> Advantages / disadvantages of the new windows 7 in either 32/64 bit >> set-up? Homo's use vista >> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Homo's use vista There _are_ people using Vista? >>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There _are_ people using Vista? I've been working in IT for over 15 years and I have managed to completely avoid vista and jump from XP to Windows 7 personally and with all my clients. Thank f.ck. Fraser > "Kevin Gleeson" <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message > > There _are_ people using Vista? > > I've been working in IT for over 15 years and I have managed to completely > avoid vista and jump from XP to Windows 7 personally and with all my clients. > Thank f.ck. I'm still on XP on a dual-core with 1Gb. I doubt I have enough memory to go to 7, nor can I see sufficient advantage for me. I learnt NEAT3 before I learnt Basic. To save going in to work one evening to fix what was an operator booboo, I dictated an error recovery routine to said operator in machine language that I was making up in my head. Does machine langauge still exist somewhere? I know intel processors still have A, S, and M registers. Theo On Feb 10, 10:23 am, "Fraser Johnston" <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > "Kevin Gleeson" <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message > > There _are_ people using Vista? > > I've been working in IT for over 15 years and I have managed to completely > avoid vista and jump from XP to Windows 7 personally and with all my clients. > Thank f.ck. I'm still on XP on a dual-core with 1Gb. I doubt I have enough memory to go to 7, nor can I see sufficient advantage for me. I learnt NEAT3 before I learnt Basic. To save going in to work one evening to fix what was an operator booboo, I dictated an error recovery routine to said operator in machine language that I was making up in my head. Does machine langauge still exist somewhere? I know intel processors still have A, S, and M registers. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A friend of mine still programs packaging machines with straight machine code. Fraser >>"Kevin Gleeson" <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Theo Some of the RTUs we use program in STL which is nearly assembly They mix languages up...routines in Ladder, Function Block & STL are allowed in the same 'Program' Pick which is easiest to use for the application >>> "Kevin Gleeson" <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pick which is easiest to use for the application People are still using Pick? Moike >>>> "Kevin Gleeson" <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> Pick which is easiest to use for the application > People are still using Pick? There are some bus companies in Melbourne still using Pick. G-S >>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >avoid vista and jump from XP to Windows 7 personally and with all my clients. >Thank f.ck. I've sort of been able to avoid Vista but some places I work in where I don't get the choice, I'm stuck. I'm tempted to switch this box over to Win7 while things are quiet here. But I'm a fan of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". But I know I'm going to have to get myself into 7 sometine soon though. It didn't work on my notebook, but will on this PC I am sure. If something falls over on this O/S I'll load 7 on then I reckon. The C: drive is purely operating system. Problem is the D: drive is a RAID that I would prefer didn't get destroyed in the changeover. >>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > avoid vista and jump from XP to Windows 7 personally and with all my clients. > Thank f.ck. Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP except it has a few neat tricks up it's sleeve which I really miss when I use my XP-pro work PC, such as the ability to hit the windows button to bring up the start menu and start typing in the name of the program/folder/document you wish to launch... and the ability to alt-arrow-key navigatge the alt-tab task list. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 >>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >and start typing in the name of the program/folder/document you wish to >launch... and the ability to alt-arrow-key navigatge the alt-tab task list. Don't even start me. I don't feel liking typing all night . . . Fer christ sake, even Microsoft admitted they f.cked that up. >>>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Fer christ sake, even Microsoft admitted they f.cked that up. You don't have to even sniff the bait, Kevin. Just recognise bait for what it is, and swim away. SignatureRegards Andrew >>>>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You don't have to even sniff the bait, Kevin. Just recognise bait for > what it is, and swim away. LOL really it's not a trick question. If you don't know what is wrong with Vista maybe you can tell me what's better about XP or Win7? I know Fraser with his 15yrs in IT thanked f.ck that he completely avoided it, which obviously doesn't give him much expertise in the field. I'd rather hear opinions from people who have used Vista. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 >>>>>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > which obviously doesn't give him much expertise in the field. I'd > rather hear opinions from people who have used Vista. I only run a small LAN with a couple of servers and a dozen workstations across 2 sites, but XP never gave me many problems. It was stable and reliable generally. Vista was a pain for the first 12 months and then gradually settled down to being less of an issue, it was never as stable as XP however. Win 7 (which we've just shifted to) is already more stable than Vista, but there are still some isolted driver issues with Win 7 for legacy equipment (like our Dell network printer). G-S > LOL really it's not a trick question. If you don't know what is wrong > with Vista maybe you can tell me what's better about XP or Win7? I know [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nev.. > '08 DL1000K8 Compared to Win XP it is slow to load and run, crash prone and bedevilled with a hyper-active collection of security settings that cannot be modified. While offering precisely 0 benefits to a corporate IT department or corporate user, and precious few to a home user. As I repeatedly explain to people who whinge to me about Vista, it's not an OS, it's a Digital Rights Management system masquerading as an OS. There ya go, that's the short answer (from someone who has used, and cursed, Vista). If you want more, Kevin might have to stay up all night after all. SignatureRegards Andrew >>>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Don't even start me. I don't feel liking typing all night . . . That isn't a very convincing argument. What is actually wrong with it? Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:50:43 +1100, "Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> > >> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP except it has a few neat [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That isn't a very convincing argument. What is actually wrong with it? Well, since you've admitted to using Vista we can deduce that you're a homosexual. When were you planning to inform Jo? :-) BTH >>>>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >That isn't a very convincing argument. What is actually wrong with it? If you can't see what is wrong with it, as I said before, I am not going to sit here all night typing out what I find shitty about it. But I'll throw in a couple. I DO NOT want an O/S trying to outguess what I am trying to do. Just f.cking do it. Where's the backup arrow in directories? I don't want the pretty directories that Win and Mac are heading to. An O/S is there to launch apps and be stable. The apps are the things that I want upgraded and with all the doodads. I couldn't give a flying f.ck how pretty the desktop looks. I rarely see it. This PC has 16 apps open on the toolbar at the moment. And that is quiet compared to my work machines. Just give me a stable platform to run the apps from and I'm happy. And XP is still doing that. Without the bright shiny toy overheads that Vista brought on. Yes, 64 bit is going to force me over to Win 7, but at the moment I do not see the point until I am running 64 bit processors and want to spend the money updatng my software to 64 bit. I am going to have to at some stage obviously, but Vista was not the stage to change. On Feb 11, 12:30 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote: > >> Don't even start me. I don't feel liking typing all night . . . > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I DO NOT want an O/S trying to outguess what I am trying to do. Just > f.cking do it. Vista tries to guess what you're doing and gets it wrong? *boggle* You think about launching Word and it launches Excel instead? You want to read mail and it loads your newsgroups? > Where's the backup arrow in directories? That's it? Your gripe with the operating system is the lack of "backup arrows in directories"? I must admit I don't even understand what you mean by backup arrows in directories. Do you mean an arrow you can click which will back-up the directory for an archive, or an arrow you can click which will take you back up one directory level? I don't know about the former, but the latter certainly exists, though I prefer to use the backspace arrow on my keyboard because it's much faster. > I don't want the pretty directories that Win and Mac are heading to. > An O/S is there to launch apps and be stable. The apps are the things [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > software to 64 bit. I am going to have to at some stage obviously, but > Vista was not the stage to change. Are the directories really pretty? Maybe I'm using the ugly view. Mine look the same as they do in XP. What are shiny toy overheads ? My notebook running is shiny, but that's more to do with the plastic casing than the software & it didn't come with any toys. I also often have many apps open at the same time. My XP work notebook sometimes struggles with the number of apps I have running, but it's only about half the spec of my own computer so I put that down to lack of resources. (My employer currently has a project to upgrade all computers to at least 2GB RAM. My home PC has had 4GB since I bought it a couple of years ago). Nev.. >>>>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That isn't a very convincing argument. What is actually wrong with it? How about the way it asks you before you do ANYTHING for a start? Like Kev said, haven't got all night. I've seen it and used it but never had to rely on it. Fraser > >>>>>>> win7 is the women's version of vista/xp > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > said, haven't got all night. I've seen it and used it but never had to rely on > it. Yeah that is annoying. There is I think one, maybe two applications I regularly use which require me to authorise a start. That's two mouseclicks/keypresses per day I could do without too. But then I have applications I use regularly which require me to confirm that I want to close them too, with a keypress or a mouseclick. That is just as bad, maybe even worse, because it's not the operating system trying to protect the integrity of my system or data, its just an application requesting confirmation even after I've told it I want it to shut down so it's not like that annoyance of an extra click is solely an issue that is experienced under Vista. You've failed to convince me. What else ? Nev.. Yeah that is annoying. There is I think one, maybe two applications I regularly use which require me to authorise a start. That's two mouseclicks/keypresses per day I could do without too. But then I have applications I use regularly which require me to confirm that I want to close them too, with a keypress or a mouseclick. That is just as bad, maybe even worse, because it's not the operating system trying to protect the integrity of my system or data, its just an application requesting confirmation even after I've told it I want it to shut down so it's not like that annoyance of an extra click is solely an issue that is experienced under Vista. You've failed to convince me. What else ? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It is extremely resource intensive compared to XP. Fraser >Yeah that is annoying. There is I think one, maybe two applications I >regularly use which require me to authorise a start. That's two [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >It is extremely resource intensive compared to XP. Really? I hadn't noticed. </sarcasm> > Yeah that is annoying. There is I think one, maybe two applications I > regularly use which require me to authorise a start. That's two [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It is extremely resource intensive compared to XP. OK so i google for "xp vs vista vs windows 7 benchmark" and take the 2nd ranked result (the first ranked was just a forum discussion). http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/ Appears to be a comprehensive comparison of benchmark results. In a series of nice graphs they describe how the operating systems perform in the same tests. Pretty colours, quantitative results, and in most categories XP outscores Vista, slightly. I see no evidence from these benchmark tests that XP significantly faster than Vista, therefore I must deduce that Vista is not extremely resourse intensive compared to XP. It appears that it might be 'slightly more resource intensive'. So far your I haven't got the time to describe all the problems therefore I will not describe any is about as convincing and rational as Biggus' views of Ducati, except of course Biggus will actually describe, in great detail if given the chance, examples of why Ducati are sh.t. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 > Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as an operating system. SignatureToosmoky Work to ride, Ride to Work... http://users.tpg.com.au/smokey61/cafe > > Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP > > No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as an > operating system. So whats the problem? It doesn't run your applications? It loses your data? It makes you dance before it unlocks the screen? It doesn't have backup arrows on the folders? People seem to be very adamant that it is sh.t, but noone knows why. Is it really such a difficult question? Surely there is a reason. Nev.. >> > Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >adamant that it is sh.t, but noone knows why. Is it really such a >difficult question? Surely there is a reason. Take your argument in reverse Nev, it doesn't do anything better than XP (yes, after SP1) and all I want an O/S to do is run my apps. XP SP3 is stable and fine. Vista did nothing to improve on what that did. In fact its driver issues and other crazy sh.t was counterproductive. Win7 will be the way to go as we move over to 64 bit. And yes I was running Vista under both 32 and 64 bit on both servers and workstations on a network with 30+ plus workstations and a massive IBM SAN. There was one machine I was working on that I refused to let go over to Vista and stayed on XP. It was very critical to our operations and I wasn't going to let it get messed with. The other 2 PCs (I had 3 in front of me, apart from the rest of the building) were Vista which we had stripped back to plain looking interface. It works. If a piece of string and a cardboard box will launch my apps without breaking, I'll be happy with that. On Feb 11, 5:36 pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote: > >> > Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is stable and fine. Vista did nothing to improve on what that did. In > fact its driver issues and other crazy sh.t was counterproductive. Is that it? Ignoring your non-quantitiatve throwaway "driver issues" and "crazy sh.t", it didn't live up to your expectations of being _substantially_ better than XP? That seems to confirm my comment at the top of the text you quoted "Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP" :) Is Win7 substantially better than XP? According to those benchmark comparisons in a link I posted in another post, Win7 is no better than XP, but slightly better than Vista by the look of it. This would make Win7 twice as sh.t as Vista surely, because it's not substantially better than either XP or Vista. :) Nev.. >On Feb 11, 5:36 pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >the top of the text you quoted "Whats the matter with Vista? It's just >like XP" :) So why get it? As I said before, it tries to outguess you, someone else pointed out that it keeps annoying you with notifications. "Yes I know! That's why I asked you to do it, don't ask me whether I really want to do this, just f.cking do it". Driver issues have admittedly got better, but christ, how long after the OS was released? Just prior to the next OS to come out. Avid systems (a fairly major player in the world scene for video edit systems) would not allow their edit systems to run from Vista or you'd lose technical support. I think those guys have a fairly good idea of what's going on. >Is Win7 substantially better than XP? According to those benchmark >comparisons in a link I posted in another post, Win7 is no better than >XP, but slightly better than Vista by the look of it. This would make >Win7 twice as sh.t as Vista surely, because it's not substantially >better than either XP or Vista. :) Benchmarks aren't what I am looking at. If we want more computing power, we just buy more computers and use render farms. Usability and compatibility was Vista's failure. Which is why I am not changing to 7 til the apps I need go to all 64 bit and I have no choice. >>On Feb 11, 5:36 pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >So why get it? <...> That is really the nub of the matter - why replace a perfectly functional system that isn't broke, then put up with the usual incompatibility and functional issues? I installed Vita as a multi boot with XP and Ubuntu. After a bit of fiddling about with Vista, I just seemed to gravitate back to XP, which was and still is working fine. I simply couldn't see the point going through the pain of an OS upgrade when the only benefit seemed to be to Microsoft's bottom line. Yeah, like everyone else, I will eventually be forced to upgrade, but I intend to resist the urge for as long as possible. SignatureGWD >>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP >> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > adamant that it is sh.t, but noone knows why. Is it really such a > difficult question? Surely there is a reason. My main problem with Vista is that it locks up roughly 3 to 4 times more often than XP does on similar machines. YMMV. G-S > >>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP > >> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My main problem with Vista is that it locks up roughly 3 to 4 times more > often than XP does on similar machines. YMMV. Given plenty of opportunity to voice their gripes, noone else with an opinion has mentioned Vista locking up more often than XP, and it certainly hasn't been my experience, the opposite would probably be true in my experience (although in hindsight when I was running XP I was using some dodgy drivers to get pre-xp peripherals to operate which were usually the cause of the BSoD). Looks like you're the only one experienced this problem. :) Nev.. >>>>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP >>>> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Nev.. The only one of this sample group :) G-S > > >>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP > > >> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Given plenty of opportunity to voice their gripes, noone else with an > opinion has mentioned Vista locking up more often than XP, I installed Vista in about Jan 2007 and I utilised the rollback/rescue feature on a weekly basis (plus or minus) on that box for at least the next 6 months as various patches broke it. This was documented on ausmoto the last time this was discussed if you'd like to check the google archives. It regularly hung (with a very bog standard config - common graphics card, 2 tv cards, common nic and sound card on the moboard) for the first 3 months and probably weekly after that. XP never hung but then Windows Media Centre never worked properly so I put up with the Vista flakiness. Win 7 final beta worked properly out of the box and only hung once, a subsequent patch has left if as stable as for the last 5months. I've just got to go plonk my money down for a win7 licence for it now the beta is about to expire. Win7 streets better than vista to use as well. >and it > certainly hasn't been my experience, the opposite would probably be > true in my experience (although in hindsight when I was running XP I > was using some dodgy drivers to get pre-xp peripherals to operate > which were usually the cause of the BSoD). Looks like you're the only > one experienced this problem. :) Bollocks JL snipo.... >I installed Vista in about Jan 2007 and I utilised the rollback/rescue >feature on a weekly basis (plus or minus) on that box for at least the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >common graphics card, 2 tv cards, common nic and sound card on the >moboard) for the first 3 months and probably weekly after that. 2 tv cards? as in a twin tuner TV card or two actual cards? If the latter... advantages? Cheers Johno Beer? > snipo.... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 2 tv cards? as in a twin tuner TV card or two actual cards? If the > latter... advantages? Two twin tuner cards. Gives 2 analog inputs and 2 digital inputs. So you can record a digital channel while watching digital tv or watch a foxtel channel or analog channel while recording digital or whatever combo lights your candle. Another bonus of Win7 - you had to hack the registry to get Vista to cope with 4 cards - Win7 does it out of the box Bottom line issue is the dual input cards available in 07 could either be dual analog or dual digital so the 2 Hauppage cards gave me what I wanted. JL >> snipo.... >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >be dual analog or dual digital so the 2 Hauppage cards gave me what I >wanted. <boggles> I think you need to watch less television . . . On Feb 16, 5:52 pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote: > >> snipo.... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I think you need to watch less television . . . Hehe the ironic thing is I rarely watch TV !! The only two shows I watch are Top Gear and Rockwiz which tend to get recorded and watched in batches of three or 4 shows months after airing. The kids and the better half however.... JL (it actually all started with a desire to be able to record the bike racing and some foxtel kids programs...and like any good propeller head ended in a gold plated solution utterly beyond the requirements but technically satisfying ;-) > So whats the problem? It doesn't run your applications? It loses > your data? It makes you dance before it unlocks the screen? It > doesn't have backup arrows on the folders? People seem to be very > adamant that it is sh.t, but noone knows why. Is it really such a > difficult question? Surely there is a reason. I'm the maintenance and training department for my ex's laptop. It's a roughly 2 year old Toshiba A200 with a Core 2 and 2GB of RAM running Vista Home Premium. She has no internet connection other than a Dodo USB stick that gives her 250MB a month. I get it about once every couple of months to do the updates and give it a quick clean out. It takes about 5 minutes to boot to a usable state. Then there's the popup messages. (I turned them off in XP using TweakUI) "There are several problems with your computer security - Click here to fix" "Your anti virus definitions need updating - Click here to update" "Automatic updates are off - Click here to fix" "You are connected to Wireless Network X" "Malware protection is out of date - Click here to update" I *know* Automatic Updates are off. They don't need "fixing", I turned them off. Why? Because she only has very limited internet. Yet, Vista can't accept that and nags me every time I start the damn thing. (Fixed that in XP by disabling the Security Centre Service - Tried that in Vista but like the undead, it still comes back and nags me) Windows Update takes about 20 minutes to scan for updates. First time returned an error message. Still does if I forget to disable the Windows Firewall first. I have to turn off the Vista firewall for Windows Update to access the net, wait 20 minutes while scanning for updates, then turn the firewall back on when the updates are done. I'm not Robinson Crusoe on this and there doesn't seem to be an answer. Having to confirm most operations not just once, but twice! The incomprehensible maze of the Windows Vista Control Panel. The Administrator account *still* not having full control. That's just off the top of my head. SignatureToosmoky Work to ride, Ride to Work... http://users.tpg.com.au/smokey61/cafe >> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP > > No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as an > operating system. I hear that if you work at it you can turn off all the annoying crap on Vista and then it works just as well as XP. Or you could just use XP. SignatureElsie. >>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I hear that if you work at it you can turn off all the annoying crap on > Vista and then it works just as well as XP. OK so the count is about 5 posters who think that Vista hogs substantially more system resourses than XP and one who thinks that if you turn off all the annoying crap Vista works just as well as XP. The Vista supporters appear to be slowly coming out of the closet. :) Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 >> I hear that if you work at it you can turn off all the annoying crap >> on Vista and then it works just as well as XP. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you turn off all the annoying crap Vista works just as well as XP. The > Vista supporters appear to be slowly coming out of the closet. :) Only hearsay on my behalf; I spent a half-hour at it and then reformmatted the HDD and loaded XP. SignatureElsie. > >>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you turn off all the annoying crap Vista works just as well as XP. The > Vista supporters appear to be slowly coming out of the closet. :) But why would you go to the bother of futzing around trying to make Vista usable when you can load XP and it's fine out of the box (1). What exactly does Vista give you that XP doesn't(2) ? I'd suggest naff all for most users, hence why the howls of outrage by consumers when the various manufacturers tried to stop shipping XP and the sudden plethora of "ships with Vista but here's support for uninstalling it and setting up XP" I have XP, Vista and Win7 at home. Vista is far more annoying to use. Win7 is vista with a nicer interface and some patches - it's streets ahead of vista, only a professional devil's advocate like yourself could manage to avoid seeing that IMNSHO JL 1 for very loose definitions of "fine" incorporating acceptance of M$ bloatware levels of system resource hogging. 2 Vista Media PC application works properly - XP's was flaky 18months ago - may be sorted although I doubt it >>>>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP >>>> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ahead of vista, only a professional devil's advocate like yourself > could manage to avoid seeing that IMNSHO Hang on, you're right, I have managed to avoid seeing that Win 7 is better than Vista, but not because of the reasons you suggest. I have actually never even seen Windows 7 and I have therefore never expressed an opinion on Windows 7, except if you want an opinion my opinion is that they should just choose one f.cking naming standard and stick to it, because quite frankly their habit of inventing a new name to describe what little more than a Service Release and bugfix gives me the sh.ts. The only opinion I gave was based on my experience with XP and vista, and if you read again, I listed a couple of things which Vista does better than XP, and a couple of things which I thought XP did better than Vista. I was hardly advocating one over the other, or playing devil's advocate. I merely asked someone to elaborate on a throwaway comment which they gave, and that person struggled endlessly to describe what their problem actually was, and after many attempts still leaves me unconvinced. :) Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 > >>>>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP > >>>> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > to describe what their problem actually was, and after many attempts > still leaves me unconvinced. :) <phew> That was quite a rant, well done. I think I missed the original start point, but the answer to why does Vista suck is "the interface" - the stupid annoying questions and the changes to the gui which don't assist at all (and just add mouse clicks to everything you want to do) and yes, stability issues were indeed rife although I think they're mostly sorted now. I detested Vista, and I don't like the changes to MS Office either <shrug> I'm probably getting old and grumpy but they both seemed to be backwards steps. Yes Win7 should be called Vista FixPack 1 or something but you have to realise that it's so widely hated that M$ were desperate to get a distance from it JL > I detested Vista, and I don't like the changes to MS Office either > <shrug> I'm probably getting old and grumpy but they both seemed to be > backwards steps. Me too for Office 2007. 2003 worked fine, 2007 is a whole re-learning process. Why did they do that? Theo >> I detested Vista, and I don't like the changes to MS Office either >> <shrug> I'm probably getting old and grumpy but they both seemed to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Theo People who have no experience of either get up to speed much faster with Office 2007. It's only 'set-in-their-ways' old farts like you and me that have trouble. SignatureRegards Andrew >>> I detested Vista, and I don't like the changes to MS Office either >>> <shrug> I'm probably getting old and grumpy but they both seemed to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Office 2007. It's only 'set-in-their-ways' old farts like you and me that > have trouble. Or so Microsoft claim, I haven't seen any hard data that actually supports that however. What I have seen (and yes this is anecdotal) is that people with no experience with Apple's iWork and no experience with Office 2007 get up to speed much much faster than they do with Office 2007. That's not necessarily a reason to buy iWork but it does suggest that office 2007 isn't quite as easy to nut out as you imply. G-S >>>> I detested Vista, and I don't like the changes to MS Office either >>>> <shrug> I'm probably getting old and grumpy but they both seemed to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > G-S Gimme a break, the issue was Office 2003 (Win) vs Office 2007 (Win). I have no exposure to iWork so I'll take your word for it. What I was saying was not Microsoft-speak - in our office the youngsters who have had no or little exposure to Office 2003 have little trouble with Office 2007, whereas people with experience with Office 2003 (including me) struggle. For example, in Word 2003 I used the <alt>IPF sequence to insert a picture. The menus in Word 2007 / 2010 don't have shortcut keys. It took me ages to realise that the key sequence still worked, because Microsoft have retained it (and all of the others) for backward compatibility reasons. If I was completely new to Word I'd just use the mouse. SignatureRegards Andrew >> in our office the youngsters who have had no or little exposure to Office 2003 have little trouble with Office 2007, whereas people with experience with Office 2003 (including me) struggle. Same.. None of the <40's at our work wouldstand a chance with 07... We are happily working with XP pro and 2003.. IT WORKS.. And for our business, 2007 offers nothing extra we require. FWIW, I reckon most offices could get away with office 95 without a probem. >>> in our office the youngsters who have had no or little exposure to >>> Office 2003 have little trouble with Office 2007, whereas people with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And for our business, 2007 offers nothing extra we require. FWIW, I > reckon most offices could get away with office 95 without a probem. The 'docx' / 'xlsx' / 'pptx' etc etc file format will eventually become a killer. Which is why they did it, I suspect. SignatureRegards Andrew > The 'docx' / 'xlsx' / 'pptx' etc etc file format will eventually become a > killer. Which is why they did it, I suspect. OpenOffice supports .docx files now. SignatureToosmoky Work to ride, Ride to Work... http://users.tpg.com.au/smokey61/cafe Without doubt, just another way to force people to buy sh.t they dont need. >The 'docx' / 'xlsx' / 'pptx' etc etc file format will eventually become a >killer. Which is why they did it, I suspect. >>> in our office the youngsters who have had no or little exposure to >>> Office 2003 have little trouble with Office 2007, whereas people with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And for our business, 2007 offers nothing extra we require. FWIW, I > reckon most offices could get away with office 95 without a probem. Except getting office 95 to work with XP is a pain... Bill yea, I was talkin more about the features.. >Except getting office 95 to work with XP is a pain... > >Bill > yea, I was talkin more about the features.. > >>Except getting office 95 to work with XP is a pain... >> >>Bill Fair comment, although I wound up doing as others have done, went to open office. Bill >Gimme a break, the issue was Office 2003 (Win) vs Office 2007 (Win). I >have no exposure to iWork so I'll take your word for it. What I was >saying was not Microsoft-speak - in our office the youngsters who have >had no or little exposure to Office 2003 have little trouble with Office >2007, whereas people with experience with Office 2003 (including me) >struggle. http://www.addintools.com/ Works for me. Alternative is to remove and replace with 2003 Signature-- GWD >>Gimme a break, the issue was Office 2003 (Win) vs Office 2007 (Win). I >>have no exposure to iWork so I'll take your word for it. What I was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Works for me. Alternative is to remove and replace with 2003 OpenOffice works fine for me . . . Kev >>> Gimme a break, the issue was Office 2003 (Win) vs Office 2007 (Win). I >>> have no exposure to iWork so I'll take your word for it. What I was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Kev Me too... I went Office 95, Office 2000, Office 2003, Office 2007 (which I hated) and then Open Office. G0S >>>Gimme a break, the issue was Office 2003 (Win) vs Office 2007 (Win). I >>>have no exposure to iWork so I'll take your word for it. What I was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >OpenOffice works fine for me . . . Yeah, that too. SignatureGWD >>>>>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP >>>>> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > to describe what their problem actually was, and after many attempts still > leaves me unconvinced. :) Stick with Vista then. : P Fraser >>>>>>> Whats the matter with Vista? It's just like XP >>>>>> No, no it isn't. Vista is an exercise in frustration masquerading as [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Stick with Vista then. : P ... but I just bought a new PC with XP installed! Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.