suggestions on upgrading to a new pc

In article h70ish$7ds$1@qmul, says...

old or whether it's slow because of all the crap his system has acquired
over the
last few years.

Ain't that the truth. Microsoft gets the blame for the "Windows slowing
down" canard when the truth is that it's the users themselves who bury
the system with so many toolbars and BHOs and software updaters and
other stuff that's not exactly *malware*, but whose accumulated process-
weight is more than any system can stand.

I get systems in that have three pages of HijackThis log and 300 lines
of ps entries - and the luser is bitching about how "his computer is
slowing down." Yeah. No ****, Sherlock; you're towing a 500-ton motor
yacht with a Tundra, and the problem is that "Toyota built an inferior
truck?"

I call bull****.



--
Giftzwerg
***
"It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare
legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been
cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a
tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of
Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan - it's the rest of us
guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves."
- Camille Paglia

Took the words out of my mouth David. While I don't run a 64-bit system,
Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit is running fine on my system. I cannot say it is
faster based on any testing I've done (I'm really not interested in doing
that) but it appears to run faster than Vista Ultimate 32-bit did. It's
stable, boots fast, and hardware support is very, very good.

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message om...

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
[]
Hello, Bob:

Same here, with Windows. Starting in 1995, I've run 3.1, 95, 98SE,
Millennium
and now XP...and very seldom have had any of the problems that you
mentioned,
above.

Incidentally, my next PC build will involve Vista Home Premium 64-bit
(with
SP1).

--
Cordially,

John, you may find Windows-7 even better than Vista SP1. Vista is now
SP2, by the way.

Cheers,
David

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Fotoguy wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:13:43 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Once you've got a Linux box configured the way you want it, it just
runs. No defragging, no Registry cleaning, no anti-virus crap
slowing down the system, etc, etc.


Hello, Bob:

Same here, with Windows. Starting in 1995, I've run 3.1, 95, 98SE,
Millennium and now XP...and very seldom have had any of the problems
that you mentioned, above.

Incidentally, my next PC build will involve Vista Home Premium 64-bit
(with SP1).

Wait for Windows 7. Last I read, it's suppose to be released in
October, but even if it isn't, wait until it is. And I wouldn't opt
for getting Vista with a free upgrade to 7 either. I've never been a
big fan of "upgrading" across OS versions. Too many problems. Clean
installs are less problematical.

So, stick with XP until 7 is released, then get or build that new
system.

I think that all you folks who think that Windows 7 is some kind of "fix"
for Vista's "problems" are going to get an unpleasant surprise.

That's assumming that Vista needed much fixing. I've been running it since
it's release with no problems. I switched to 7 two weeks ago.

In article ,
says...

Took the words out of my mouth David. While I don't run a 64-bit system,
Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit is running fine on my system. I cannot say it is
faster based on any testing I've done (I'm really not interested in doing
that) but it appears to run faster than Vista Ultimate 32-bit did. It's
stable, boots fast, and hardware support is very, very good.

I tried Vista on a 1.6Ghz Atom / 1GB RAM netbook and found it performed
terribly. XP was fine, Ubuntu 8 was fine - but hands-down the best
performance for this (admittedly weak) system was found in Win7.

I can hardly wait to see how Win7 will perform on my Mongo desktop used
for photo purposes.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"If only there were some ... natural mechanism by which to explain
variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though.
On the scale of our own Sun."
- Ace of Spades

In article ,
Giftzwerg wrote:

I tried Vista on a 1.6Ghz Atom / 1GB RAM netbook and found it performed
terribly. XP was fine, Ubuntu 8 was fine - but hands-down the best
performance for this (admittedly weak) system was found in Win7.

The Atom sucks ass along with every netbook it's used in.

In article , Pete Stavrakoglou
wrote:

That's assumming that Vista needed much fixing. I've been running it since
it's release with no problems. I switched to 7 two weeks ago.

Is it October 22 already?

Oh, you're running a test version of an operating system and think it's
the real thing.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:19:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Fotoguy wrote:

Have you changed your mind? Initially (quote above), you stated that
Crossover didn't make Mac calls only Unix ones. (Or wasn't that you J.
Clarke?)

No, it wasn't me. Pan usually gets the quoting right--why did it fail
this time?

This thread has been edited so many times who knows who is saying what.


--
Fotoguy
BestInClass.com
"Personalized digital camera recommendations"
http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Virtually every FS used by OSX, Linux, and the BSDs.
All of which can suffer from file fragmentation.
There is no "suffer" involved. Fragmentation does not
affect system operation, and there is *never* any need
for, nor any value to, use of a defragmentation tool.

In fact, there is no defragmentation tool!

yes there are. here's a few:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/defragfs/
http://www.rpmseek.com/rpm/defrag_0....=com&cx=594:D:
0:3341643:0:0:0
http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iDefrag.php

File systems, i.e. ext3, used by unix type OSes do not require defraging
due to how they re-write files. When a file is re-written that can not
fit in contiguous blocks, will be re-written in a different contiguous
location on the drive. While this slows write time just a tad, it
improves read times and therefore little file fragmentation. At least
nothing to worry about.

Ah, just googled and found the following from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3

Defragmentation

There is no online ext3 defragmentation tool that works on the
filesystem level. An offline ext2 defragmenter, e2defrag, exists but
requires that the ext3 filesystem be converted back to ext2 first. But
depending on the feature bits turned on in the filesystem, e2defrag may
destroy data; it does not know how to treat many of the newer ext3
features.[14]

There are userspace defragmentation tools like Shake[15] and
defrag.[16][17] Shake works by allocating space for the whole file as
one operation, which will generally cause the allocator to find
contiguous disk space. It also tries to write files used at the same
time next to each other. Defrag works by copying each file over itself.
However they only work if the filesystem is reasonably empty. A true
defragmentation tool does not exist for ext3.[18]

That being said, as the Linux System Administrator Guide states, "Modern
Linux filesystem(s) keep fragmentation at a minimum by keeping all
blocks in a file close together, even if they can't be stored in
consecutive sectors. Some filesystems, like ext3, effectively allocate
the free block that is nearest to other blocks in a file. Therefore it
is not necessary to worry about fragmentation in a Linux system."[19]

While ext3 is more resistant to file fragmentation than the FAT
filesystem, nonetheless ext3 filesystems can get fragmented over time or
on specific usage patterns, like slowly-writing large files[20].[21]
Consequently the successor to the ext3 filesystem, ext4, includes a
filesystem defragmentation utility and support for extents (contiguous
file regions).

I trust this argument has been resolved.

--
Len

Posts from Google Groups are filtered by the country of origin.
Posts from Name-shifter are filtered regardless of account.
Reply's to Name-shifter are filtered as well.

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...
In article , Pete Stavrakoglou
wrote:

That's assumming that Vista needed much fixing. I've been running it
since
it's release with no problems. I switched to 7 two weeks ago.

Is it October 22 already?

Oh, you're running a test version of an operating system and think it's
the real thing.

Windows-7 has already been released to some folk, and it's the final
"release to manufacture" version, not a test, beta or release candidate
version.

David

In article ,
says...

That's assumming that Vista needed much fixing. I've been running it since
it's release with no problems. I switched to 7 two weeks ago.

Is it October 22 already?

Oh, you're running a test version of an operating system and think it's
the real thing.

Where do you read that he "thinks it's the real thing?" He's probably
running the build 7100 release candidate. That's what I'm running. I
know that. He knows that.

So what?

PS: I've been running Win7 since it appeared eight months ago; it was
"the real thing" right out of alpha.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"While liberals wave the Justice Department's report on CIA
interrogation techniques at the rest of the world and tearfully beg them
for forgiveness, the rest of us are wondering why we don't reduce the
deficit by selling the rights to these interrogations on pay-per-view.
The contestants on your average Japanese game show go through more
intense ordeals."
- Doctor Zero