suggestions on upgrading to a new pc

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

Oh, *somebody* wrote degrag tools. But there is no degfrag tool
in the GNU tools software that is distributed with every Linux
distribution.

Is there even one single distribution that includes one of those
defrag tools? (Serious question, because I really do not know.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Fotoguy
wrote:

Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4. Or
CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes.

but not perfectly.

They didn't even run perfectly under Windows. ;-)

nothing runs 'perfectly' but they run a whole lot better in windows or
osx than they do under wine or crossover.

it translates to linux, but it doesn't translate anything to mac api
calls, and why would it since photoshop, lightroom and aperture
already run natively on a mac.

Crossover Mac is designed to run Windows apps on a Mac. If that app
already exist natively for the Mac, yes, there is no need for
Crossover, but if that app doesn't, then you can. Evidently, there
must be enough of a need, otherwise, Crossover Mac wouldn't exist.

crossover translates windows api calls to unix api calls, not mac api
calls.

Yes, right, since Apple used NetBSD, a Unix-like OS, as the foundation of
OSX, there are no "Mac" calls anymore, technically.

there certainly are still mac api calls in os x and photoshop on osx
uses them extensively, the same as just about every other mac
application.

And strictly
speaking those would be Unix-like calls, since Linux and OSX are not Unix
or Unix clones, just Unix-like OSes. There are significant differences,
otherwise there would be patent and copyright issues.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...d-receives-uni
x-03-certification.ars

Mac OS X Leopard is now UNIX 03 certified, joining a very short list
of official UNIX 03 vendors. This ultimately makes Leopard a more
attractive server option for business and enterprise uses.

Also, FWIW, Crossover was originally called Crossover Office and was a
highly specialized version of WINE designed specifically to run MS Office
under Linux. And it worked very, very well, too. But people discovered
that it would also run other Windows apps with varying degrees of
success. So, over the past few years Crossover Office evolved into
Crossover. It worked better when it just ran Office, virtually 100%
compatible. At least, until MS would come out with a new and improved
version of Office. ;-)

it might handle office well, but for other apps it's nowhere near 100%
compatible. as you noted above, photoshop cs3 and cs4 do not work.

(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ray wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

And using the computer will be slower from day one because you'll have
to spend more time taking care of the OS.

How is that? I've found just exactly the opposite to be true. No virus
scans, no disk defragmentation needed, . . .

All file systems in common use are subject to fragmentation. Some
OS's make defragmentation invisible. Some require a little more
setup.

All OS's are subject to virus infection. Some are targeted more than
others.

Total bull**** on each count.

Before you try that gambit you should make sure that you have your
facts straight. You didn't.

There are file systems where fragmentation simply is not
a problem.

If you weren't an idiot you'd have noticed that I didn't refer to ALL
file systems.

What you actually did say is quoted above. "All file
systems in common use ..."

Which does not refer to all files systems, idiot.

Wake up.

Stop being a stupid ass.

My set (all modern unix filesystems) is a
superset of your "in common use" set.

No, moron, it isn't.

Yes, Mr. Fischer, it is.

I listed the three most common file systems. Unix file systems are a
minority. And sisnce you apparently don't even realize that there are
several differnt file systems used with Unix OSs it's clear that
you're just an idiot spouting religious crap.

What a hoot. You said, and lets quote you again,

"All file systems in common use are subject to
fragmentation."

The facts are that there are *many* commonly used
filesystems today where fragmentation simply is not
significant. Some automatically reduce fragmentation,
but the primary significance is that even a highly
fragmented filesystem does *not* cause a problem for a
well designed kernel and a well designed filesystem.

Keep trying with the insults. And continue with claims
that I don't even know there are many Unix FS's. It's
all hilariously self descriptive of *you*.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
ray wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:45:10 -0400, Giftzwerg wrote:

What would probably be the best solution for the OP would be to backup all
his data, reformat the HD & reinstall Windows, PS, etc. I'd bet that that
would fix his speed problem.

backing up first:-
I'd use adware or something to check for ads running, and do a virus scan,
check for fragmentation and that I had the latest service pack for windows
and other installed apps
if I had updated anything I'd make sure I had enough RAM, as sometimes later
versions
of software like Photoshop need extra RAM. Even a slow graphics card could
slow things down on an old machine. I'd check to see if the
hardware looked OK from the inside, perhaps a fan has stopped or a heatsink
fallen off.
I've know that to cause problems.

Then I'd probably find little difference and still not be happy so I'd do
what
you suggested, closely followed by lots of cussing and swearing at windoze.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:26:52 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

ray wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:45:10 -0400, Giftzwerg wrote:

In article ,
says...

The guy *already uses CS4 and Lightroom*; he's already chosen the
two flat-out best photo-editing tools out there. That he throw that
investment in time, money, and effort out the window just to
experience the brilliance of Linux is so over-the-top insane that
anyone who suggests it should have his bones broken with an iron
rod.
The guy also has a painfully slow computer that shouldn't be
No. Wrong. He has an over one year old PC that he's looking to
upgrade:

"machine is slowing a bit around 1 1/2 yr old looking to upgrade to a
new one"

See, I keep the hardware updated regularly - something that's
*amazingly* easy to do in Windows. I'm running dual-quad and SLI in a
32 GB 64-bit OS with a 4TB RAID-5, and things work swimmingly.

It's actually rather cheap.

This setup doesn't "slow down" like the Linux fanboys imagine as the
core of their mythology, it runs like a ****ing rocket. Indeed,
replacing the resource-heavy Vista with the Win7 RC has meant an
almost unbelievable performance bonaza.

OP indicated it did. With the specs of his current system, there is
really no need to do a hardware upgrade - an OS upgrade should be
sufficient - that's why I recommended it.

What would probably be the best solution for the OP would be to backup
all his data, reformat the HD & reinstall Windows, PS, etc. I'd bet that
that would fix his speed problem.

Great then he can do it again when it slows down again.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:44:16 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

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

Oh, *somebody* wrote degrag tools. But there is no degfrag tool in the
GNU tools software that is distributed with every Linux distribution.

Is there even one single distribution that includes one of those defrag
tools? (Serious question, because I really do not know.)

Over the years, I've come across a couple Linux-based Recovery or System
Rescue CDs that have defrag available, but it's rare if such a utility is
included. I've yet to come across a Linux distro that includes one by
default, but at over 300 distributions "out there" I have yet to look at
them all (and never will).


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

Fotoguy wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:44:16 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

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

Oh, *somebody* wrote degrag tools. But there is no degfrag tool in the
GNU tools software that is distributed with every Linux distribution.

Is there even one single distribution that includes one of those defrag
tools? (Serious question, because I really do not know.)

Over the years, I've come across a couple Linux-based Recovery or System
Rescue CDs that have defrag available, but it's rare if such a utility is
included. I've yet to come across a Linux distro that includes one by
default, but at over 300 distributions "out there" I have yet to look at
them all (and never will).

The point remains the same: they are not useful.

People who use them are wasting their time.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:51:28 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Fotoguy wrote:

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.

Not me. I have no delusions. Windows 7 is still going to be Windows.
It will just be an incremental improvement over Vista just like all other
versions of Windows have been to their immediate predecessors.

I will still have friends asking me to come over to help them "fix" their
systems. I wish MS would just come out with an OS that's not always
breaking or inherently flawed. I would have so much more free time. ;-)


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

In article ,
says...

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.

Not me. I have no delusions. Windows 7 is still going to be Windows.
It will just be an incremental improvement over Vista just like all other
versions of Windows have been to their immediate predecessors.

I dunno, guys. I've been using Win7 since the beta version, and then on
to the RC, and I have to say I've never seen a "beta" OS that was so
clean and downright excellent. Apple's chucking of their whole MacOS in
favor of Unix still ranks as the best upgrade in OS history, but it's
almost amazing that Win7 uses *less* resources than either of its
immediate ancestors.

I upgraded a netbook from Ubuntu to XP to Win7, and the performance is
hands-down best in Win7 - not to mention utility. Try running Vista or
OSX on a netbook with 1G RAM, and you'll see what I mean. A hackintosh
setup on a netbook bottoms out pretty quick, and Vista shudder
flatlines.

Win7 runs like a rocket on a netbook.

Win7, I think, will prove the longstanding Microsoft "rule of threes."
XP was buggy from the start, became a security cluster****, and then
settled down to mediocrity. Vista is much more secure, but was so
ponderous that no one got excited about it. Win7 just amazes people.

Linux? DOA on the user desktop. Three things sank it:

(1) Until really modern distos, it was for geeks only. "Oh, you can't
get FreeApp 4.2 running? Ah, you have to have the 4.5.4.5.6 version of
glibc installed. See this HowTo translated from Swedish." That's
getting better only now, faaaaaaar too late.

(2) Fanboys realized far too late that drivers were Linux's Waterloo;
Windows and Apple users walked out of Best Buy with their new gizmo
here secure in the knowledge that the PC and Mac were fully supported.
Linux users wallowed in a hell of incompatibility and partial
compatibility and workarounds involving insane laughter CUPS.

(3) The good stuff only runs on Windows and the Mac. People will spend
$300 for Lightroom and $400 for Aperture and $600 for Photoshop *for a
reason*. Toyota can only sell you a Camry for $25,000 because Honda
won't give you an Accord for free. GIMP ain't that kind of parity.

--
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

Fotoguy wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:51:28 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Fotoguy wrote:

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.

Not me. I have no delusions. Windows 7 is still going to be Windows.
It will just be an incremental improvement over Vista just like all
other versions of Windows have been to their immediate predecessors.

I will still have friends asking me to come over to help them "fix"
their systems. I wish MS would just come out with an OS that's not
always breaking or inherently flawed. I would have so much more free
time. ;-)

I really wish that people would quit spouting this particular bull****. If
Windows is "always breaking" on your system then you have some kind of a
hardware or configuration problem that you should correct.