suggestions on upgrading to a new pc

In article ,
says...

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.

It's not "Windows" that keeps breaking, it's the awful cluelessness of
users coupled with the fact that no hacker or cracker with half a brain
aims his malware at a system with 5% of user share (Apple) or
effectively zero percent of user share (Linux).

Visiting a pr0n site, user? You're owned. Playing some online poker?
Owned. Downloading pirated stuff? Pwned. Using XP and haven't updated
since George Bush's first term? ++Pwned++.

I deal with these lusers every day. They bring me their systems and
their local machine hive is starting 100+ chunklets of ****ware they've
accreted over the last year. ****, I've seen machines with so many
"toolbars" in IE6 (!!!) that the user is left with about a 200 pixel
gunsight to view their pr0n through.

Sometimes, the system is so monkey-****ed that the time-effective
solution is to flatten it and re-install. But 90% of the time, the
luser has just gotten hold of the meanest, stupidest, easiest-to-scrape-
out malware. It's pretty easy to un-**** things and get them going
again.

But they never listen. They're back in six months.

--
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

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:45:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Fotoguy wrote:


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. 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.

However the Unix world for the most part uses X to support the GUI,
while Apple has their own GUI that does not run on top of X, so there
are indeed "Mac" calls.

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?)

Also, OSX doesn't use the BSD Unix-like monolithic kernel, but the Mach
microkernel that Apple has modified for use in OSX. So, how much do you
have to change the foundation Unix-like OS before it becomes a unique-
unto-itself OS?

Maybe, we are both right and both wrong, at the same time, depending on
which calls are being made. ;-)

FWIW, I've read that the originators of Mach stopped development on it a
couple years ago, and that Apple has taken it over, and the modified code
is available to anyone under the original Open Source license.


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

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:58:45 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:

Fotoguy wrote:
nospam wrote:
Fotoguy

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. ;-)

I've worked for several major software companies, including Adobe, and
the fact is that all software ships with bugs. Most of the bugs are
inconsequential (a pixel too wide on the screen, a glitch when the
planets line up just right) but it's just way too expensive to eliminate
all bugs.

A bit of humorous sarcasm; hence, the smiley ;-). You must have missed
it.

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

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:47:17 -0400, nospam wrote:

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.

You're way too defensive. It gets in the way of your having a good laugh.

In general, you are right. Crossover doesn't run well all Windows apps
that run under it. In fact, most Windows apps don't run on it at all,
particularly games. However, for those apps that carry a "Gold" rating,
they run just as well under Crossover as they do under Windows. And for
those Linux and OSX users who only need to run a Windows app every now
and then, doesn't it makes more sense to use Crossover, if the app will
run under it, than buying and installing Windows either as a dual boot or
in a virtual machine?

Now if your livelihood comes from running some Windows app all day, every
day, then run Windows. You'll get no arguments from me. I've never
represented Crossover or WINE as a Windows replacement or substitute.
Crossover is just a convenient little utility for those times when a
Windows app is needed, and you don't run Windows.


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

Fotoguy wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:45:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Fotoguy wrote:


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.
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.

However the Unix world for the most part uses X to support the GUI,
while Apple has their own GUI that does not run on top of X, so there
are indeed "Mac" calls.

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?

Also, OSX doesn't use the BSD Unix-like monolithic kernel, but the
Mach microkernel that Apple has modified for use in OSX. So, how
much do you have to change the foundation Unix-like OS before it
becomes a unique- unto-itself OS?

One can argue nomenclature until the cows come home--the bottom line is that
Mac code that uses the GUI has to be rewritten to compile on Linux, BSD,
System V, or any other Unix variant, unless you write the Mac code for X in
which case you're taking a performance hit.

Maybe, we are both right and both wrong, at the same time, depending
on which calls are being made. ;-)

FWIW, I've read that the originators of Mach stopped development on
it a couple years ago, and that Apple has taken it over, and the
modified code is available to anyone under the original Open Source
license.

"J. Clarke" writes:
the bottom line is that Mac code that uses the GUI has to be rewritten
to compile on Linux, BSD, System V, or any other Unix variant, unless
you write the Mac code for X in which case you're taking a performance
hit.

There's also "gnustep", which is a free software implementation of
nextstep, which the mac's cocoa gui interface is descended from.

The _degree_ to which they're compatible, I dunno, but I do know it's
possible to write software which works on both cocoa and gnustep.

-Miles

--
Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of
this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

"ray" wrote in message
...
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.

yes but the advantage there is knowing whether his system is slow because
it's
old or whether it's slow because of all the crap his system has acquired
over the
last few years.
Few people seem to realise that computers don;t slow down over time.
Your 1GHz doesn't fall to 500MHz, what happens is that later software does
more
in the background such as fancy test smoothing or reflections or animations
especially those annoying sites with ads.
Those updates programs that were previously happy with 1GB of RAM may
now require 1.5GB RAM.
In that case if you can't afford or don't wish to buy a new computer
use early/previous versions of the software.

"Fotoguy" wrote in message
...
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).

If there's a market for a product someone will construct/build or write one.
I'm pretty sure there's a defrag tool for Mac OS X , but virtually all those
that know about the Mac OS say it's unnecessary and advise against using
such a product in a similar way that some companies sell and market
anti-virus products for the Mac OS X, but as yet they aren't;'t needed and
usually cause problems, but they still make people profits so will be sold.
It's a bit like selling condoms to the Pope. ;-)

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:
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.

I think that you're a cynic who likes to complain.

Well I think he could be right.
But M$ seem to want to ditch Vista as quick as possible there must be some
reason.
Hopefully windoze 7 will be better than vista, can it be worse, well we'll
wait and see.
Personally I prefer XP as my preferred windows OS.
But at home I have my own computers and run what I want rather than what
I'm told is the best OS and I've chosen Mac OS X Leopard, and eagerly
awaiting snow
leopard.

On 2009-08-25 05:27:52 -0700, "whisky-dave" said:


"Fotoguy" wrote in message
...
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).

If there's a market for a product someone will construct/build or write one.
I'm pretty sure there's a defrag tool for Mac OS X , but virtually all those
that know about the Mac OS say it's unnecessary and advise against using
such a product in a similar way that some companies sell and market
anti-virus products for the Mac OS X, but as yet they aren't;'t needed and
usually cause problems, but they still make people profits so will be sold.
It's a bit like selling condoms to the Pope. ;-)

Correct, there are products which provide defrag for Macs, and it is
not necessary.
With drives formated in Mac OS Extended (Journaled or not) The surest
problem fixer using a Utility such as Disc Warrior is to rebuild the
Disc Directory and fix Permissions.

--
Regards,

Savageduck