Navalism N4 for 12 years !!!

Tanthalas · September 15, 2011, 03:24:36 PM

Quote from: snip on September 15, 2011, 11:56:09 AM
Excel? LONG LIVE OPEN OFFICE!!!!!!!!

Long live multi lisence Corprate versions of MS Office that my parents pay for.

snip · September 15, 2011, 07:19:05 PM

After seeing screen shots of Windows 8, I am seriously contemplating switching to Linux. When did desktop computers become smartphones? Now I just need to get SS to run over there, and I will be all set...

Logi · September 15, 2011, 08:36:19 PM

That's not suprising - Windows 8 is still a prototype - meaning the UI is at the very volatile stage. In any case, I've used Windows XP for 10 years now, you don't lose much if you don't want to "upgrade" into one of these new OSes.

In any case I don't like using Linux. That may have to do with the fact that pretty much every application I use - and I have to use a few dozen every day - don't support Linux. In addition, if you aren't very familiar with computers and programming / hardware, then it just becomes a hassle. The marginal benefit simply doesn't exceed the marginal cost.

So in short, my advice is just to stick with your OS for another file to ten years. Unless you're using XP, you might want to contemplate switching to Windows 7. The UI's and speed compare favorably to XP.

snip · September 15, 2011, 08:52:14 PM

Currently running a Win7 Laptop about one processor generation out of date. Also work in tech support. There are ways to get things to run over there just takes some effort. I have yet to try getting anything to run, just need some time. Of course will be testing it all in a virtual environment first and making an image of my HHD with Win7 before I nuke it.

Sachmle · September 15, 2011, 09:56:23 PM

I run Win7 on my PC and I've not noticed any issues as of yet. It reminds me a lot of XP and certainly beats the pants off of Vista.

snip · September 15, 2011, 10:16:51 PM

Im fine with 7, and will continue to use it for some time. Just really dont like the direction in which Microsoft is taking things with 8.

Logi · September 16, 2011, 12:01:35 AM

I don't either, but I don't think it's going to go that way. It's important to remember that it's possible that the UI will change dramatically and if it's a flop like Vista, people will simply force Windows to "pop out" another OS.

It's important to note that Windows 8 is mainly being made for computer tablets and tablets like IPad, which is the main reason it looks like a smartphone. If you told them give up on the IPad-Tablet idea, I'm sure they would revert back to standard PC GUIs.

There are ways to get things to run over there - I know... I have done that before. My point is it just isn't worth the time and effort to do it. In put it another way, I could code in binary but it's just not efficient for the productive capacity vs time.

I don't know, I just think that other than toying about in Linux for some neat but pretty useless functions, it isn't worth the time and effort. The time and effort needed to reconfigure 200 applications run in a Linux environment simply outweighs the few, if any advantages, of using Linux.

Desertfox · September 16, 2011, 12:39:17 AM

Am I the only one still using Vista and not having any complaints about it? I do want a windows based tablet/laptop so Windows 8 sounds pretty nice.

Tanthalas · September 16, 2011, 01:07:08 AM

Quote from: Desertfox on September 16, 2011, 12:39:17 AM
Am I the only one still using Vista and not having any complaints about it? I do want a windows based tablet/laptop so Windows 8 sounds pretty nice.

Nope, I run Vista and have absolutly no complaints about it DF, Infact I have never had any complaints about it. Granted I got Vista Ultimate so that might warp my perspective a bit but still it has always worked great for me.

ctwaterman · September 16, 2011, 05:25:25 AM

Well the First Year of Vista were an utter pain in the butt after that things got better.

Things like nobody thought they would have to update the drivers on all existing printers because Vista was 64 bit and all of them were either 16 Bit or 32 Bit.... compatible at best. So a 300 Dollar Color Laser Printer, Scanner and Copier turned into a paper weight for 8 months until HP got around to rewritting and patching the Drivers.

Charles

Logi · September 16, 2011, 07:59:55 AM

Vista's not unuseable, at least not anymore. But it is still significantly slower. Not a bit deal - for example; Windows 7 just boots on average 2-3x as fast Vista - which in turn boots 1.5x as fast as WIndows XP.

But if you were given the choice between the two, I would say go Windows 7 everytime. If you already have Vista installed, I don't know how important you find the faster speed to justify the hassle of an OS reinstall, so I can't say.

Nobody · September 16, 2011, 09:42:18 AM

Really off topic now, aren't we?

I can't agree to that Logi, my 5+ year old WinXP computer boots & shuts down way faster than the new Win7 laptop. Especially if you consider the time Win7 needs before it stops being busy with everything it skipped so it could show you the desktop earlier.

Logi · September 16, 2011, 11:00:27 AM

My 10+ year old WinXp computer booted in 2 minutes to boot and 1 minute to shutdown. The Windows 7 on it does both in 10 seconds. By comparison, if I dual-boot Ubuntu it takes 20-30 seconds, not a big deal. I can't say on Vista because I personally never tried it.

So maybe Win7 is slower for you and your laptop, but for me, it's been quite faster.

There isn't much time that Win7 needs to stop being busy with everything - because I close everything before I press shutdown anyways.

And yes- we've gone a large tangent.

Carthaginian · September 16, 2011, 11:11:32 AM

Win7 boots very fast because it just opens to desktop.
It then does the other 3.0x10^10000 things it forgot to do on the way there.

I can't actually use my Win7 desktop any faster than my old XP box when we get to things like letting all the programs installed boot up and for the computer to 'catch up with itself' enough for actual activity to take place.

Logi · September 16, 2011, 01:55:58 PM

If you have 3.0x10^10000 things to open on the way there - you're opening too many things in the first place. For that matter, open on start-up applications invariably slow the computer down no matter what OS it has.

If it's slow for Win7 but not other OSes, it's not likely it's because Win7 has problems. It usually because of other things installed into it, not Win7. Like Dell like to install other crap onto it's computers, etc. etc. I don't have that sort of problems because I always self-install, self-replace the parts.

If I can load up everything at startup after the welcome screen within 4 seconds, I doubt that Win7 is just in general slow at startup. The solution is simple - just remove all startup running programs from running at startup. You can run it later on a need-to-basis - which is how applications should be run anyways...

My experience is that opening an application that takes 10 seconds after startup will take 30-60 seconds if you try to open it with startup.