Inspiron 580 & 560
in [Dell]
|
Prev: Replacement for Dell 8110?
Next: Inspiron 570
From: BillW50 on 18 Jun 2010 14:50 In news:hvgbkp$gt1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, Daddy typed on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:50:15 -0400: > <lol> It doesn't sound like BillW50 is interested in what other people > have to say. If that is what you thought, you thought wrong! As I am very interested in what people think and always have. > What I find particularly amusing is that many people hated Windows XP > when it was first released and vowed to keep on using Windows 98. I wasn't one of them at all. Although I did like Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98SE, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. I was a big fan of GEOS back 20 years ago. But the developers just ripped off their customers and stopped support and bought yachts and lived the good life. DR did the same nonsense. > Years from now these same people will fill the newsgroups with rants > about Windows "X" and vow to keep on using Windows 7. I can see it as Microsoft with every new version treats users as idiots. So people will get tired of that nonsense and give up on Microsoft. That isn't any surprise to me. > When Firefox was first released it quickly gained a loyal following > because, after all, it was a renegade...and it wasn't Internet > Explorer. Now that Firefox is well-established in the market, the > snipers are coming out once again and the new darling is Google > Chrome. I never liked Firefox at all. As it is very weak in features, doesn't work for many websites, and has a huge security hole that never has been fixed since day one. As Firefox runs DCOM wide open and no user toggle to disable it. > Remember when Toyota was the hero vs. big bad Detroit? Nope. I do remember Toyota rusted out really fast though. And the bodies were so thin, you could cut them open with a pocketknife. > Some people just like to rant. Nope, some people like learning something new. You should try it sometime. > Daddy > Who misses DOS and Lotus 1-2-3 I don't. Every DOS application required its own printer driver. You have one printer and 20 applications, you needed 20 printer drivers. And you had to close down each application so you can open up another one. Not much fun there. Then there were some applications that wanted 500kb or more of available RAM. So you had to remove drivers, TSRs, etc. so you can get everything to fit. No fun there either. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)
From: Ben Myers on 18 Jun 2010 21:19 On 6/18/2010 2:14 PM, BillW50 wrote: > In news:hvga130tae(a)news7.newsguy.com, > Tony Harding typed on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:23:55 -0400: >> Hm, lots fewer computers; but I'm very happy with Win 7 Pro on my XPS >> 9000 (still)& XPS 410 (retired after a couple of months on Win 7 Pro, >> replaced by the 9000). Win 7 was a major improvement from day 1 over >> Vista (killed it and installed XP). > > I only buy Celeron based computers Tony. And I can tell you that Windows > 7 eats up about 20% of a 1.5GHz Celeron just for itself. XP on the same > machines runs just 3% of the CPU power. And on a 900MHz Celeron running > at 633MHz, Windows 7 eats up a whopping 50% of the CPU power at idle. > > And if you play high end games on your computer(s), notice the minimum > specs. Installing them on a XP machine vs. Windows 7. The XP one > requires less speed and memory than it does for Windows 7. So it is a no > brainier Windows 7 eats a lot more of your CPU than XP does. Plus my > processors heat up 20�F hotter under Windows 7. That is strike one! > > Secondly, Windows 7 security is really annoying. And it locks me out > doing simple things like renaming and editing ini files and such. > Windows 7 has renamed some of my folders to its liking. Windows 7 treats > the user as idiots. Sorry I have been using computers since the 70's, > and I find it to be offensive. As I believe if you make software idiot > proof, only an idiot would want to use it. Second strike! > > We experts used to save screen shots in our documentations so the user > knows what to look for. Since Vista and now Windows 7, this can't be > done no more. As users can change the look of the screens so what the > document writer sees and what the user sees can be totally different. > Third strike! > > Need 16GB minimum just for an OS? You got to be kidding? Not even the > movie Avatar eats up all of those bits on DVD. No wonder you need all of > that memory and all of that speed just to feed the bloody OS. Sorry, I > am from the old school. And the OS shouldn't use hardly any CPU power at > all and should work in the background and stay out of the way of the > user. Windows 7 does just the opposite. > > I do understand that there is a market for Windows 7. As about 80% likes > it and abut 20% doesn't. Well I am in the latter camp. And I have been > buying as many Windows XP machines as I can. Because I don't believe > Microsoft could top XP anymore. I guess all of the great MS programmers > must have all retired by now. And we will no longer see anything as good > as XP was ever again. Luckily, XP is still the most popular OS out > there. So there is still some hope. ;-) > Whoa! That's really a blend of retro (10+ years old) and new to be running Windows 7 on 900MHz Celeron system, certainly with no more tnan 512MB, either. How does a 900MHz Celeron run at 633MHz? Did you underclock it by changing the front-side bus speed from 100MHz to 66MHz? Sounds a little masochistic to me... Ben Myers
From: Tony Harding on 19 Jun 2010 00:20 On 06/18/10 13:50, Daddy wrote: > Tony Harding wrote: >> On 06/18/10 12:55, BillW50 wrote: >>> In news:4c1a3440$0$31268$607ed4bc(a)cv.net, >>> Sam Spade typed on Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:42:23 -0400: >>>> Use Works for my business needs and not big into DVDs (watch on our >>>> TV's). Really looking for Windows 7, Works, Quicken and Internet >>>> (have cable). Looks like Windows 7 offers a lot of software in their >>>> OS. >>> >>> Well I am not a big fan of Windows 7, ran Windows 7 Ultimate RC for a >>> year and I went back to XP on seven of my computers for starters. I >>> still have two unopened Windows 7 up on the shelf that I seriously >>> believe that I will never use. They should make okay drink coasters >>> though. ;-) >>> >>> And as far as MS Works is concern, Microsoft killed it. So you better >>> start buying all of the copies that you will need for the rest of your >>> life. Last version was v10 I believe. And I don't think you will find >>> new computers with MS Works on them anymore. >>> >>> The versions of Works I have played with are v2, v3, v4, v4.5, v6, v8, >>> and v9. I tend to like v4.x the best. Although I really use MS Office >>> 2000 more times than not. >>> >>> And I forget which update to Works it was. Either v8 or v9 update that >>> removes that Art stuff. So if you use that, careful of those updates. MS >>> gave the reason at the time that they no longer support it. Well ok, no >>> reason to remove it from one's computer though. Geez! >> >> Hm, lots fewer computers; but I'm very happy with Win 7 Pro on my XPS >> 9000 (still) & XPS 410 (retired after a couple of months on Win 7 Pro, >> replaced by the 9000). Win 7 was a major improvement from day 1 over >> Vista (killed it and installed XP). >> > > <lol> It doesn't sound like BillW50 is interested in what other people > have to say. > > What I find particularly amusing is that many people hated Windows XP > when it was first released and vowed to keep on using Windows 98. > > Years from now these same people will fill the newsgroups with rants > about Windows "X" and vow to keep on using Windows 7. > > When Firefox was first released it quickly gained a loyal following > because, after all, it was a renegade...and it wasn't Internet Explorer. > Now that Firefox is well-established in the market, the snipers are > coming out once again and the new darling is Google Chrome. Not here, downloaded Chrome when it was first released and hated it! Found it very invasive (please don't ask details -- it was a couple of years or more ago). TonyH
From: BillW50 on 19 Jun 2010 15:39
In news:hvh5u8$ode$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, Ben Myers typed on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:19:02 -0400: > On 6/18/2010 2:14 PM, BillW50 wrote: >> In news:hvga130tae(a)news7.newsguy.com, >> Tony Harding typed on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:23:55 -0400: >>> Hm, lots fewer computers; but I'm very happy with Win 7 Pro on my >>> XPS 9000 (still)& XPS 410 (retired after a couple of months on Win >>> 7 Pro, replaced by the 9000). Win 7 was a major improvement from >>> day 1 over Vista (killed it and installed XP). >> >> I only buy Celeron based computers Tony. And I can tell you that >> Windows 7 eats up about 20% of a 1.5GHz Celeron just for itself. XP >> on the same machines runs just 3% of the CPU power. And on a 900MHz >> Celeron running at 633MHz, Windows 7 eats up a whopping 50% of the >> CPU power at idle. And if you play high end games on your >> computer(s), notice the >> minimum specs. Installing them on a XP machine vs. Windows 7. The XP >> one requires less speed and memory than it does for Windows 7. So it >> is a no brainier Windows 7 eats a lot more of your CPU than XP does. >> Plus my processors heat up 20�F hotter under Windows 7. That is >> strike one! Secondly, Windows 7 security is really annoying. And it >> locks me out >> doing simple things like renaming and editing ini files and such. >> Windows 7 has renamed some of my folders to its liking. Windows 7 >> treats the user as idiots. Sorry I have been using computers since >> the 70's, and I find it to be offensive. As I believe if you make >> software idiot proof, only an idiot would want to use it. Second >> strike! We experts used to save screen shots in our documentations so >> the >> user knows what to look for. Since Vista and now Windows 7, this >> can't be done no more. As users can change the look of the screens >> so what the document writer sees and what the user sees can be >> totally different. Third strike! >> >> Need 16GB minimum just for an OS? You got to be kidding? Not even the >> movie Avatar eats up all of those bits on DVD. No wonder you need >> all of that memory and all of that speed just to feed the bloody OS. >> Sorry, I am from the old school. And the OS shouldn't use hardly any >> CPU power at all and should work in the background and stay out of >> the way of the user. Windows 7 does just the opposite. >> >> I do understand that there is a market for Windows 7. As about 80% >> likes it and abut 20% doesn't. Well I am in the latter camp. And I >> have been buying as many Windows XP machines as I can. Because I >> don't believe Microsoft could top XP anymore. I guess all of the >> great MS programmers must have all retired by now. And we will no >> longer see anything as good as XP was ever again. Luckily, XP is >> still the most popular OS out there. So there is still some hope. ;-) >> > > Whoa! That's really a blend of retro (10+ years old) and new to be > running Windows 7 on 900MHz Celeron system, certainly with no more > tnan 512MB, either. How does a 900MHz Celeron run at 633MHz? Did you > underclock it by changing the front-side bus speed from 100MHz to > 66MHz? Sounds a little masochistic to me... Ben Myers Nope, those first Asus netbooks (the first netbooks back in 2007 and 2008) used 900MHz Celerons (701, 702, and 900 models anyway). And they came stock underclocked to 633MHz. And I use the max memory in them at 2GB (there is only one slot). And the front bus runs at 400MHz. There is an utility called eeectl that allows you to take control of the CPU speed and you can ramp it up back to 900MHz if you like. But frankly very little extra performance is noticed and all it does basically is to create more heat. And it is virtually impossible to cook the CPU running at 633MHz. And many have disconnected the fan since you really don't need it in cooler climates. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3 |