Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Darth Loo-knee on 02 March 2008, 18:31:36
-
I click onto Defrag and I get the box up with Continue or Cancel, I click continue and it is asthough i have clicked cancel as it just goes off >:(
Anyone know what do with it other than smashin it up ;D
-
No graphical bit like under XP ;)
-
i use norton speed disc, try norton utilities, ive been using it for yrs now and find its a lot better than built in system tools. i have xp, i cant get to grips with vista.
-
Wouldn't install anything Symantec have buggered up, Norton included, on anyone's machine, let alone my own!
-
Wouldn't install anything Symantec have buggered up, Norton included, on anyone's machine, let alone my own!
exactly..
-
No-one got any clues what to do then :'(
-
No graphical bit like under XP ;)
I think TB means it works in the background. You're luck to have such 21st C stealth technology. Watching all the bits move about has got to be well sad. (But strangely compelling).
More here:
http://www.thegline.com/windows/2006/11/about-vista-defrags-sudden-los.html
Jim
-
No-one got any clues what to do then :'(
Just did mine manually, works as expected.
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
-
I click onto the defrag icon, i then get a box come up that says "windows needs your permisson to continue" i then have two smaller boxes one says "Continue" the other "Cancel"
I click onto continue and it just goes away asthough I have clicked cancel :-?
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
-
You could try 'right-click' on Disk Defragmenter and select 'Run as administrator'.....that might get `round it being a 'permissions issue'.
Anti-virus programs can effect registry changes when installed that can have undesired effects.....`any changes made recently?
Finally, a recent Windows update might`ve caused the problem.
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
-
You could try 'right-click' on Disk Defragmenter and select 'Run as administrator'.....that might get `round it being a 'permissions issue'.
Anti-virus programs can effect registry changes when installed that can have undesired effects.....`any changes made recently?
Finally, a recent Windows update might`ve caused the problem.
I have tried that, i clicked onto Run Administrator, then the same box comes up with Continue and Cancel, as soon as I click onto Continue it goes.... just as if i had clicked on cancel :-?
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
right click on task bar, seelct Task Manager or CTL-ALT-DEL and select Task Manager
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
right click on task bar, seelct Task Manager or CTL-ALT-DEL and select Task Manager
Ok done that what now? :-?
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
right click on task bar, seelct Task Manager or CTL-ALT-DEL and select Task Manager
Ok done that what now? :-?
Click on Processes Tab, is defrag.exe running?
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
right click on task bar, seelct Task Manager or CTL-ALT-DEL and select Task Manager
Ok done that what now? :-?
Click on Processes Tab, is defrag.exe running?
NO
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
right click on task bar, seelct Task Manager or CTL-ALT-DEL and select Task Manager
Ok done that what now? :-?
Click on Processes Tab, is defrag.exe running?
Knew you'd have a hard time asking LK a question like that ;D :D
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
right click on task bar, seelct Task Manager or CTL-ALT-DEL and select Task Manager
Ok done that what now? :-?
Click on Processes Tab, is defrag.exe running?
NO
Presumably you've restarted the system?
-
Shut up ::)
-
Haven't got Vista but XP runs a cut down version from a command shell.
Start - Run - type CMD
A new window opens - type defrag c:
Hope this helps.
-
Haven't got Vista but XP runs a cut down version from a command shell.
Start - Run - type CMD
A new window opens - type defrag c:
Hope this helps.
trired that and it says that you need to use an administor or something like that :-?
-
Haven't got Vista but XP runs a cut down version from a command shell.
Start - Run - type CMD
A new window opens - type defrag c:
Hope this helps.
trired that and it says that you need to use an administor or something like that :-?
That means, let the wife take over ::)
-
Well when i usually defrag i click continue and a box cmes up with defraging click to cancel and a little circle turns to show its doing something i think....
But gettin none of that now :( can't even blame the girols as they ain't been on it ::)
is defrag.exe a running process?
....Check task manager. :y
Where is that? Device manager do you mean?
right click on task bar, seelct Task Manager or CTL-ALT-DEL and select Task Manager
Ok done that what now? :-?
Click on Processes Tab, is defrag.exe running?
NO
Presumably you've restarted the system?
Just restarted but still not working :-?
-
Still got the box it came in :P
-
Still got the box it came in :P
Oh very drole, just going up the garage to find a hammer ::)
-
Simple, borrow my usb external enclosure then plug it into an xp box and defrag from there. ;D
-
Still got the box it came in :P
Oh very drole, just going up the garage to find a hammer ::)
You found Sammy? !!! :D
-
Hurrry up and buy XP while it is still for sale
-
Hurrry up and buy XP while it is still for sale
ROFLMAO
go buy a mac.
it's got a proper OS, and does the defrag for you as part of the housekeeping.
(amongst other things... )
but ditto the Symantec advice... avoid like the plague, EVEN on a Mac...
Runs, gets coat and ducks out the back sharpish
-
I click onto Defrag and I get the box up with Continue or Cancel, I click continue and it is asthough i have clicked cancel as it just goes off >:(
Anyone know what do with it other than smashin it up ;D
As per MaxV6 go buy an Apple Mac. Mac Mini's aren't that expensive and, if you absolutely insist, will run Microsoft Windows often a lot better than a Windows PC. Although if you use your PC for gaming then the Mini would probably not be powerful enough in the graphic card department which means moving up to an iMac or Mac Pro - a lot more expensive. :) ;) :y
-
Some useful articles
Time to update (http://dotnet.org.za/codingsanity/archive/2007/12/14/review-windows-xp.aspx)
Useful (http://icrontic.com/articles/upgrade_vista_to_xp)
and this (http://www.zoliblog.com/2007/11/24/windows-xp-twice-as-fast-as-vista/)
-
Hurrry up and buy XP while it is still for sale
ROFLMAO
go buy a mac.
it's got a proper OS, and does the defrag for you as part of the housekeeping.
(amongst other things... )
but ditto the Symantec advice... avoid like the plague, EVEN on a Mac...
Runs, gets coat and ducks out the back sharpish
:y :y :y
and the only argument i have to face is..........
you cant right click with a mac......
if that's the biggest issue, i can live with that
-
I have a nice shiny XP Pro licence here and it is mine
-
Thanks or all your help with XP but i am after help with Vista
-
I have a nice shiny XP Pro licence here and it is mine
you dont really, as its oem, and you've changed your system, so its invalid ;)
I have a few retails here, used, but being retail, transferable ;). I have a few Vista Home Premium's here as well, unused, but oem...
-
Thanks or all your help with XP but i am after help with Vista
Read the top link - you need to upgrade, there is a comparison there between Vista and its replacement
-
Thanks or all your help with XP but i am after help with Vista
Read the top link - you need to upgrade, there is a comparison there between Vista and its replacement
for every link you can find from the xp fanboys (who normally think its clever to knock vista (and xp when that came out), in same way that people who don't understand Linux reckon thats a better desktop) i can find dozens more to show why vista is so much better.
Assuming you are running modern hardware, vista is hard to beat for businesses - and i assume you are as you're running xp pro, so are reliant on active directory (may as well run home if not using AD).
As for non business owners, UAC on its own is enough to recommend vista, as many home users think running with admin rights all the time is some kind of penile extension. Unfortunately, Windows' biggest flaw is all the 3rd party developers out there too stupid to program correctly, hence constantly hitting the UAC prompt, though this is improving now.
Don't knock Vista, simply as you don't know how to use it - and remember its proved reliable and stable even before sp1.
-
No-one got any clues what to do then :'(
If it's been done and is up to date, don't think it'll do anything, assume it's done... is your disc partitioned... i.e. OS & Data... C=OS D=data for example.... does it do the same on the d drive?
Must admit Vista is just about OK with me... prefer XP hands down...
DC
-
Thanks or all your help with XP but i am after help with Vista
Read the top link - you need to upgrade, there is a comparison there between Vista and its replacement
for every link you can find from the xp fanboys (who normally think its clever to knock vista (and xp when that came out), in same way that people who don't understand Linux reckon thats a better desktop) i can find dozens more to show why vista is so much better.
Assuming you are running modern hardware, vista is hard to beat for businesses - and i assume you are as you're running xp pro, so are reliant on active directory (may as well run home if not using AD).
As for non business owners, UAC on its own is enough to recommend vista, as many home users think running with admin rights all the time is some kind of penile extension. Unfortunately, Windows' biggest flaw is all the 3rd party developers out there too stupid to program correctly, hence constantly hitting the UAC prompt, though this is improving now.
Don't knock Vista, simply as you don't know how to use it - and remember its proved reliable and stable even before sp1.
There are other reasons to run XP Pro not just Active Directory - just can't remember what.
Anyway XP works, quite well, no need to replace.
ANyway how do you do full screen DOS in VIsta?
-
ALL of our customers are sticking to XP, some are still 98 but our latest software runs on XP and 2000. The same OSes run our DOS software fine, with no real issues apart from the clock going into sleep when a DOS programme is in background.
In our office mainly XP, 1 2000, 2 98 - I have 98 and XP under my desk.
One customer tested Vista but found XP preferable to use and they have their own IT department, they tried our latest software and we were blocked on registry, the other company they used (on one site didn't work at all).
Vista is basically an answer without a question.
As to software programmes do not get written overnight, our just ending life cycle software lasted for 14 years, the windows software has taken 3 years so far and is still being added to. There are loads of vertical market software solutions of a great age, this is how it goes.
Of course we could all outsource to programmer farms in India - but then what is the point of being in business.
What is interesting is that it is only the PC market which forces frequent rewrites, whereas not much changes on minis and mainframes.
-
Thanks or all your help with XP but i am after help with Vista
Read the top link - you need to upgrade, there is a comparison there between Vista and its replacement
for every link you can find from the xp fanboys (who normally think its clever to knock vista (and xp when that came out), in same way that people who don't understand Linux reckon thats a better desktop) i can find dozens more to show why vista is so much better.
Assuming you are running modern hardware, vista is hard to beat for businesses - and i assume you are as you're running xp pro, so are reliant on active directory (may as well run home if not using AD).
As for non business owners, UAC on its own is enough to recommend vista, as many home users think running with admin rights all the time is some kind of penile extension. Unfortunately, Windows' biggest flaw is all the 3rd party developers out there too stupid to program correctly, hence constantly hitting the UAC prompt, though this is improving now.
Don't knock Vista, simply as you don't know how to use it - and remember its proved reliable and stable even before sp1.
There are other reasons to run XP Pro not just Active Directory - just can't remember what.
Anyway XP works, quite well, no need to replace.
ANyway how do you do full screen DOS in VIsta?
No other reason to run XP Pro other than AD.
As for DOS. Why the hell is anyone still running 16bit crap in this day and age?
XP is obviously fine for you. IIRC, you run an old slowish P4? XP is probably better for that as its quite an old system.
-
Thanks or all your help with XP but i am after help with Vista
Read the top link - you need to upgrade, there is a comparison there between Vista and its replacement
for every link you can find from the xp fanboys (who normally think its clever to knock vista (and xp when that came out), in same way that people who don't understand Linux reckon thats a better desktop) i can find dozens more to show why vista is so much better.
Assuming you are running modern hardware, vista is hard to beat for businesses - and i assume you are as you're running xp pro, so are reliant on active directory (may as well run home if not using AD).
As for non business owners, UAC on its own is enough to recommend vista, as many home users think running with admin rights all the time is some kind of penile extension. Unfortunately, Windows' biggest flaw is all the 3rd party developers out there too stupid to program correctly, hence constantly hitting the UAC prompt, though this is improving now.
Don't knock Vista, simply as you don't know how to use it - and remember its proved reliable and stable even before sp1.
There are other reasons to run XP Pro not just Active Directory - just can't remember what.
Anyway XP works, quite well, no need to replace.
ANyway how do you do full screen DOS in VIsta?
No other reason to run XP Pro other than AD.
As for DOS. Why the hell is anyone still running 16bit crap in this day and age?
XP is obviously fine for you. IIRC, you run an old slowish P4? XP is probably better for that as its quite an old system.
DOS apps - there are still thousands out there - they work and work well - why replace with software which doesn't do the job, we have replaced windows software as late as last year with DOS software and the users got a lot better system, just because it is not using the Windows API does not make it obsolete.
Since we have not yet converted some of our apps to Windows we are still installing DOS apps this week.
So what if some of our competitors are all Windows? so what if their pricing is less flexible, so what if the first run we got 5% less waste on a run (the optimiser core code is identical DOS & Windows).
Like most small software houses our systems evolve, and our first windows apps are already out of date, but will be replaced before some of the DOS sections.
Our windows conversion is taking so long as we are converting the best DOS app in our industry.
Our windows version we feel will be interim until we move to a .net platform.
As our office manager notived at a hotel - they were using what looked and felt like a DOS Clipper application, newish computers but software which does the job
-
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx
A few there remote desktop, multiprocessor (my next will be).
Also I can connect it to the office network if necessary
-
ALL of our customers are sticking to XP, some are still 98 but our latest software runs on XP and 2000. The same OSes run our DOS software fine, with no real issues apart from the clock going into sleep when a DOS programme is in background.
In our office mainly XP, 1 2000, 2 98 - I have 98 and XP under my desk.
One customer tested Vista but found XP preferable to use and they have their own IT department, they tried our latest software and we were blocked on registry, the other company they used (on one site didn't work at all).
Vista is basically an answer without a question.
As to software programmes do not get written overnight, our just ending life cycle software lasted for 14 years, the windows software has taken 3 years so far and is still being added to. There are loads of vertical market software solutions of a great age, this is how it goes.
Of course we could all outsource to programmer farms in India - but then what is the point of being in business.
What is interesting is that it is only the PC market which forces frequent rewrites, whereas not much changes on minis and mainframes.
Trouble with XP, is its old. 7yrs old. Way past retirement. And written in a bad era for MS, where market pressures force them to release prematurely. The primary reason Vista was late was to fix XP as best they could (XP2 is a major, major update, and hence should not be installed on a used system, but put on clean). In an effort to make it more Win9x (supposed to be merged with W2K, but couldn't get it working in time), its severely kludged, and suffers from thread races.
If your software is getting stopped at registry, you have been poorly programming - you need to brush up on the right places to store data ;). All but one of my apps I've written has not issues, as I follow the rules (the one that doesn't follow the rules, I modify registry permissions to that part of registry).
Nobody, but nobody should be using anything earlier than Windows XP in any environment now.
Minis aren't really that popular any more - Vax was probably the last of the true minis, and don't exist anymore. I guess AS400 might almost be considered a mini :-/. Things tend to stay more stable in the server market, though there have been changes that can break things in most OSes. Novell is the only really big shifter, going from the horribly fludged NetWare core to Suse.
As for other desktops, Windows is relatively stable. Macs have gone through massive changes, from 68000 to PowerPC to i386/x64, and from Mac OS to OSX, each requiring big rewrites (the emulators did a reasonable job though)...
-
Thanks or all your help with XP but i am after help with Vista
Read the top link - you need to upgrade, there is a comparison there between Vista and its replacement
for every link you can find from the xp fanboys (who normally think its clever to knock vista (and xp when that came out), in same way that people who don't understand Linux reckon thats a better desktop) i can find dozens more to show why vista is so much better.
Assuming you are running modern hardware, vista is hard to beat for businesses - and i assume you are as you're running xp pro, so are reliant on active directory (may as well run home if not using AD).
As for non business owners, UAC on its own is enough to recommend vista, as many home users think running with admin rights all the time is some kind of penile extension. Unfortunately, Windows' biggest flaw is all the 3rd party developers out there too stupid to program correctly, hence constantly hitting the UAC prompt, though this is improving now.
Don't knock Vista, simply as you don't know how to use it - and remember its proved reliable and stable even before sp1.
There are other reasons to run XP Pro not just Active Directory - just can't remember what.
Anyway XP works, quite well, no need to replace.
ANyway how do you do full screen DOS in VIsta?
No other reason to run XP Pro other than AD.
As for DOS. Why the hell is anyone still running 16bit crap in this day and age?
XP is obviously fine for you. IIRC, you run an old slowish P4? XP is probably better for that as its quite an old system.
DOS apps - there are still thousands out there - they work and work well - why replace with software which doesn't do the job, we have replaced windows software as late as last year with DOS software and the users got a lot better system, just because it is not using the Windows API does not make it obsolete.
Since we have not yet converted some of our apps to Windows we are still installing DOS apps this week.
So what if some of our competitors are all Windows? so what if their pricing is less flexible, so what if the first run we got 5% less waste on a run (the optimiser core code is identical DOS & Windows).
Like most small software houses our systems evolve, and our first windows apps are already out of date, but will be replaced before some of the DOS sections.
Our windows conversion is taking so long as we are converting the best DOS app in our industry.
Our windows version we feel will be interim until we move to a .net platform.
As our office manager notived at a hotel - they were using what looked and felt like a DOS Clipper application, newish computers but software which does the job
I see loads of DOS applications on my travels is some very big organisations too....
Amazing!
-
No-one got any clues what to do then :'(
Leave well alone mate ive had my pc for 2 years havent defragged once still works as new. If it works dont touch :y
-
Take the computer back and ask them to put a real operating system on it. Like Windows XP or similar.
To be perfectly honest if the computer is new, it really shouldn't need defragging. The file systems these days are pretty good at keeping files continuous (i.e. not fragmented, which causes file access slowdown).
That said, I haven't a clue why defrag wouldn't show an interface, since you can't exactly work on the computer while it defrags, so something's definately up!
You tried Microsoft Knowlegdebase? www.microsoft.com/support - despite what you may think, there's some bloody handy info on there.
-
New is new .. :-/
but this intel+microsoft cooperation will make the whole world full of old pc garbage.. >:(
even 3 ghz P4 hardware is slow with vista..and I'll stay with xp as long
as possible..
-
Take the computer back and ask them to put a real operating system on it. Like Windows XP or similar.
To be perfectly honest if the computer is new, it really shouldn't need defragging. The file systems these days are pretty good at keeping files continuous (i.e. not fragmented, which causes file access slowdown).
That said, I haven't a clue why defrag wouldn't show an interface, since you can't exactly work on the computer while it defrags, so something's definately up!
You tried Microsoft Knowlegdebase? www.microsoft.com/support - despite what you may think, there's some bloody handy info on there.
The Vista one is more for scheduling, and doesn't have the same graphical interface as the XP one. In addition, its OK to use computer while its doing it - its more sluggish obviously, but still usable.
I think Vista is the right direction to take Windows, both for businesses and home users. I agree it takes a bit of getting used to, but after using Vista for 3yrs, I find XP slow, cumbersome, and annoyingly difficult...
-
New is new .. :-/
but this intel+microsoft cooperation will make the whole world full of old pc garbage.. >:(
even 3 ghz P4 hardware is slow with vista..and I'll stay with xp as long
as possible..
P4, esp slower ones like 3ghz, are really too old to get the best from Vista.
Comes into its own on Core2 hardware - and to further knock a nail in XP, XP is disappointing running on Core2
-
Nobody, but nobody should be using anything earlier than Windows XP in any environment now.
The equipment I develop for uses Windows 2000 and will for several years to come. It's OK saying the above for a server/desktop machine that is throw-away technology after a couple of years but when every new Windows release renders the old hardware scrap and the hardware happens to cost upwards of 200k upgrades aren't going to happen.
.. and that's before we start considering the software that would have to be ported - including a load of device drivers. It was bad enough getting it all to build on .NET 2005 when M$ stopped selling the .NET 2003 dev. env.
The fact is, Windows is the wrong choice for anything more than a basic desktop with web browsing, word processing, groupware, etc. M$ don't consider any other market when deciding when to pull the plug on their support, yet they try and sell it as a one size fits all solution to every computing problem.
Kevin
-
Nobody, but nobody should be using anything earlier than Windows XP in any environment now.
The equipment I develop for uses Windows 2000 and will for several years to come. It's OK saying the above for a server/desktop machine that is throw-away technology after a couple of years but when every new Windows release renders the old hardware scrap and the hardware happens to cost upwards of 200k upgrades aren't going to happen.
.. and that's before we start considering the software that would have to be ported - including a load of device drivers. It was bad enough getting it all to build on .NET 2005 when M$ stopped selling the .NET 2003 dev. env.
The fact is, Windows is the wrong choice for anything more than a basic desktop with web browsing, word processing, groupware, etc. M$ don't consider any other market when deciding when to pull the plug on their support, yet they try and sell it as a one size fits all solution to every computing problem.
Kevin
I was referring to desktops, and esp those desktops connected (directly or indirectly) to wider world.
:y
-
New is new .. :-/
but this intel+microsoft cooperation will make the whole world full of old pc garbage.. >:(
even 3 ghz P4 hardware is slow with vista..and I'll stay with xp as long
as possible..
P4, esp slower ones like 3ghz, are really too old to get the best from Vista.
Comes into its own on Core2 hardware - and to further knock a nail in XP, XP is disappointing running on Core2
From my point of view..Vista is even slow on core2..Dont know what kind of code they write in inside..but to slow down these new cpu's , there must be working many million lines .. :(
-
MS are bringing out a new operating system in Q2 of 2009. You all might as well bypass Vista entirely and wait for that (like myself and my company are doing).
TB: You do realise that there is a dual-core patch for XP and dual-core optimiser software for AMD X2's?
Dual-core fix for XP (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256/en-us)
AMD dual core optimizer (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_13118,00.html)
The performance increase after installing the multi-cpu fix is amazing. Partcularly in apps/games that heavily utilise CPU (obviously).
-
Also make sure nothing else is running in the background. :-?
-
Hurrry up and buy XP while it is still for sale
ROFLMAO
go buy a mac.
it's got a proper OS, and does the defrag for you as part of the housekeeping.
(amongst other things... )
but ditto the Symantec advice... avoid like the plague, EVEN on a Mac...
Runs, gets coat and ducks out the back sharpish
:y :y :y
and the only argument i have to face is..........
you cant right click with a mac......
if that's the biggest issue, i can live with that
utter 'dangle berries'.
you can right click, and a shed load more besides
the current std Mac mouse has left click , right click, 360 degree scroll ball, Mid squeeze sensors, chording of sensors, and is available wired or wireless.. the Mac has pretty much always (since OS7.5 i think offhand) been able to right click, it just didn't come with a multi button mouse until about 3 years ago. but after market Mice were fine... I've been a professional mac user since the early 90's and the work i do benefits from multi-button mice.....
oh, and the optical system looks like a silhouette of Mickey mouse if you lift it up a little...
-
You buy a Mac and your buying into a locked-down computing environment where everything is massively overpriced, underpowered, but looks oh so pretty.
-
You buy a Mac and your buying into a locked-down computing environment where everything is massively overpriced, underpowered, but looks oh so pretty.
Same with Windows except the above only applies to the software.
Kevin
-
Re: Bloody Windows Vista!!
Reply #59 - Today at 9:53am
You buy a Mac and your buying into a locked-down computing environment where everything is massively overpriced, underpowered, but looks oh so pretty.
ohh really please... now there's an open mind.
How exactly is an 8 core Mac pro either under powered or Over priced.
an equivalent , like for like Dell, for example, is nearly 50% more expensive.,
and the Mac runs both OS X & Windows natively, and better yet, you can run Whinedoze in a virtualisation app like Parallels, at the same time as OSX. and communicate between the two. if there's something you HAVE to do in Whinedoze, it can do it... no problem.
Where Apple ARE a rip off, is their memory or Drive prices... always buy a std off the shelf spec machine, NOT a build to order package, and add them afterwards from Crucial , or whoever else is selling appropriate memory at a good price...
who gives a flying opps if it's pretty, it's powerful, stable, and effective, and the longer term cost of ownership is lower overall.
(including support costs, maintenance costs, resale values, down time costs, etc etc the Mac always comes out ahead of ANY reputable Brand name Pc )
-
Are you happy now max now you have had your rant ;D ;D
-
Are you happy now max now you have had your rant ;D ;D
;D
A rant a day keeps the Angina at Bay :D
(not that I have it.... just seemed appropriate :D )
-
I feel that Apple have lost there one advantage they had by ditching the RISC processors....and graphics will suffer as a result (which was always a plus on them) coz a fair chunk of any graphics is processed on the core CPU.
I guess its because its easier and cheaper to produce software for non RISC devices.
-
You buy a Mac and your buying into a locked-down computing environment where everything is massively overpriced, underpowered, but looks oh so pretty.
Same with Windows except the above only applies to the software.
Kevin
hehe, not quite the same. You can use any hardware with Windows and install pretty much any compatible application (which is a LOT). You also get the added bonus that there are more games than just Tomb Raider available for it if you're into that sort of thing (thats the only Mac game I've ever seen).
Doesn't look as nice though, but as a selling point that comes in at the low end.
Yeah Macs have their plus points, so do windows boxes. I don't like getting into debates over whats better, since there isn't a clear winner.
-
I feel that Apple have lost there one advantage they had by ditching the RISC processors....and graphics will suffer as a result (which was always a plus on them) coz a fair chunk of any graphics is processed on the core CPU.
I guess its because its easier and cheaper to produce software for non RISC devices.
true..RISC architecture mostly is special for the type of application the CPU is designed for ..
Although the internal command set is more limited (by design) its hard to find programmers at that level as their environment is special and they differ from model to model...
-
I feel that Apple have lost there one advantage they had by ditching the RISC processors....and graphics will suffer as a result (which was always a plus on them) coz a fair chunk of any graphics is processed on the core CPU.
I guess its because its easier and cheaper to produce software for non RISC devices.
true..RISC architecture mostly is special for the type of application the CPU is designed for ..
Although the internal command set is more limited (by design) its hard to find programmers at that level as their environment is special and they differ from model to model...
Most code is developed in higher level languages now anyway. I thought that was the main driver behind RISC. Why make the chip slower by building in lots of complex, human-useable instructions when you can make it more lean and quicker and rely on a compiler to build your floating point operations, etc. from simple building blocks? On a CISC CPU compiler generated code doesn't often use more than a subset of the simplest instructions anyway.
My guess that Apple's defection to Intel is more down to the desire to capitalise on the savings that arise from the volume of Wintel boxes that turn over as compared to any other architecture.
Kevin
-
Nowadays RISC Cpus are mostly focused on Industrial applications..
for the PCs RISC cpus lost the war..
Actually Microsoft change the picture with the decision..
-
Apple's move to Intel was at least in part, due to ego's in negotiation with IBM...
IBM hit a bit of a hiccup with the PPC G5 roadmap at the 90nm stage... apple were being awkward about commitment to quantity manufacture... and IBM told them to stuff it... so they pretty much had to go to intel (or it could have gone to AMD) interestingly, the PPC G5 type chips then got better and faster and refocused, and are now powering certain games consoles , which sell in larger numbers, sufficient to keep IBM production line management happy.
or that's at least how it appeared from this side of the Apple tree.
I much prefer PPC as a platform, but times move on and one has to work with intel now instead....
Oh well.
Not everything Apple do is right, or even sensible.... ;)
but they are the Mr Kipling of the Computer world....
making exceedingly good....... ;D :y cakes :y
-
Not everything Apple do is right, or even sensible.... ;)
but they are the Mr Kipling of the Computer world....
making exceedingly good....... ;D :y cakes :y
DRM + iTunes comes to mind.
But yes, I will admit. It's nice when a piece of hardware just 'works' out the box. The iPhone and iPod for example have the most responsive and smooth interfaces I've seen, as well as being gorgeous pieces of kit. If it wasn't for iTunes, I'd own one!
-
Not everything Apple do is right, or even sensible.... ;)
but they are the Mr Kipling of the Computer world....
making exceedingly good....... ;D :y cakes :y
DRM + iTunes comes to mind.
But yes, I will admit. It's nice when a piece of hardware just 'works' out the box. The iPhone and iPod for example have the most responsive and smooth interfaces I've seen, as well as being gorgeous pieces of kit. If it wasn't for iTunes, I'd own one!
....and the fact that the bluetooth is crap, its not 3G, the battery life aint great and the camera is on a par with that used by fisher price in thier 'my first' range.
Plus Wimax is now loosing out on the mobile broadband front....which is no great surprise
Its a great interface but, a bloody rubbish comms device!
-
So there you go Loo Knee, ditch all systems and tie a bit of string between two bean cans and use a calculator ;D ;D :y
-
yeah, but don;t forget the cake !
it's important to have cake you know !
-
MS are bringing out a new operating system in Q2 of 2009. You all might as well bypass Vista entirely and wait for that (like myself and my company are doing).
TB: You do realise that there is a dual-core patch for XP and dual-core optimiser software for AMD X2's?
Dual-core fix for XP (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256/en-us)
AMD dual core optimizer (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_13118,00.html)
The performance increase after installing the multi-cpu fix is amazing. Partcularly in apps/games that heavily utilise CPU (obviously).
Yes, aware of those patches, but thanks for posting, as others may not be :y
Trouble is, the XP architecture is not geared too well to the current multiprocessor architecture used by Intel or AMD (though why anyone would want an AMD (desktop) chip now is beyond me ;)).
Also, you get into issues with processor limitations under XP. When XP was built, virtual processors didn't exist, so was never built for them. Nor for multicore chips. Most variants of XP Home can only deal with 1 'processor', XP Pro, 2 'processors'. MS did loosen licencing restrictions to overcome the ludicrous restriction that a P4 HT chip may perform badly (esp if the BIOS did a poor job in reporting CPUs). But the kernel was built with these restrictions in place, and optimised around it. No amount of patching will truely sort that.
Quad core, forget it ;D
Vista's kernel is optimised for multicore, and the threading model is more robust.
One of the big perceived Vista performance problems is filecopy. Its actually mostly as good or better than XP, but has been further tweaked for SP1.
TheBoy
Laying in bath with a Core2 Duo 2Ghz, 2G RAM laptop, running Vista Business ;D
-
I feel that Apple have lost there one advantage they had by ditching the RISC processors....and graphics will suffer as a result (which was always a plus on them) coz a fair chunk of any graphics is processed on the core CPU.
I guess its because its easier and cheaper to produce software for non RISC devices.
Forgetting the complexities of NetBurst for a moment, Pentium Pro and later Intel x86/x64 chips have all been RISC with a CISC emulator built on side (a very simplistic view, but thats the ideal). Not sure about Core range, but I'd guess similar as they are a development of the older PIII design.
-
Not everything Apple do is right, or even sensible.... ;)
but they are the Mr Kipling of the Computer world....
making exceedingly good....... ;D :y cakes :y
DRM + iTunes comes to mind.
But yes, I will admit. It's nice when a piece of hardware just 'works' out the box. The iPhone and iPod for example have the most responsive and smooth interfaces I've seen, as well as being gorgeous pieces of kit. If it wasn't for iTunes, I'd own one!
....and the fact that the bluetooth is crap, its not 3G, the battery life aint great and the camera is on a par with that used by fisher price in thier 'my first' range.
Plus Wimax is now loosing out on the mobile broadband front....which is no great surprise
Its a great interface but, a bloody rubbish comms device!
iPhone is just and iPod with an occasional use phone, opposite to Nokia N series for example, which are phones with occasional use music players.
-
I'll just limp home with my X2 6400 that I bought at the height of AMD's market reign (i.e. 2 weeks before Intel released the Core2 architecture.... self-abusers).
To be honest, I'm slowly coming around to Vista - I knew I would eventually. I just wish MS would take a bit more time to polish things off before releasing stuff with so many obvious problems. I'm also aware of the restrictions in place on XP with all the new CPU architecture out there, but I need an OS thats guaranteed to work, and XP fits the bill perfectly.
It might be time to switch soon anyway for me, since DX10 games are starting to come out by the lorry load!
-
I'll just limp home with my X2 6400 that I bought at the height of AMD's market reign (i.e. 2 weeks before Intel released the Core2 architecture.... self-abusers).
To be honest, I'm slowly coming around to Vista - I knew I would eventually. I just wish MS would take a bit more time to polish things off before releasing stuff with so many obvious problems. I'm also aware of the restrictions in place on XP with all the new CPU architecture out there, but I need an OS thats guaranteed to work, and XP fits the bill perfectly.
It might be time to switch soon anyway for me, since DX10 games are starting to come out by the lorry load!
AMD were always good at integer benchmarks, and older games, due to excellent integer horsepower.
Real world, Athlons seemed slower than P4, due to poor clock rate (the numbering std was comparing integer performance). Athlon64 didn't offer anything at the time. Even now, XP64 is a bitch.
Vista is pretty solid - I haven't had (non driver) crashes since pre betas. Its not as mature as XP, and developers are only now truely getting to grips with it.
Yes, its hardware requirements are higher, but its 6yrs newer!
For a laugh, a few months ago, I installed Win3 on a vm on the OOF server - from point of DOS starting to load, and Program Manager ready was less than 3s ;D - not that I condone running such old shite
-
lol 3 seconds :o
Never thought of trying that tbh. When I got Virtual PC I wanted to try Win 95 and 98 on it but realised I threw my disks away hehe.
-
lol 3 seconds :o
Never thought of trying that tbh. When I got Virtual PC I wanted to try Win 95 and 98 on it but realised I threw my disks away hehe.
I'm a VMware man myself, seems more robust, and wider support for different OSes. Plus we use ESX or whatever its called this week fairly extensively at work for Windows and Linux hosts, so am 'comfortable' with it. OOF runs via VMWare, and thats very stable (except that annoying bug where VMWare won't pass traffic over its 'virtual hub' after the Windows host reboots...
-
MS took Virtual PC under their wing about 4 or 5 years ago. The only reason I got it over VMWare was because it's free! I havent really used VMWare at all.
We use it at work too, but only cos our infrastructure manager is a tight arse.