Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #11972 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-12 18:16 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-22 20:37 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 18:16 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 10:50 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 20:21 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-09-17 14:12 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 17:06 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-17 15:30 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 21:17 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 21:47 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 22:06 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-18 08:45 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 09:06 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 14:54 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 17:45 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:07 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:20 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:21 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:19 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-09-18 23:38 +0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 17:49 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 22:26 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 13:29 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:34 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-18 18:45 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 11:54 +0000
[OT] light Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2016-10-01 14:48 +0000
Re: [OT] light Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:39 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 10:12 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:15 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:54 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:47 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:24 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 23:01 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 00:42 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:35 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-12 10:54 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 18:38 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 19:43 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-13 12:11 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-12 21:13 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:40 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 23:25 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Joe <joecool@ihaveenoughspam.net> - 2016-09-12 21:30 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 09:37 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 11:13 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-14 08:47 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-15 14:45 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-16 16:16 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-16 16:49 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-16 18:44 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 09:27 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:04 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 19:22 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-18 11:58 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 21:33 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:25 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 07:38 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-13 10:59 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 19:20 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-14 13:17 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-14 14:59 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-15 11:38 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:45 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:14 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-15 11:43 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 15:41 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-16 23:56 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 19:51 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 13:09 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-17 10:26 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-17 14:39 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:14 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Vladimir Vučićević <vladimir@vucicevic.iz.rs> - 2016-09-14 15:21 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-16 14:59 +1000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-16 11:58 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-19 23:57 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-20 22:19 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-10-21 01:59 +0000
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 13:45 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-10-21 14:24 -0300
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 20:46 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-10-21 22:58 -0400
Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-10-21 21:58 +0200
Re: Damned Windows Bloat bashley@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 14:26 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 01:11 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 23:01 -0700
Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 11:52 +0100
Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 20:37 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e3qub9Fg8ruU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11993 |
On 13/09/2016 10:59, BartC wrote: > On 13/09/2016 07:38, polygonum wrote: >> On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point of >>> unusability. I discovered that by the time it lets me do anything after >>> booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its 2Gb memory. >>> >>> By taking a sharp knife to it in safe mode, I got that down to 600Mb, >>> which is still absurd, but is at least workable. >>> >>> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm >>> not even using? >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good reason. >> It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB (or, >> occasionally for special reasons, more). > > That's just brushing the problem under the carpet. > > A machine may well need 8GB when doing a substantial amount of real > work. But one using up 90% of installed memory before the user has even > started to run any applications (when others can do it with 30-40%) must > be broken. > > And even with 8GB, you will one day find that a machine might use 7.2GB > before any user apps! Then what, ship them with 16GB? > > (Just as a reminder of how much memory we're talking about, my college > mainframe was time-sharing at least 160 simultaneous users with only > 0.0011GB of RAM. And I was running my first experimental CAD app in > 0.00006GB. What the hell has happened since then; why are OSes so > colossal?) > Not for one moment was I meaning that it was good or even acceptable. Just that our perception of fairly ordinary PCs in the real world meant the modest extra cost was justified. Mainframe I started work on allowed something like 100 Kb per user... -- Rod
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 13:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nrc0o7$2un$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #11990 |
polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: >> > Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good reason. > It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB (or, > occasionally for special reasons, more). My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM I upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my usage of that machine was no different than my usage of my current machine (a 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) including editing photos, listening to mp3s, building web pages, office suite use, and web surfing. With the single exception of video editing (which i dont do) my new machine offers no benefits the old one was incapable of. The RAM increase is absorbed by more complicated web pagea, the increased overhead of managing utf8 and nicer fonts. I'm convinced the rest of it has gone to graphical niceties, transparency, visual effects, and bloat. If i could resurrect that old Pentium III i would be able to use it for nearly all of my needs other than surfing the now much more complicated web. The idea I now "need" 8mb is somewhat galling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 14:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1609141458400.4977@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #12006 |
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, RS Wood wrote: > polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: > >>> >> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good reason. >> It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB (or, >> occasionally for special reasons, more). > > My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM > I upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my > usage of that machine was no different than my usage of my > current machine (a 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) including editing > photos, listening to mp3s, building web pages, office suite use, > and web surfing. With the single exception of video editing > (which i dont do) my new machine offers no benefits the old one > was incapable of. The RAM increase is absorbed by more > complicated web pagea, the increased overhead of managing utf8 > and nicer fonts. I'm convinced the rest of it has gone to > graphical niceties, transparency, visual effects, and > bloat. > > If i could resurrect that old Pentium III i would be able to use > it for nearly all of my needs other than surfing the now much > more complicated web. The idea I now "need" 8mb is somewhat > galling. > The consolation prize is that you likely to spend about the same amount for a current computer, or even that large amount of RAM. Maybe it's not a good thing, it encourages bloat, but at least if the bloat is happening, we can fit it all in without spending a premium. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 11:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yntui4u1msr2db@dell3100.dlink.com> |
| In reply to | #12006 |
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:17:59 +0100, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: > polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: > >>> >> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good reason. >> It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB (or, >> occasionally for special reasons, more). > > My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM > I upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my > usage of that machine was no different than my usage of my > current machine (a 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) including editing > photos, listening to mp3s, building web pages, office suite use, > and web surfing. With the single exception of video editing > (which i dont do) my new machine offers no benefits the old one > was incapable of. The RAM increase is absorbed by more > complicated web pagea, the increased overhead of managing utf8 > and nicer fonts. I'm convinced the rest of it has gone to > graphical niceties, transparency, visual effects, and > bloat. > > If i could resurrect that old Pentium III i would be able to use > it for nearly all of my needs other than surfing the now much > more complicated web. The idea I now "need" 8mb is somewhat > galling. Nonsense! https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/138349 "8Mb recommended" Other OSs are available. Oh. 8*G*b. Lord, who'd ever need more than 640k? Disclosure: This device has 1Gb RAM, Bios Date 2005. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 19:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e408igFp2nfU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12012 |
On 15/09/2016 11:38, Kerr Mudd-John wrote: > Oh. 8*G*b. Lord, who'd ever need more than 640k? > > Disclosure: This device has 1Gb RAM, Bios Date 2005. Partner's computer has 24 GB... -- Rod
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nrf2up$5qh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12019 |
On 09/15/2016 11:45 AM, polygonum wrote:
> On 15/09/2016 11:38, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>> Oh. 8*G*b. Lord, who'd ever need more than 640k?
And the worldwide market for computers was what, less than a dozen?
>> Disclosure: This device has 1Gb RAM, Bios Date 2005.
>
> Partner's computer has 24 GB...
Pshaw. MY hubby's new computer has 64 GB!
He finally decided that the proper thing to do was fully populate the
motherboard when you build it -- the memory will never be cheaper
(unless you get lucky at a yard sale) and may not even be available in
future.
--
Cheers, Bev
The Marketing Professional's Motto: "We don't screw the customers. All
we're doing is holding them down while the salespeople screw them."
-- Scott Adams
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1609152012420.8111@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #12020 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, The Real Bev wrote: > On 09/15/2016 11:45 AM, polygonum wrote: >> On 15/09/2016 11:38, Kerr Mudd-John wrote: >>> Oh. 8*G*b. Lord, who'd ever need more than 640k? > > And the worldwide market for computers was what, less than a dozen? > >>> Disclosure: This device has 1Gb RAM, Bios Date 2005. >> >> Partner's computer has 24 GB... > > Pshaw. MY hubby's new computer has 64 GB! > > He finally decided that the proper thing to do was fully populate the > motherboard when you build it -- the memory will never be cheaper (unless you > get lucky at a yard sale) and may not even be available in future. > I suspect if you have a computer that will take that much, the memory is no longer a large percentage of that cost. A lot of computers still have small limits, maybe just as simple as the motherboard not having enough slots. So if you have to go to a "premium", the memory won't add much to the cost. But you're right, if you wait, you risk not being able to get the right RAM for it, the field moving on so iy becomes expensive. That's always been the case, unless you can scrounge it up. I could add more RAM to my HP 4P printer, but I don't need it. However, I can add it because I pulled the RAM out of computers when that sort of thing was common. Now it's a lot scarcer, so the price goes up, even though it's a pretty small amount of RAM compared to now. But nobody makes it anymore, so the price goes up. I've decided, it's actually been two or three years, to get something more recent, the exact what has varied as I take time to decide. It was going to be dual core, then quad core, now it's more cutting edge. I've seen ads for servers that looked pretty good spec wise, and usually have lots of RAM, except while I don't need great graphics, I don't like the idea of not being able to, and servers are limited in that way. I've been looking at refurbished workstations, one place has one with 12gigs of RAM, I'll never need that much, but it likely works out cheaper than buying something else and then adding RAM. I'm torn because something older will still have serial and parallel ports, and PS/2 connectors so I can use that 75cent garage sale trackball, while that will be gone for something new. But something new is more cutting edge. So I waver, still undecided, and in part because I figure if I buy something, the next week will offer up a better refurbished computer for the same price. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nre1hi$at9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12006 |
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: > polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: >> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good >> reason. It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB >> (or, occasionally for special reasons, more). > > My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM I > upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my usage of > that machine was no different than my usage of my current machine (a > 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) including editing photos, listening to > mp3s, building web pages, office suite use, and web surfing. With > the single exception of video editing (which i dont do) my new > machine offers no benefits the old one was incapable of. The RAM > increase is absorbed by more complicated web pagea, the increased > overhead of managing utf8 and nicer fonts. I'm convinced the rest of > it has gone to graphical niceties, transparency, visual effects, and > bloat. > > If i could resurrect that old Pentium III i would be able to use it > for nearly all of my needs other than surfing the now much more > complicated web. The idea I now "need" 8mb is somewhat galling. While I generally agree that the web browser bloat issue has very much gotten out of hand, are you absolutely sure your personal 'usage' (not the OS's bloat consumption) is actually in fact identical between the machines? Way way back when my machine was a 386 running Dos and DesqView and it had a whopping 4MB of RAM, I usually had no more than about four programs open simultaneously at any moment (and very little if anything going on in the background). Simply because the machine simply wasn't capable of handling more than that. Now that the box has 12G and a XEON CPU, I've got six dual-monitor virtual desktops, and a shit-load ton of different programs all open (plus a metric ton of web browser tabs open) across the six virtual desktops [1], plus I've got a couple background tasks humming along taking their many hours to complete, but otherwise generally being ignored (beyond checking periodically if they are still running or if they aborted) by me until they do complete. If I were to step back two or three computer models, I'd simply not be able to have quite so much stuff open and sitting there and or running in the background, so while the usage might 'feel' similar, it is quite different (in the it is using much 'more' sense) as compared to the prior, older boxes. [1] Why? Well, simply because I can. Start something, do something with it for some time, get interrupted, just leave it sitting, waiting till I get back around to it sometime later. No need to *have* to "save and exit" to switch to something else because of being interrupted or needing to switch, just let it wait till I get back to it. Wasteful? Yes. But it saves me some time at the machines expense, which I see as a better tradeoff than the converse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 15:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nrhht5$6fj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12006 |
On 2016-09-14 1:17 PM, RS Wood wrote: > polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: > >>> >> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good >> reason. It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB >> (or, occasionally for special reasons, more). > > My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM I > upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my usage of > that machine was no different than my usage of my current machine (a > 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) I have a small 7 inch tablet that I paid about $80 for with decent screen resolution that is both portable and as useful as any laptop I have ever owned. (I do have a bluetooth keyboard/mouse) So what if you are using more RAM. Dig out your old system and see what you put up with. I used to use a IBM 1620 where I could do a run on data for my thesis and go out to dinner while waiting for it to complete. Intermediate passes were stored on punch cards that cost the same for 80 characters as 200Mb of memory now. Computing now is essentially free. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 23:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nrhtb9$k5g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12031 |
On 16/09/2016 20:41, Walter Banks wrote: > On 2016-09-14 1:17 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: >> >>>> >>> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good >>> reason. It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB >>> (or, occasionally for special reasons, more). >> >> My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM I >> upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my usage of >> that machine was no different than my usage of my current machine (a >> 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) > > I have a small 7 inch tablet that I paid about $80 for with decent > screen resolution that is both portable and as useful as any laptop I > have ever owned. (I do have a bluetooth keyboard/mouse) So what if you > are using more RAM. > > Dig out your old system and see what you put up with. I used to use a > IBM 1620 where I could do a run on data for my thesis and go out to > dinner while waiting for it to complete. Intermediate passes were stored > on punch cards that cost the same for 80 characters as 200Mb of memory now. > > Computing now is essentially free. It might be, but the million-fold increase in capacity over the last few decades, can also increase complexity at a faster rate than the human brain has evolved to deal with it over the same period. How long would it take to scan a core dump of that poster's 64GB machine? Actually, how long would it take to print it! If I run the msinfo32 program someone mentioned, apparently my machine is running some 280 drivers, 80 tasks, 160 services and has 250 DLLs loaded. That's while I'm doing nothing but typing text into a window. If something goes wrong, who or what is responsible for fixing it? Some apps take so long to shut themselves down so that I can run something else (or just go to bed) that it can be faster to just unplug the power-cord and do a full restart. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 19:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nri0ie$rtl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12033 |
On 2016-09-16 6:56 PM, BartC wrote: > On 16/09/2016 20:41, Walter Banks wrote: >> On 2016-09-14 1:17 PM, RS Wood wrote: >>> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: >>> >>>>> >>>> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good >>>> reason. It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all >>>> 8GB (or, occasionally for special reasons, more). >>> >>> My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM >>> I upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my >>> usage of that machine was no different than my usage of my >>> current machine (a 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) >> >> I have a small 7 inch tablet that I paid about $80 for with decent >> screen resolution that is both portable and as useful as any laptop >> I have ever owned. (I do have a bluetooth keyboard/mouse) So what >> if you are using more RAM. >> >> Dig out your old system and see what you put up with. I used to use >> a IBM 1620 where I could do a run on data for my thesis and go out >> to dinner while waiting for it to complete. Intermediate passes >> were stored on punch cards that cost the same for 80 characters as >> 200Mb of memory now. >> >> Computing now is essentially free. > > It might be, but the million-fold increase in capacity over the last > few decades, can also increase complexity at a faster rate than the > human brain has evolved to deal with it over the same period. > > How long would it take to scan a core dump of that poster's 64GB > machine? Actually, how long would it take to print it! > > If I run the msinfo32 program someone mentioned, apparently my > machine is running some 280 drivers, 80 tasks, 160 services and has > 250 DLLs loaded. That's while I'm doing nothing but typing text into > a window. > > If something goes wrong, who or what is responsible for fixing it? > > Some apps take so long to shut themselves down so that I can run > something else (or just go to bed) that it can be faster to just > unplug the power-cord and do a full restart. > It is a couple decades at least since I printed out a a dump of any kind, at least a year since I have printed anything. I haven't seen a catastrophic app failure in a very long time. I will take my $80 tablet on the road and take my chances. :) w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 13:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nrjbpr$fv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12034 |
On 17/09/2016 00:51, Walter Banks wrote: > On 2016-09-16 6:56 PM, BartC wrote: >> It might be, but the million-fold increase in capacity over the last >> few decades, can also increase complexity at a faster rate than the >> human brain has evolved to deal with it over the same period. >> >> How long would it take to scan a core dump of that poster's 64GB >> machine? Actually, how long would it take to print it! >> >> If I run the msinfo32 program someone mentioned, apparently my >> machine is running some 280 drivers, 80 tasks, 160 services and has >> 250 DLLs loaded. That's while I'm doing nothing but typing text into >> a window. >> >> If something goes wrong, who or what is responsible for fixing it? >> >> Some apps take so long to shut themselves down so that I can run >> something else (or just go to bed) that it can be faster to just >> unplug the power-cord and do a full restart. >> > It is a couple decades at least since I printed out a a dump of any > kind, at least a year since I have printed anything. I haven't seen a > catastrophic app failure in a very long time. I will take my $80 tablet > on the road and take my chances. :) I also bought a cheap £50 ($80) tablet a few years ago, designed to replace a netbook I normally took travelling. It was a bit limited (on Android, I could only really run text editors as most of my stuff runs on Windows), but yes, it did go wrong! Every so often the touch screen got temperamental and I couldn't get anything done. Now, I see endless problems, mainly with games that the kids play on both Windows and Android. And the Android tablet takes long enough to start up from 'cold' (several minutes; this is not the cheap one) that you leave it and invariably forget all about it. A long time if all you want to do is quickly use it as a kitchen timer. This complexity makes these devices not fit for purpose a lot of the time. (Now I have a dedicated (digital) kitchen timer that cost £3. Always on and infinitely more reliable.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 10:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nrjjr6$11c6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12043 |
On 2016-09-17 8:09 AM, BartC wrote: > On 17/09/2016 00:51, Walter Banks wrote: >> On 2016-09-16 6:56 PM, BartC wrote: > >>> It might be, but the million-fold increase in capacity over the >>> last few decades, can also increase complexity at a faster rate >>> than the human brain has evolved to deal with it over the same >>> period. >>> >>> How long would it take to scan a core dump of that poster's 64GB >>> machine? Actually, how long would it take to print it! >>> >>> If I run the msinfo32 program someone mentioned, apparently my >>> machine is running some 280 drivers, 80 tasks, 160 services and >>> has 250 DLLs loaded. That's while I'm doing nothing but typing >>> text into a window. >>> >>> If something goes wrong, who or what is responsible for fixing >>> it? >>> >>> Some apps take so long to shut themselves down so that I can run >>> something else (or just go to bed) that it can be faster to just >>> unplug the power-cord and do a full restart. >>> >> It is a couple decades at least since I printed out a a dump of any >> kind, at least a year since I have printed anything. I haven't seen >> a catastrophic app failure in a very long time. I will take my $80 >> tablet on the road and take my chances. :) > > I also bought a cheap £50 ($80) tablet a few years ago, designed to > replace a netbook I normally took travelling. > > It was a bit limited (on Android, I could only really run text > editors as most of my stuff runs on Windows), but yes, it did go > wrong! Every so often the touch screen got temperamental and I > couldn't get anything done. > > Now, I see endless problems, mainly with games that the kids play on > both Windows and Android. And the Android tablet takes long enough > to start up from 'cold' (several minutes; this is not the cheap one) > that you leave it and invariably forget all about it. > > A long time if all you want to do is quickly use it as a kitchen > timer. This complexity makes these devices not fit for purpose a lot > of the time. > > (Now I have a dedicated (digital) kitchen timer that cost £3. Always > on and infinitely more reliable.) > My windows tablet boots reasonably fast. It will run all of our development tools and the other apps I regularly use. It is now rare for me to bring a laptop when I travel. The Bluetooth keyboard/touch pad is essential for anything other than email and net browsing if I am trying to do serious work. I have a android based camera (Samsung CG200) that can run android apps on if I need them. I usually have it with me as well when I travel. Over the years I have had a number of airplane computers primarily small format computers that I can do text editing on. The first of these was a small tandy, later a MS DOSv3.3 3or4AA cells would run from Toronto to Tokyo almost exactly (15 hours) I used that computer quite a bit on the road but always had a laptop as well. I have had two laptops crushed on planes when the person in front of pushed their seats back and snapped off the display. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 14:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e43vo0Fl7kuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12033 |
On 17/09/2016 8:56 AM, BartC wrote: > Some apps take so long to shut themselves down so that I can run > something else (or just go to bed) that it can be faster to just unplug > the power-cord and do a full restart. > Under Windows I frequently just call up task manager and kill things that I've finished using, because I know that telling them to close will take forever. I think the problem is that Windows has to make the program run and ask it whether closing is OK, which may involve a huge amount of paging in. It would be better if programs informed windows when they enter a state that cannot be simply be killed, so that things like Acrobat reader could be summarily terminated and any pagefile stuff just discarded. Bit late now, though. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 11:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <45evad-7fh.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #12033 |
On 2016-09-16, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 16/09/2016 20:41, Walter Banks wrote: >> On 2016-09-14 1:17 PM, RS Wood wrote: >>> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> Wrote in message: >>> >>>>> >>>> Many, many PCs these days come with 8 GB of RAM - and for good >>>> reason. It makes a difference. The PCs we supply now are all 8GB >>>> (or, occasionally for special reasons, more). >>> >>> My first laptop was a pentium III in 2000, and it had 64mb of RAM I >>> upgraded to 128MB. I can say with full confidence that my usage of >>> that machine was no different than my usage of my current machine (a >>> 2008 desktop with 2gb RAM) >> >> I have a small 7 inch tablet that I paid about $80 for with decent >> screen resolution that is both portable and as useful as any laptop I >> have ever owned. (I do have a bluetooth keyboard/mouse) So what if you >> are using more RAM. >> >> Dig out your old system and see what you put up with. I used to use a >> IBM 1620 where I could do a run on data for my thesis and go out to >> dinner while waiting for it to complete. Intermediate passes were stored >> on punch cards that cost the same for 80 characters as 200Mb of memory now. >> >> Computing now is essentially free. > > It might be, but the million-fold increase in capacity over the last few > decades, can also increase complexity at a faster rate than the human > brain has evolved to deal with it over the same period. > > How long would it take to scan a core dump of that poster's 64GB > machine? Actually, how long would it take to print it! I haven't printed a core dump, or even part of one, since the late 80s. From the mid-nineties I'd submit them over a modem, and a couple of years later that was the internet. > If I run the msinfo32 program someone mentioned, apparently my machine > is running some 280 drivers, 80 tasks, 160 services and has 250 DLLs > loaded. That's while I'm doing nothing but typing text into a window. > > If something goes wrong, who or what is responsible for fixing it? > > Some apps take so long to shut themselves down so that I can run > something else (or just go to bed) that it can be faster to just unplug > the power-cord and do a full restart. > I was given 5 minutes warning of a power cut the other day. It wasn't enough to close down all 3 systems here, because a) I had a lot of stuff to save, the most time consuming of which was suspending virtual machines. b) I have my Macs set to save context when I quit applications. While this is great for starting again where I left off, that takes time. I typically run with quite a few applications open (at the moment I count 14 that I have opened myself, add other stuff like the scanning/OCR software which runs in the background all the time) Add in a bit of finger trouble because I was under pressure of time. -- It was untidy, so got unplugged. It was unplugged, so got thrown away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vladimir Vučićević <vladimir@vucicevic.iz.rs> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 15:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <39041ddg1trl.dlg@vucicevic.iz.rs> |
| In reply to | #11972 |
... I am Locutus of Borg, Sylvia Else, resistance is futile ... > 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm > not even using? 1. First make sure you don't have some malware software installed in your PC. Download and run adwcleaner and scan and remove malware. Then download and install Malwarebytes anti malware and do the same. 2. Windows update on Windows 7 is known for eating ram memory and of high CPU usage, so if you have automatic updates enabled, try disable it temporarily and see if it helps. You can then check for updates manualy, or try to fix Windows update service by installing this update: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3172605 -- ... Vladimir Vučićević aka. Bachi ~~~ www.bachi.in.rs <<<<>>>> Skype: don_vucicevic >>> It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 14:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrfu8i$137b$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #11972 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm > not even using? Have you used System Information (MsInfo32.exe) to inspect what is being loaded? It can provided lots of useful information. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 11:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.ynvp4cfimsr2db@dell3100.dlink.com> |
| In reply to | #12025 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:59:53 +0100, Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> >> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm >> not even using? > > Have you used System Information (MsInfo32.exe) to inspect what is being > loaded? It can provided lots of useful information. > Process Explorer (now also from MS, was Sysinternals). My browser is using 600k, ordinary (file) Explorer 120k. v SVChosts 200k. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 23:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu8tp1$amf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11972 |
On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote: > I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point of > unusability. I discovered that by the time it lets me do anything after > booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its 2Gb memory. > > By taking a sharp knife to it in safe mode, I got that down to 600Mb, > which is still absurd, but is at least workable. > > 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm > not even using? I've been having similar problems but with disk space not RAM. With a 225GB C: drive it's been running at ~2GB free but today it was down to 0.3GB and it was causing problems. There is another drive with plenty of space but some programs still need workspace on C: What's taking up all the space? My own stuff isn't much, I've been deleting and moving things I would rather have kept, but it still didn't make much of a dent. Until today I found out that 50 PER CENT of my hard drive was being used to store successive 'restore' points for Windows. AFAIK I've never needed to use one, but imagine using up HALF my drive without evening asking! Anyway, I fixed that (Control Panel, System, System Protection, Configure Restore Settings), and immediately freed 110GB. After two hours struggling to get a measly few GB free largely by getting rid of tens of thousands of temporary and cache files. Bloody Windows. I knew MS considered my CPU time as mainly theirs, with time off to grudgingly run my programs; I didn't suspect they would just blatantly grab half of my HDD space too, and on top of the 25GB Windows already uses! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nubcdc$rfb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12211 |
On 19/10/2016 23:57, BartC wrote: > What's taking up all the space? My own stuff isn't much, I've been > deleting and moving things I would rather have kept, but it still didn't > make much of a dent. > > Until today I found out that 50 PER CENT of my hard drive was being used > to store successive 'restore' points for Windows. AFAIK I've never > needed to use one, but imagine using up HALF my drive without evening > asking! It gets worse. After gaining back 110GB of MY OWN disk space yesterday, I had a look at another machine normally used by kids. That had 450GB total, and 300GB used, but I could only find evidence of a fraction of that. 'Treesize' only reported 110GB space used in 200 or 300,000 files. It turned out that Firefox had been continuously generating cache files. I found over 3 MILLION of them, taking nearly 200GB of space! And from the time stamps, at times they were being created at more than one every second. And, for some inexplicable reason, not reported by Treesize. THIS is what happens why you take your eye off the ball and just let these huge, bloated applications just do what the hell they like. Some will shrug and just say install a bigger drive. But that's only a temporary measure as between them MS and Firefox will just fill it full of junk! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web