In a message dated 11/10/01 11:37:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subj:Re: Windows XP - Scary! (Was=3 A OT: A computer question...) > Date:11/10/01 11:37:10 AM Eastern Standard Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (aimcompute) > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Actually Mafud, > > I think Microsoft IS partly to blame. The fact is most people that have a > computer don't have it because they're computer buffs. They have it because > it's a tool that let 's accomplish a task. They have know desire to be > computer geeks." But to trust nearly $1000 (have you noticed even as the GIGs go up, the prices for "off the shelf" brands still hover around $1000?) of your hard earned money, youought to 1. read the manuals-(four times) before you plunge in? That Micorsoft and the computer manufacturer trust that you, computer neophyte, will do what they (and any computer list worth it's salt) will advise you to run a "clean" machine? But no, just recently on this list, someone comment that they run 20 apps at one time! Me? IF (notice the big IF?) I'm on the net, and am ~not~ downloading, my AV is off, AV protection is off and nearly everything which might use resources are off or disabled. So for me, old "lean and clean" 4 apps would be the limit. > > "Microsoft of course advertises to sell to the biggest audience." But again, Microsoft/Intel/AOL expect that their end-users will read the manuals, visit the update site they paid to use, read the manuals-etc.. Most don't. *Want to know the one problem that screws up the most problems, other than a "Dirty" machine? People who are in such a hurry to get things done they actually try to do two or three things at once, hitting keys-rtc. while the computer is processing data. It seems that some people can't wait for the machine, which might take eight-ten seconds to finish its task, to try to initiate another task. ECCHH! " > Expectations by consumers is that when they buy something it should work." But automakers also give new owners a "owner's manual", expecting them to read it. They dont, and are themselves manytimes the culprits when the machine break down or whatever. > > "When Win95 came out I believed the box said 'requires a minimum of 8meg of > RAM and some pre-Pentium processor'. We all know that would be a joke, but > Microsoft maximized sales that way." > > And really dense people, after reading the cautions, tried to install > Windows95(a) on 286 machines, machines which, IF they were successful in > loaidng Windows, had less than 3% of their resouces available for > coputing-thus the Windows splash screen itself might take minutes to load. My last machine beofre this one, came with 64MB RAM but I ran it at 320MB for the time I owned it. I"m running just over 1 GOG RAM in this machine and only the most resouces intensive apps can ever approach using all of that. there is one more slot for RAM to bring it up to 1.54GIG but I'll never have to buy it. The same goes for thsoe who buy a Windoes XP machine and run OEM RAM on it and those who buy Windows(X) machines and run freeware/shareware on it. > > "I run Photoshop 4.0 right now on Pentium 133 with 48meg running Win95. I > should have upgraded long ago, but it's more trouble than it's worth to > continually risk having to rebuild your system, and have favorite > applications stop working." I beat the "upgrade" thing by buying a 1.2 GIG MOBO/processor unit, HD and new case then installed Win98SE/2000. So, I got power, more storage (40GIG HDD-$100) on paltforms I'm completely satified with. For ~MY~ purposes only, staying with plain vanilla Windows 98 serves my purposes. And like you, ther's no way I spring nearly $300 for dubious software "upgrades." > drive that I can usually > get things done in virtual memory. The other day though I inadvertendently > started scanning pictures to my H:/ drive which is the drive Windows wants. > and have about 650K of > swap space left. That of course was my fault." > > I don't know if you run partitioned drive(s). I do. OS on "C", everthing > else (apps) on whatever partition that work is suited for. So not only is > my machine running clean, the "C" drive is never "busy" or overworked, > except of course when handling system files and shortcuts. > > Microsoft gets no Kudos form me for any of their practices. But they/AOL/Intel catch it from inept new (and old) owners. As with automobiles, failing to read the manual or keepiong up a recommended maintenance program, can and frequently does, void your warrantee (with automobiles). The same might be done with computers: fail to follow the manufacturers recommendations, use out-of-date software, fail to pull preventive maintenance and you're toast. > Mafud writes: > > > > > Hello Dave. > > > > Both Me (ME) and XP ~demand~ updated software and ~regular~ maintenance. > Me > > simply would not tolerate my old Norton Utilities/AntiVirus. I bought and > > installed Norton SystemWorks2001 and no problems. > > Whereas you and me might tolerate fools and charlatans, (especially if > they > > are our relatives or friends), neither Me or XP can tolerate "dirty" > > operating environments, particularly if there are old clunky programs > loaded > > in a multitasking environment. > > > > Though Microsoft does design for and anticipate owners operating old > > (Windows98) computers in a "dirty" environment, not even Microsoft can be > > called to fault for the millions of underpowered (processor and > memorywise) > > Windows95(a) and before clunkers people try to operate under conditions > ripe > > for failure. > > **A computer designed with Windows95(a) architecture (or before), is > simply > > out of its depths with Me or XP. Again, too many try running resources > > intensive applications on underpowered machines. > > ***Worse, we've all read posts from persons who own a Pentium 100/133 > > computer with 32 Max RAM, complaining about why his Windows (any) is > running > > slow. > > We are usually too kind to tell the operator what they ought to do with > their > > undepowered-overmatched pip-squeak. > > > > Mafud > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
