Re: Vista
Greg
says...
> Last days, there was the opportunity for me to work with a Vista laptop.
> The GUI of Vista is so extensive to me that I still prefer the simpler
> RISC OS desktop. As I often said, RISC OS has also lacks - but it is
> still more transparency and handy to me.
Horses for courses, as they say.
> I don't like to spend all my time and brain just to know how to service
> all this Vista, eh.
That's fine if RISC OS does all you need. Personally, I like to expand
my knowledge.
--
Greg Harris (Norwich)
Chika
Alex' A. Interrants <ausser...@mail.com> wrote:
> Last days, there was the opportunity for me to work with a Vista laptop.
> The GUI of Vista is so extensive to me that I still prefer the simpler
> RISC OS desktop. As I often said, RISC OS has also lacks - but it is
> still more transparency and handy to me.
> I don't like to spend all my time and brain just to know how to service
> all this Vista, eh.
To be honest, I had a bit of a go with Vista last year, and the problem I
had with it was that there was nothing in it that convinced me that it was
any better than anything I'd used before. All the extra security gubbins
was more annoying than useful (I hate the idea that I, the user, should be
penalised because somebody else wants to do nasty things to my computer)
and the rest of it was merely a restyling. The underlying system was no
different, on the whole, than Windows 2000.
The thing is, if I really want to run a restyled Windows 2000, I can get
hold of the various bits to add the styling to a current copy of WXP. In
fact, that's exactly what I did with my old Pentium III laptop! There are
a couple of restyling packages out there.
Having said all that, you'd have to ask why it is that I still insist on
keeping RISC OS running at home. My answer is that I like a computer that
does what I want it to do when I want it to do it, and one that doesn't
try to keep second-guessing me. I still find that packages such as
Impression, Ovation and Draw allow me a lot more flexibility when I'm
designing (I don't do this as much as I used to but it still comes in
handy) and I still prefer Pluto over anything I have used elsewhere.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"
... Show me a sane man. I'll cure him for you.
Greg
says...
>
> To be honest, I had a bit of a go with Vista last year, and the problem I
> had with it was that there was nothing in it that convinced me that it was
> any better than anything I'd used before.
That seems to be 'most' users feelings.
[snip]
> Having said all that, you'd have to ask why it is that I still insist on
> keeping RISC OS running at home. My answer is that I like a computer that
> does what I want it to do when I want it to do it, and one that doesn't
> try to keep second-guessing me. I still find that packages such as
> Impression, Ovation and Draw allow me a lot more flexibility when I'm
> designing (I don't do this as much as I used to but it still comes in
> handy) and I still prefer Pluto over anything I have used elsewhere.
You have to differentiate the OS from the applications. XP is definately
more stable than RISC OS given the range of hardware that is designed to
operate on, applications are down to user knowledge/experience.
hand
--
Greg Harris (Norwich)
Paul Stewart
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <68c021724...@chiemgau-net.de>,
> Alex' A. Interrants <ausser...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Last days, there was the opportunity for me to work with a Vista laptop.
>> The GUI of Vista is so extensive to me that I still prefer the simpler
>> RISC OS desktop. As I often said, RISC OS has also lacks - but it is
>> still more transparency and handy to me.
>> I don't like to spend all my time and brain just to know how to service
>> all this Vista, eh.
> To be honest, I had a bit of a go with Vista last year, and the problem I
> had with it was that there was nothing in it that convinced me that it was
> any better than anything I'd used before. All the extra security gubbins
> was more annoying than useful (I hate the idea that I, the user, should be
> penalised because somebody else wants to do nasty things to my computer)
> and the rest of it was merely a restyling. The underlying system was no
> different, on the whole, than Windows 2000.
[snip]
At work we have decided there is no business reason to upgrade to
Vista. Also Windows 7 is due out in 2010. Therefore we have decided
to wait and go direct from Office 2003 + 2000/XP to Windows 7. and
whatever the version of Office is at the time.
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:sa...@hotmail.com)
Be Bold. Dare To Be Different. Use RISC OS (http://www.riscos.com).
It's blue and from outta town - The A9home
(http://www.advantage6.co.uk/A9hsplash.html).
A9home Compatibility page -
(http://www.phawfaux.co.uk/a9home/compatibility.asp).
Chika
<gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Having said all that, you'd have to ask why it is that I still insist
> > on keeping RISC OS running at home. My answer is that I like a
> > computer that does what I want it to do when I want it to do it, and
> > one that doesn't try to keep second-guessing me. I still find that
> > packages such as Impression, Ovation and Draw allow me a lot more
> > flexibility when I'm designing (I don't do this as much as I used to
> > but it still comes in handy) and I still prefer Pluto over anything I
> > have used elsewhere.
> You have to differentiate the OS from the applications. XP is definately
> more stable than RISC OS given the range of hardware that is designed
> to operate on, applications are down to user knowledge/experience.
As far as it goes, I have no stability problems with RISC OS and never
had, at least since RISC OS 2 (I used to be plagued with Filecore in use
errors back then). You have to differentiate also between the OS and the
hardware and its drivers so, if I compare the two, I find that each has
its benefits. That's why I have both available to me at home and at work,
not to mention Linux which acts as a server to both systems.
I'll admit that XP is a lot more stable than it used to be in its early
days (which is the biggest reason for not using a "new" OS from M$ - XP
SP2 has been patched to the point where it is likely to be a lot more
stable than a build such as Vista) but my point about second-guessing is
where the OS keeps trying to make guesses about what I might do next. That
is as important within applications as it is at the base of the system.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"
... I call my computer Hole in the Desk
Martin Bazley
Greg filtered slowly through the cosmos...
> You have to differentiate the OS from the applications. XP is definately
> more stable than RISC OS given the range of hardware that is designed to
> operate on, applications are down to user knowledge/experience.
As far as I'm concerned, my biggest disincentive for converting to
Windoze is what I like to term its 'epilepsia' - if you try to tell it
to do too many things at once or confuse it with a lot of information it
will either freeze for five minutes or do something irrational and
unexpected.
Also, it's so slooooowwww, and gets slower with age. There are
computers around at school that can easily take up to seven minutes to
start up, which, when I consider the fact that I could have fired up 3.7
on my old RPC700 some time ago and be well into a game of Doom by then,
reminds me why I will never desert what is, for all its faults and
omissions, a clean, stable, efficient, easy-to-use and cheap to
maintain British OS.
--
__<^>__ I thought DFS was a brand of sofa until I discovered the Beeb.
/ _، ،_ \ Posted by Martin Bazley from British technology.
( ( |_| ) )
\_> <_/ ...King Bhumibol rules Bangk, OK
C J Craig
Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I had a Sony Vista laptop for Xmas. It spent the first 3 days
updating!. There is no occasion when I have wanted to do something it
has not been "up-dating", "Backing-up" or "downloading virus
protection" & needing to re-boot. My Iyonix is always ready to go!
Chris
--
C J Craig
Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk
Iyonix ARM XScale computer Risc OS 5.11
John M Ward
Martin Bazley <mar...@bazley.freeuk.com> wrote:
> In a distant and second-hand set of dimensions, the words of
> Greg filtered slowly through the cosmos...
>
> > You have to differentiate the OS from the applications. XP is
> > definately more stable than RISC OS given the range of hardware
> > that is designed to operate on, applications are down to user
> > knowledge/experience.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, my biggest disincentive for converting to
> Windoze is what I like to term its 'epilepsia' - if you try to tell
> it to do too many things at once or confuse it with a lot of
> information it will either freeze for five minutes or do something
> irrational and unexpected.
I've had that happen on numerous occasions. I'm still trying to make
sure I always remember to let it finish one task before attempting to
start another. It's like a step back in time of some twenty years...
> Also, it's so slooooowwww, and gets slower with age.
I've noticed that too, even with numerous virus, registry and other
scanners. It just clogs up.
> There are computers around at school that can easily take up to seven
> minutes to start up,
Even I haven't suffered anything that bad. Perhaps a 3 GHz processor
helps; though the 600 MHz Iyonix always starts up fully (including a
number of items I load at boot time) in 35 seconds flat. Even if I
start the Wintel machine first, then the Iyonix, the latter will be
fully opertaional before the Microsoft machine even reaches the "user
log-in" stage.
Oh, and the Iyonix shuts down within two seconds, usually just one.
> which, when I consider the fact that I could have fired up 3.7 on my
> old RPC700 some time ago and be well into a game of Doom by then,
> reminds me why I will never desert what is, for all its faults and
> omissions, a clean, stable, efficient, easy-to-use and cheap to
> maintain British OS.
Same here -- though I haven't had time for DOOM recently, which is a
shame. Thanks for the reminder, though: I'll have a go soon.
--
John Ward in Medway, Kent - using RISC OS since 1987
Now using an Iyonix, an A9home, 2 RiscPCs and Virtual-RPC!
Acorn/RISC OS web page: www.john-ward.org.uk/personal/john/computers
John M Ward
C J Craig <Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <MPG.22213a0b5...@news.demon.co.uk>
> Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <68c021724...@chiemgau-net.de>,
> > ausser...@mail.com says...
> >> Last days, there was the opportunity for me to work with a Vista
> >> laptop. The GUI of Vista is so extensive to me that I still prefer
> >> the simpler RISC OS desktop. As I often said, RISC OS has also
> >> lacks - but it is still more transparency and handy to me.
> > Horses for courses, as they say.
> >> I don't like to spend all my time and brain just to know how to
> >> service all this Vista, eh.
> > That's fine if RISC OS does all you need.
Near enough, in my case. Only PowerPoint files and the more stubborn
websites require the Wintel box.
> > Personally, I like to expand my knowledge.
So do; which is why -- unlike nearly all Wintel users -- I am familiar
with more than one system. I am the superset of knowledge and
experience; they are the subset.
> I had a Sony Vista laptop for Xmas. It spent the first 3 days
> updating!. There is no occasion when I have wanted to do something it
> has not been "up-dating", "Backing-up" or "downloading virus
> protection" & needing to re-boot. My Iyonix is always ready to go!
My Vista machine isn't quite that bad, though it does seem to need to
update the virus etc data every couple of hours, and it will insist on
putting up a message to say it has done so. There seems to be no way to
turn that off...
It isn't very impressive, to be honest; but perhaps it excels in areas
for which I have no use -- flashy stuff, for example. I find it
inferior to XP in a number of ways, such as no longer being able to
"safely remove" pen drives without first closing the filer^W "Explorer"
display. No intelligence!
Steven Pampling
Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That's fine if RISC OS does all you need. Personally, I like to expand
> my knowledge.
What most people knew before Vista was released was that it would be mostly
bells and whistles and little real content.
Most enterprise users have remained installing XP and home users get no
real choice other than switching to Linux.
How exactly does any portion of Vista expand the knowledge of anyone?
--
Steve Pampling
Greg
steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com says...
> In article <MPG.22213a0b5...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's fine if RISC OS does all you need. Personally, I like to expand
> > my knowledge.
>
> What most people knew before Vista was released was that it would be mostly
> bells and whistles and little real content.
So the improved security, graphics acceleration, multi-tasking and dual-
core support has passed you by then?
> Most enterprise users have remained installing XP and home users get no
> real choice other than switching to Linux.
Copies of XP Home and Pro are still readily available and will be for
quite some time.
> How exactly does any portion of Vista expand the knowledge of anyone?
Ha! And there was me thinking that you worked as IT support. ;-)
--
Greg Harris (Norwich)
John M Ward
Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.22213a0b5...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's fine if RISC OS does all you need. Personally, I like to
> > expand my knowledge.
>
> What most people knew before Vista was released was that it would be
> mostly bells and whistles and little real content.
That was the word on the street, so to speak. When it came bundled and
pre-installed on my replacement Wintel box (I find they die every couple
of years or so -- this is my third such beast) I found that was indeed
the case. It still has much of the clumsiness and inadequacies of XP
and its predecessors, and indeed there are a few things it doesn't even
do as well as XP does.
> Most enterprise users have remained installing XP and home users get
> no real choice other than switching to Linux.
Even that isn't necessarily a useful choice, unless that platform can
handle (for example) PowerPoint files. That, and some websites with
issues, can necessitate my turning to "Hoppy", the HP Pavilion; but all
else that I do is under RISC OS exclusively.
> How exactly does any portion of Vista expand the knowledge of anyone?
Um, how easy it can be to produce poor products and still make an almost
guaranteed killing from selling them by the million? Wonderful what an
effectively monopoly can achieve...
Ben Shimmin
[...]
> I've had that happen on numerous occasions. I'm still trying to make
> sure I always remember to let it finish one task before attempting to
> start another. It's like a step back in time of some twenty years...
[...]
> Same here -- though I haven't had time for DOOM recently, which is a
> shame. Thanks for the reminder, though: I'll have a go soon.
One wonders why you're complaining about a step back in time of twenty
years, when Doom is a step back in time of fifteen!
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
Stick and stones may break my bones,
ma posso mangiare il vetro e non mi fa male.
charles
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> In article <4f72f204e7st...@dsl.pipex.com>,
> Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > In article <MPG.22213a0b5...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > That's fine if RISC OS does all you need. Personally, I like to
> > > expand my knowledge.
> >
> > What most people knew before Vista was released was that it would be
> > mostly bells and whistles and little real content.
> That was the word on the street, so to speak. When it came bundled and
> pre-installed on my replacement Wintel box (I find they die every couple
> of years or so -- this is my third such beast)
This seems a very strange remark. What particular aspect dies that means
you need a new machine. (Sounds like the apochraphal story of the chap who
bought a car and bought a new one when it ran out of petrol.)
But seriously, does a faulty hard drive or power supply really mean you
need to start again? Or do you install the beast in a location where it
gets no ventilation and dies of overheating of everything?
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
John M Ward
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f72f8a...@acornusers.org>,
> John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > In article <4f72f204e7st...@dsl.pipex.com>,
> > Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > In article <MPG.22213a0b5...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > > Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > That's fine if RISC OS does all you need. Personally, I like to
> > > > expand my knowledge.
> > >
> > > What most people knew before Vista was released was that it would
> > > be mostly bells and whistles and little real content.
> > That was the word on the street, so to speak. When it came bundled
> > and pre-installed on my replacement Wintel box (I find they die
> > every couple of years or so -- this is my third such beast)
> This seems a very strange remark. What particular aspect dies that
> means you need a new machine. (Sounds like the apochraphal story of
> the chap who bought a car and bought a new one when it ran out of
> petrol.)
They fail completely; as the Operating System and all applications with
their various Registry entries and all the rest of it are tied up with
the hard drive (which is probably what has failed) it would be an
interminable job to re-create my set-up on a new drive. Anyway,
technology moves on and it's not worth the candle anyway, so I get a new
beastie.
> But seriously, does a faulty hard drive or power supply really mean
> you need to start again? Or do you install the beast in a location
> where it gets no ventilation and dies of overheating of everything?
The machine always runs fairly hot -- not through lack of ventilation or
similar, but because it is cracking RC5 all the time it is on. The CPU
gauge (on Vist'a gadget sidebar) shows 100% usage all the time. If it
isn't designed to handle that, then I shall probably have to stop
cracking on that machine. Pity, really: I wanted to give it some reason
to be switched on more than a few minutes per month...
John M Ward
> [...]
> > I've had that happen on numerous occasions. I'm still trying to
> > make sure I always remember to let it finish one task before
> > attempting to start another. It's like a step back in time of some
> > twenty years...
> [...]
> > Same here -- though I haven't had time for DOOM recently, which is a
> > shame. Thanks for the reminder, though: I'll have a go soon.
> One wonders why you're complaining about a step back in time of twenty
> years, when Doom is a step back in time of fifteen!
Ah, there are good features of the past, and there are bad features.
Like most things in life, it isn't one-dimensional.
I was introduced to DOOM by my work colleague one lunchtime, when we
were preparing to be split into two -- hence two of us for the duration
(IT Support for the then DTI's south-east regional offices). He was
greatly surprised at how good I became at it, very quickly :-)
Anyway, I still prefer that to these modern games on the same basis,
with their ghastly Yank voices which completely destroy the atmosphere,
and that includes DOOM 3.
John
<jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> Pity, really: I wanted to give it some reason to be
> switched on more than a few minutes per month...
You shouldn't anthropomorphise your computers; they don't
like it, you know.
Anyway, if it's only on for a few minutes each month, how
come you have such a complicated set-up that it would be an
interminable job to recreate?
John
--
John
new...@blueyonder.co.uk
j dot mccartney atte blueyonder dot co dot uk
http://www.jm689.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
John M Ward
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f72fd1...@acornusers.org>, John M Ward
> <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > Pity, really: I wanted to give it some reason to be switched on more
> > than a few minutes per month...
> You shouldn't anthropomorphise your computers; they don't
> like it, you know.
I need to have a code-name for it, to distinguish the thing from my
"proper" computers. The previous one was a.k.a. Percy the Pee-Sea(!)
> Anyway, if it's only on for a few minutes each month, how
> come you have such a complicated set-up that it would be an
> interminable job to recreate?
Mostly the various malware checkers / registry cleaners. It would be
great if it could all be done in one app, but none of them is anywhere
near complete. Of course it would be even better if the system was so
secure that these tools weren't necessary -- but that's how it is.
Also, of course, I have Firefox, Adobe Reader and the RC5 "dnet" client,
plus some browser plug-ins to stop adverts, handle extra video formats,
and suchlike.
John M Ward
Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, John M Ward wrote:
>
> > That was the word on the street, so to speak. When it came bundled
> > and pre-installed on my replacement Wintel box (I find they die
> > every couple of years or so -- this is my third such beast) I found
> > that was indeed the case.
>
> and even then only because I've wanted faster hardware, I've never
> had a whole system die. I've had to replace a motherboard before,
> but even that was pretty painless, and I didn't lose any data. I
> only just chucked out my 10-year old 233MHz Pentium system because I
> couldn't give it away.
As I explained here earlier today, I had an unbootable system, so I
decided to cut my losses and get something more up-to-date. If I'm
going to have to re-install everything again, it might as well be on a
new machine. The cause /might/ have been the RC5 client, but that is
just a guess. I'd be surprised if the system couldn't cope with that.
Of course, with my RISC OS computers, any of them can be replaced (or a
faulty hard drive) and fully restored from the latest backup, all of
which are taken of the complete system (simply by copying across the
network with no extra software) at least once a week, plus (typically)
twice-daily data backups. I have six generations of such backups for
all my live RISC OS machines (five of 'em now), of which the latest of
each is also stored off-site at one or other location, in a strongly
encrypted form.
By the way: I used to work for London's premier Tascam dealer...
John
<jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> In article <4f7309cd...@blueyonder.co.uk>, John
> <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4f72fd1...@acornusers.org>, John M Ward
> > <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > > Pity, really: I wanted to give it some reason to be
> > > switched on more than a few minutes per month...
> > You shouldn't anthropomorphise your computers; they
> > don't like it, you know.
> I need to have a code-name for it, to distinguish the
> thing from my "proper" computers. The previous one was
> a.k.a. Percy the Pee-Sea(!)
I wasn't referring to giving a machine a twee name but the
fact that a machine doesn't have self-awareness and doesn't
(for itself) need a reason to be switched either on or off.
> > Anyway, if it's only on for a few minutes each month,
> > how come you have such a complicated set-up that it
> > would be an interminable job to recreate?
> Mostly the various malware checkers / registry cleaners.
> It would be great if it could all be done in one app, but
> none of them is anywhere near complete. Of course it
> would be even better if the system was so secure that
> these tools weren't necessary -- but that's how it is.
> Also, of course, I have Firefox, Adobe Reader and the RC5
> "dnet" client, plus some browser plug-ins to stop
> adverts, handle extra video formats, and suchlike.
That's all trivial stuff, John, and shouldn't need much in
the way of re-installing. And I mean trivial in terms of
how long it takes, not in terms of the importance of the
job it does.
Stuart
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> They fail completely; as the Operating System and all applications with
> their various Registry entries and all the rest of it are tied up with
> the hard drive (which is probably what has failed) it would be an
> interminable job to re-create my set-up on a new drive.
But it isn't. Once you've got everything installed and set up the way you
want it you use Norton Ghost to mirror it into a different drive which you
put somewhere safe. Important! Use separate partitions or drives for your
OS and programs, and your data, and keep your data backed up.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Stuart
Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty ignorant about Vista, as far as I can tell it won't offer me
> anything that XP doesn't do.
I think anyone conteplating Vista should go and have a good read of:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
You will get less functionality. I also understand it wont co-operate with
Omniclient/Lanman 98 so there goes your networking.
Stuart
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I wasn't referring to giving a machine a twee name but the
> fact that a machine doesn't have self-awareness and doesn't
> (for itself) need a reason to be switched either on or off.
So long as you ensure the CMOS battery is kept in good nick otherwise
things can get messy. However, the same applies to ant RO machine with a
battery.
John M Ward
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <alpine.LSU.1.00.0...@cube.home.local>,
> Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm pretty ignorant about Vista, as far as I can tell it won't
> > offer me anything that XP doesn't do.
> I think anyone conteplating Vista should go and have a good read of:
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
I've taken a copy of that (long!) page, but am about to go out, so will
go through it later.
> You will get less functionality. I also understand it wont co-operate
> with Omniclient/Lanman 98 so there goes your networking.
I can't get the thing to share anyway, unlike its predecessor which did
work well, so I'm having to transfer stuff via a USB flash "pen" drive.
John M Ward
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4f72fd1...@acornusers.org>,
> John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > They fail completely; as the Operating System and all applications
> > with their various Registry entries and all the rest of it are tied
> > up with the hard drive (which is probably what has failed) it would
> > be an interminable job to re-create my set-up on a new drive.
>
> But it isn't. Once you've got everything installed and set up the way
> you want it you use Norton Ghost to mirror it into a different drive
> which you put somewhere safe.
Actually, I have Acronis TrueImage which does the same thing, so I
suppose I /could/ restore the last backup of that, provided there were
no hardware-specific drivers or whatever, in which case I might have a
problem.
As it's working as is, I haven't felt inclined to tinker, just in case;
but sometimes I get that feeling inside that tells me to "just do it!"
so who knows what tomorrow might bring?
> Important! Use separate partitions or drives for your OS and
> programs, and your data, and keep your data backed up.
I do most of that: there isn't much in My Documents at any time, and
certainly nothing of which I do not have several copies elsewhere, so I
haven't moved that to D: -- though I have thought about doing so.
John M Ward
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4f730e30...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I wasn't referring to giving a machine a twee name but the
> > fact that a machine doesn't have self-awareness and doesn't
> > (for itself) need a reason to be switched either on or off.
> So long as you ensure the CMOS battery is kept in good nick otherwise
> things can get messy. However, the same applies to an RO machine
> with a battery.
My oldest RiscPC has that problem, so I simply "load CMOS" from the
Config' (double-click on !Boot, followed by Menu) whenever the machine
is switched on. This isn't very often, as that is the 12 years old Fax
and phone monitoring 2-slice, so tends to be left on all the time.
I have a spare (one-slice) RiscPC, so one day I shall transplant the
drive, second slice and podules, and let it take over.
Stuart
> > things can get messy. However, the same applies to an RO machine
> > with a battery.
> My oldest RiscPC has that problem, so I simply "load CMOS" from the
> Config'
Beware leakage from the battery corroding the main PCB!
Stuart
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> I do most of that: there isn't much in My Documents at any time, and
> certainly nothing of which I do not have several copies elsewhere, so I
> haven't moved that to D: -- though I have thought about doing so.
I believe it is possible to set up "My documents" to be on the D drive and
Windoze to use it there but I don't know how.
John
<SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> I believe it is possible to set up "My documents" to be
> on the D drive and Windoze to use it there but I don't
> know how.
Right click on My Documents > Properties > Target tab > Move
jl
> > That was the word on the street, so to speak. When it came bundled
> > and pre-installed on my replacement Wintel box (I find they die every
> > couple of years or so -- this is my third such beast) I found that was
> > indeed the case.
> What are you doing to them? I've gone through four PCs in 15 years, and
> even then only because I've wanted faster hardware, I've never had a
> whole system die. I've had to replace a motherboard before, but even
> that was pretty painless, and I didn't lose any data. I only just
> chucked out my 10-year old 233MHz Pentium system because I couldn't give
> it away.
It can happen. I've had one system die because the electrolytic capacitors
on the motherboard kept blowing. I finally got fed up replacing them and
ran out of space to install my rather larger replacements.
Having said this, my present system is just out of guarantee - three years
- and is working quite well.
Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
druck
> In article <4f72f204e7st...@dsl.pipex.com>,
> steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com says...
>> In article <MPG.22213a0b5...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> That's fine if RISC OS does all you need. Personally, I like to expand
>>> my knowledge.
>>
>> What most people knew before Vista was released was that it would be mostly
>> bells and whistles and little real content.
> So the improved security, graphics acceleration, multi-tasking and dual-
> core support has passed you by then?
I think the descrption you are struggling with there is; thrashes your
hardware to death, just to run the OS. Whatever you are using, set it
up to dual boot in to XP, and gasp at the huge speed increase from the
downgrade. Then why not try triple booting in to Linux and see what
the hardware can do when the 100 ton lead weight of Windows is cut
free.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
druck
> That was the word on the street, so to speak. When it came bundled and
> pre-installed on my replacement Wintel box (I find they die every couple
> of years or so -- this is my third such beast) I found that was indeed
> the case. It still has much of the clumsiness and inadequacies of XP
> and its predecessors, and indeed there are a few things it doesn't even
> do as well as XP does.
What about all the new clumsiness and inadequacies? Microsoft have
taken the opportunity to vastly complicate the UI for no good reason.
Take just one thing in File Manager; XP and all previous versions had
an 'up' button that took you up a directory, simple and easy to
understand for even the addled brain of a long term Windows user. What
happens in Vista - its replaced with an insanely overcomplex and
fiddly bar containing the path elements with arrows and drop down
lists, that even the most skilled users keep having difficulties with
after weeks of use.
While I'm at it Lets have another that caught me out first time and
annoys me every subsequent time. After years of brain dead Windows
dialogs of the forum:-
Click Yes to do one thing, and No to do another.
[Yes] [No}
Instead of our logical RISC OS way of having the buttons say the
actions, i.e. [One thing] [Another] they've now changed the overwrite
confirmation dialog with one which looks at first glance to only have
a cancel button. The main part of the dialog has the two overly
verbose descriptons of the options along with grossly oversized icons,
but no visual indication of what to do. Its only when you wave the
mouse over the dialog does it indicate these choices are clickable.
That has to be the first rule of what not to do in graphic user
interface design going right back to the year dot, and shows Microsoft
have learnt nothing, they are still committed to providing an ever
more complex, more frustrating and just plainly worse experience for
the user.
Stick with XP, its shit, but its the shit you know.
Kell Gatherer
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > > Personally, I like to expand my knowledge.
> So do; which is why -- unlike nearly all Wintel users -- I am familiar
> with more than one system. I am the superset of knowledge and
> experience; they are the subset.
May I quote you?
Brilliant.
--
Kell Gatherer
kell at mighty dot me dot uk (expand)
Kell Gatherer
> means you need a new machine. (Sounds like the apochraphal story of the
> chap who bought a car and bought a new one when it ran out of petrol.)
> But seriously, does a faulty hard drive or power supply really mean you
> need to start again? Or do you install the beast in a location where it
> gets no ventilation and dies of overheating of everything?
Are you kidding?
I've been through the experience of switching from RISC OS to Windows
(PCs).
Not only is the build quality crap (even from the best suppliers) but
Windows (or M$oft or whatever you call it) is crap.
I now get a monthly invoice from a team of (extremely nice, obliging and
knowledgable) people whose job consist of fixing problems that shouldn't
exist in the first place.
It's got nothing to do with faulty hard drives or power supplies, it's to
do with a bloated overbearing operating system that works overhard to make
things overcomplicated.
The great thing about RISC OS (which is why we are here in this newsgroup)
is that it is simple - not simple in the sense of underachieving but
*undemanding*. Why should something that does the same as !Edit (50k as I
recall) occupy (minimum) 50 megabytes?
Windows and everything to do with Windows is hugely, unforgivingly, memory
hungry, and as each year goes by you have to have a new machine with more
and more memory available.
...which of course is true when you download sound and watch movies, watch
BBCiplayer, 4oD, whatever... (I have taken the view that, well, that's
what you have to have a PC for, so that's what I use my PC's for, the real
stuff I use my Iyonix/RPC's for.)
But puhlease, don't try to defend the undefendable: every new incarnation
of Windows and each of its bastard offsprings is another very heavy demand
on hardware that isn't ready for the load. I have RO machines here which
"carry on regardless". Were I in a hospital on life support I'd trust
myself to RISC OS a million lifetimes before anything to do with Microsoft.
Kell Gatherer
Martin Bazley <mar...@bazley.freeuk.com> wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, my biggest disincentive for converting to
> Windoze is what I like to term its 'epilepsia' - if you try to tell it
> to do too many things at once or confuse it with a lot of information it
> will either freeze for five minutes or do something irrational and
> unexpected.
I hate the way it pretends to be have started up but actually you have to
wait another five minutes (ok ok exaggeration) while it starts up goodness
knows what before it becomes usable. And if during that time you
impatiently click on too many things then it gags and dies.
> Also, it's so slooooowwww, and gets slower with age.
I am reliably told that's because of not enough memory. One of my PCs
(which is five years old and does web but not email) lasts about 6 hours
before I have to shut it down and start again otherwise it is unusable.
> There are computers around at school that can easily take up to seven
> minutes to start up, which, when I consider the fact that I could have
> fired up 3.7 on my old RPC700 some time ago and be well into a game of
> Doom by then, reminds me why I will never desert what is, for all its
> faults and omissions, a clean, stable, efficient, easy-to-use and cheap
> to maintain British OS.
Neat. Ya. Agree.
John M Ward
Kell Gatherer <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4f72439...@acornusers.org>,
> John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > > > Personally, I like to expand my knowledge.
> > So do; which is why -- unlike nearly all Wintel users -- I am
> > familiar with more than one system. I am the superset of knowledge
> > and experience; they are the subset.
> May I quote you?
You may.
> Brilliant.
I have my moments...
...though here I missed an I in "So do I".
John M Ward
Kell Gatherer <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote, in part:
> Were I in a hospital on life support I'd trust myself to RISC OS a
> million lifetimes before anything to do with Microsoft.
The "Blue Screen of Death" could become literally that!
John M Ward
Kell Gatherer <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <96953772...@freeuk.com>,
> Martin Bazley <mar...@bazley.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, my biggest disincentive for converting to
> > Windoze is what I like to term its 'epilepsia' - if you try to tell
> > it to do too many things at once or confuse it with a lot of
> > information it will either freeze for five minutes or do something
> > irrational and unexpected.
>
> I hate the way it pretends to be have started up but actually you
> have to wait another five minutes (ok ok exaggeration) while it
> starts up goodness knows what before it becomes usable.
I find it isn't clear when it /has/ finished, so I leave it for several
minutes before starting up anything myself, just to be safe. I can be
getting on with something useful on the Iyonix in the meantime.
> And if during that time you impatiently click on too many things then
> it gags and dies.
> > Also, it's so slooooowwww, and gets slower with age.
> I am reliably told that's because of not enough memory. One of my PCs
> (which is five years old and does web but not email) lasts about 6
> hours before I have to shut it down and start again otherwise it is
> unusable.
It does seem to put a colossal amount into its swap file. Even with a
Gigabyte of memory (as the new "Hoppy" -- HP -- has) it still isn't
anywhere near enough, apparently, and I can soon hear the drive chugging
away every time I do anything, even asking for a menu (which can thus
take several seconds to appear).
It is better after a restart -- and I always restart it after running
Google Earth, for one, as that seems to be a real memory gobbler -- but
performance deteriorates with time regardless. This has been a known
problem on all MS-Windows systems since at least as far back as Win95.
> > There are computers around at school that can easily take up to
> > seven minutes to start up, which, when I consider the fact that I
> > could have fired up 3.7 on my old RPC700 some time ago and be well
> > into a game of Doom by then, reminds me why I will never desert
> > what is, for all its faults and omissions, a clean, stable,
> > efficient, easy-to-use and cheap to maintain British OS.
> Neat. Ya. Agree.
<Teal'C> As do I. </Teal'C>
C J Craig
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
>> Neat. Ya. Agree.
PC World Man said you should reformat your HD & re-install Windows &
programs at least once a year. Not sure what he said about back up!
When I tried that it took another 3 days up-dating windows & office,
so presumably I got all the "temp" files back again
Chris
--
C J Craig
Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk
Iyonix ARM XScale computer Risc OS 5.11
Martin Bazley
Ben Shimmin filtered slowly through the cosmos...
> John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org>:
>
> [...]
>
> > I've had that happen on numerous occasions. I'm still trying to make
> > sure I always remember to let it finish one task before attempting to
> > start another. It's like a step back in time of some twenty years...
>
> [...]
>
> > Same here -- though I haven't had time for DOOM recently, which is a
> > shame. Thanks for the reminder, though: I'll have a go soon.
>
> One wonders why you're complaining about a step back in time of twenty
> years, when Doom is a step back in time of fifteen!
>
Because Doom was, for its time, cutting-edge, efficient, innovative and
fun, whereas no known Microsoft product has ever contained any feature
that someone else hasn't had for years (the perpetual lack of font
anti-aliasing is my favourite example). Sure, Doom is fifteen years
old, but so is the concept. Vista is one year old and most of the
not-bells-and-whistles part of it is much the same as what we've had
before.
--
__<^>__ I thought DFS was a brand of sofa until I discovered the Beeb.
/ _، ،_ \ Posted by Martin Bazley from British technology.
( ( |_| ) )
\_> <_/ ...Stationery rulers, OK
Rob Kendrick
> Because Doom was, for its time, cutting-edge, efficient, innovative and
> fun, whereas no known Microsoft product has ever contained any feature
> that someone else hasn't had for years
I know this is csa.advocacy, but isn't this slightly too hyperbolic, even
considering the group's subject?
B.
druck
[55 lines of quoting snipped]
This isn't a Windows newsgroup you know.
Tony Houghton
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> I was introduced to DOOM by my work colleague one lunchtime, when we
> were preparing to be split into two -- hence two of us for the
> duration (IT Support for the then DTI's south-east regional
> offices). He was greatly surprised at how good I became at it, very
> quickly :-)
>
> Anyway, I still prefer that to these modern games on the same basis,
> with their ghastly Yank voices which completely destroy the
> atmosphere, and that includes DOOM 3.
Doom 3 didn't impress anybody all that much. There is a newer game than
Doom that can still at least match it for atmosphere, playability and
breaking new ground etc when you ignore its technological advantages:
the original Half Life series. Half Life 2 and its sequels are pretty
damned good too.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
John M Ward
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2008 John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > That was the word on the street, so to speak. When it came bundled
> > and pre-installed on my replacement Wintel box (I find they die
> > every couple of years or so -- this is my third such beast) I found
> > that was indeed the case. It still has much of the clumsiness and
> > inadequacies of XP and its predecessors, and indeed there are a few
> > things it doesn't even do as well as XP does.
>
> What about all the new clumsiness and inadequacies? Microsoft have
> taken the opportunity to vastly complicate the UI for no good reason.
They always do -- apart from one reason, and one reason only: sales
glitz. What they do is add gloss and flashiness, which is easy to sell
to the masses -- a bit like The Sun newspaper, in a way, and with the
same aim: maximum market share.
> Take just one thing in File Manager; XP and all previous versions had
> an 'up' button that took you up a directory, simple and easy to
> understand for even the addled brain of a long term Windows user.
Yes. Another way of doing it, though I am so familiar with
Adjust-closing to go up a level that I have always found the XP etc
method not all that intuitive (just another button to locate). It
worked, though.
> What happens in Vista - its replaced with an insanely overcomplex
> and fiddly bar containing the path elements with arrows and drop
> down lists, that even the most skilled users keep having
> difficulties with after weeks of use.
That's one of the things I meant "a few things it doesn't even do as
well as XP". Again, it's something to locate, and usually takes me a
few seconds to make sure I am in the right place before clicking.
> While I'm at it Lets have another that caught me out first time and
> annoys me every subsequent time. After years of brain dead Windows
> dialogs of the forum:-
> Click Yes to do one thing, and No to do another.
> [Yes] [No}
> Instead of our logical RISC OS way of having the buttons say the
> actions, i.e. [One thing] [Another] they've now changed the overwrite
> confirmation dialog with one which looks at first glance to only have
> a cancel button.
I noticed that almost as soon as I got the new machine, about six months
ago now.
> The main part of the dialog has the two overly verbose descriptons of
> the options along with grossly oversized icons, but no visual
> indication of what to do. Its only when you wave the mouse over the
> dialog does it indicate these choices are clickable.
Yes, that's really odd! I couldn't work out what was wrong at first,
but now treat it as just a bug. I cannot believe that was the intended
behaviour -- it makes no sense whatsoever.
It's still a very limited and poor file copying system. All one needs
to do when copying a batch of files and one is open (which, on Microsoft
systems, is likely as it holds numerous files open at any moment) and
that's the end of your copying operation, somewhere in the middle,
part-done (and not generally in any easy-to-discern order).
On RISC OS, very few files are held open for update, so that they cannot
be copied, in the first place. Databases, EasiWriter and Pdf are the
only apps that come to mind that have open files.
Anyway, if I should encounter an open file during a bulk copy, a
non-fatal error will be generated and I can close the offending file in
the relevant app. If it's a mistake and the file shouldn't be open
(which can happen on certain very rare occasions) I can close the file
specifically.
If all else fails, I can note that single file name and path, and get
the copy "filer action" to skip that file and carry on with the rest of
the task. After it's all over, I can sort out the problem with that one
file, and copy it once the issue has been resolved.
There's always a solution with RISC OS!
> That has to be the first rule of what not to do in graphic user
> interface design going right back to the year dot, and shows Microsoft
> have learnt nothing, they are still committed to providing an ever
> more complex, more frustrating and just plainly worse experience for
> the user.
"More sellable to the ignorant masses" is far more important to a purely
commercial outfit like Microsoft -- and, I suspect, to any American
company. I don't trust them at all, and prefer to buy British where
there's a choice. There's a completely different customer service ethic
here, especially in the RISC OS market, and always has been.
> Stick with XP
My new RiscBook portable has XP on it, though I very rarely "see" it, as
the machine works in RISC OS mode virtually all the time. Once a month
I take a TrueImage (complete) backup of both drives, but then it goes
back to RISC OS for another month(!)
John M Ward
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <MPG.222146692...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Greg <gr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
> > You have to differentiate the OS from the applications. XP is
> > definately more stable than RISC OS given the range of hardware
> > that is designed to operate on, applications are down to user
> > knowledge/experience.
I have found that RISC OS can crash on occasions: for example, using the
ancient Compression (Cfs) on a RISC OS 4 or later (i.e. Filecore 1
rather than Filecore 0, for which it was designed) to compress a batch
of thousands of files, after also having run Win95FS, can eventually
trigger a fatal error after a few hours of this. It doesn't always do
so, but it seems to be a less-than-solid combination. Cfs was written
more than fifteen years ago, and the version I have is dated 1992, so I
suppose I am pushing it a bit to expect it all to work perfectly now.
Incidentally, the reason I still run Cfs is to partially-encrypt my
files ready for offsite storage. I won't disclose the other part of the
process. I am hoping for a better solution to come along, using a
similar user interface to Cfs but fully encrypting files to the highest
modern standard. I already have an iron in the fire on this, as you
(Paul) will know...
Win-XP just gets slower and more unreliable; and I also find with all
these "swapfile"-based memory-hungry systems that the hard drive
chuggles away whenever the user does anything at all. Even calling-up a
menu results in several seconds of chuggling (as I call it) before the
menu appears, and this is exactly the same in Vista.
It's best to shut-down the machine and re-start, which at least clears
the RAM of any clutter that the system hasn't dealt with properly. Not
exactly a "clean slate", as the swapfile is still there, presumably with
stuff in it even then, but much better than trying to carry on as it had
been -- at least for a while. Google Earth is a major culprit in
filling up memory, so one of the web-based equivalents can be a better
choice, as well as not needing a particular brand of OS to run.
> Depends what you're doing really. For power users, XP is very
> unreliable. If you're just doing a bit of word processing and web
> browsing I'd have thought even XP should be quite stable.
> Anything more advanced and XP collapses in a heap of 'invalid page
> boundaries' or 'invalid device' or somesuch error.
> There again, I can crash a Windows PC just by looking at it, so I
> guess it's just evil thoughts that I emanate! :-)
Ah, I think that one of the three young ladies in my in-progress
illustrated novel might be able to do that. Verity's psi abilities are
still developing, as are Ellie's and Nisha's...
John M Ward
> Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com> enlightened us thusly:
> [Snippety snip]
> > I wasn't aware that Ghost came as part of any new PC anyway.
> Pretty much any high street PC now comes bundled with it.
Really? I didn't know that. My recently-bought HP Pavilion did not
have it supplied, and I'd have thought that was a mainstream High Street
type of Wintel box. Fortunately, I still had a valid Acronis TrueImage
licence, so transferred that to the new beastie.
> > Who the hell mentioned Norton Antivirus? Oh that's right, nobody.
> You were talking about Symantic products!
Yes, I spotted the connection, but realised it was a slight tangent...
John M Ward
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <4f74a22...@acornusers.org>,
> John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> enlightened us thusly:
> > Really? I didn't know that. My recently-bought HP Pavilion did
> > not have it supplied, and I'd have thought that was a mainstream
> > High Street type of Wintel box. Fortunately, I still had a valid
> > Acronis TrueImage licence, so transferred that to the new beastie.
> Well, by 'high street', I was speaking of my own experience of
> examining the bundles sold in our local Comet, Staples, PC World and
> Currys. :-)
Mine came from Staples, so there! :-)
> > Yes, I spotted the connection, but realised it was a slight
> > tangent...
> Everything is a slight tangent when it comes to Windows. :-)
Usually a downward curve, I've found...
druck
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Paul Vigay wrote:
>> You are talking out of your arse I presume???
[snip]
> You may have noticed - you stupid blinkered fuckwit (I assume you wish to
> trade insults)
[snip]
Calm down, its only a newsgroup, no need for unpleasantness.
druck
> I have found that RISC OS can crash on occasions: for example, using the
> ancient Compression (Cfs) on a RISC OS 4 or later (i.e. Filecore 1
> rather than Filecore 0, for which it was designed) to compress a batch
> of thousands of files, after also having run Win95FS, can eventually
> trigger a fatal error after a few hours of this. It doesn't always do
> so, but it seems to be a less-than-solid combination. Cfs was written
> more than fifteen years ago, and the version I have is dated 1992, so I
> suppose I am pushing it a bit to expect it all to work perfectly now.
CFS was always a bit flaky, I used it for a time back in early days of
the Archimedes when my once huge 40MB harddisc statred getting full,
but soon ditched it. If you have any CFS compressed files I recommend
you expand them all now, I guarantee you'll disappointed, finding a
fair few which are broken. Often after uncompressing they still
display the compressed filetype, which indicates they contain junk.
John M Ward
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2008 John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > I have found that RISC OS can crash on occasions: for example,
> > using the ancient Compression (Cfs) on a RISC OS 4 or later (i.e.
> > Filecore 1 rather than Filecore 0, for which it was designed) to
> > compress a batch of thousands of files, after also having run
> >
> > It doesn't always do so, but it seems to be a less-than-solid
> > combination. Cfs was written more than fifteen years ago, and the
> > version I have is dated 1992, so I suppose I am pushing it a bit to
> > expect it all to work perfectly now.
>
> CFS was always a bit flaky, I used it for a time back in early days
> of the Archimedes when my once huge 40MB harddisc statred getting
> full, but soon ditched it. If you have any CFS compressed files I
> recommend you expand them all now, I guarantee you'll disappointed,
> finding a fair few which are broken.
Not unless it did crash during a file write operation. That one file
can easily be found after recovering the system (I power-off and back
on, just to be completely sure) and deleted, and the copy operation
re-started. As the system copies alphabetically it is no problem to
find the half-processed file and to know where to re-start.
> Often after uncompressing they still display the compressed filetype,
> which indicates they contain junk.
As it happens, I don't seem ever to have had that problem, so perhaps it
was something else that caused the problem. In my own case, I am (as I
hinted earlier) trying to get that particular issue solved, especially
in regard to more up-to-date encryption of my off-site backups.
Michael Chappell
> Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com> enlightened us thusly:
> [Snippety snip]
> > I wasn't aware that Ghost came as part of any new PC anyway.
> Pretty much any high street PC now comes bundled with it.
I don't think they do; my Vista PC from PCWorld didn't.
Michael
David Pitt
Michael Chappell <chap...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
All three PCs here came with Norton Security applications on one flavour
or another, but not Ghost.
With my first PC I did eventually realise that Norton was hobbling
the thing so now as soon as a new PC comes out of its box Norton is
kicked off.
PCs from the High Street come with all sorts of stuff pre-installed,
shovel-ware for want of a better word. It is never clear to me what
start up things can be removed to ensure the PC's performance is not
degraded by superfluous junk. It does not seem entirely sensible to
cripple something with demos in an attempt to sell further products.
--
David Pitt.
Computing with RISC OS.
Stuart
David Pitt <pit...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> PCs from the High Street come with all sorts of stuff pre-installed,
> shovel-ware for want of a better word. It is never clear to me what
> start up things can be removed to ensure the PC's performance is not
> degraded by superfluous junk. It does not seem entirely sensible to
> cripple something with demos in an attempt to sell further products.
Apart from one some years ago, all the desktop PCs here have been
assembled by myself. The first couple I had advice and help from a guy at
work but now I feel fairly confident about doing it myself so only what is
needed gets installed.
It's not actually that difficult, just time consuming, and if I have any
doubts about compatibility I ask at the shop I buy my bits. They are very
knowlegeable (NOT PC World) and I have never had any problems.
I've not used it yet because I haven't had the time but this is supposed
to be effective
http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html>
Stuart
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Michael Chappell
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <813a86754...@iyonix.home>,
> David Pitt <pit...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > PCs from the High Street come with all sorts of stuff pre-installed,
> > shovel-ware for want of a better word. It is never clear to me what
> > start up things can be removed to ensure the PC's performance is not
> > degraded by superfluous junk. It does not seem entirely sensible to
> > cripple something with demos in an attempt to sell further products.
> Apart from one some years ago, all the desktop PCs here have been
> assembled by myself. The first couple I had advice and help from a guy at
> work but now I feel fairly confident about doing it myself so only what is
> needed gets installed.
> It's not actually that difficult, just time consuming, and if I have any
> doubts about compatibility I ask at the shop I buy my bits. They are very
> knowlegeable (NOT PC World) and I have never had any problems.
I've fancied trying that but always been a bit wary; have you thought f
putting up a step by step guide on the web?
Michael
Stuart
Michael Chappell <chap...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> I've fancied trying that but always been a bit wary; have you thought f
> putting up a step by step guide on the web?
No I hadn't actually but then I don't have a website either.
Something I must get round to. I did get myself RComp's HTML Edit Studio
at the Christmas show :-)
A decent motherboard will come with a manual explaining how to fit things
like the processor, memory and so on as well as all the details of it's
connectors and links.
Another advantage of DIY - a bought in PC may well use an "OEM"
motherboard and you will see all sorts of links and connectors on the
motherboard and not have a clue what they are for or how you can upgrade
it later if you want to.
Jess
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Stick with XP, its shit, but its the shit you know.
I must remember that one.
--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
John M Ward
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f730bf...@acornusers.org>, John M Ward
> <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > In article <4f7309cd...@blueyonder.co.uk>, John
> > <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > You shouldn't anthropomorphise your computers; they
> > > don't like it, you know.
> > I need to have a code-name for it, to distinguish the
> > thing from my "proper" computers. The previous one was
> > a.k.a. Percy the Pee-Sea(!)
> I wasn't referring to giving a machine a twee name but the
> fact that a machine doesn't have self-awareness and doesn't
> (for itself) need a reason to be switched either on or off.
No, but I do, in order to justify its purchase cost, electricity
consumption, desk/floor space occupied, and the time I need to regularly
devote to cosseting the thing to make it work reasonably well. At the
moment it isn't bad, actually.
> > > Anyway, if it's only on for a few minutes each month,
> > > how come you have such a complicated set-up that it
> > > would be an interminable job to recreate?
>
> > Mostly the various malware checkers / registry cleaners.
> > It would be great if it could all be done in one app, but
> > none of them is anywhere near complete. Of course it
> > would be even better if the system was so secure that
> > these tools weren't necessary -- but that's how it is.
At this point I checked the pinboard^W Desktop (sorry: habit of many
years!) to remind myself of the few apps I have installed on Hoppy.
> > Also, of course, I have Firefox, Adobe Reader and the RC5
> > "dnet" client, plus some browser plug-ins to stop
> > adverts, handle extra video formats, and suchlike.
>
> That's all trivial stuff, John, and shouldn't need much in
> the way of re-installing.
All those license (sic) keys, and all those question during install? I
have better things to do -- perhaps others here haven't real lives...
On any of my RISC OS computers, if (say) a hard drive failed, all I'd do
is install a new one and simply copy everything back using the filer.
It would be advisable to reboot once that is complete (one of the very,
very rare occasions that a reboot is necessary or even merely desirable)
and then everything would be as it had been before.
I am currently thinking of replacing my 12-year-old two-slice RiscPC by
another machine that recently arrived, and even that can be done by
simply transplanting the hardware bits (drives and podules) and
powering-up, loading the old machine's CMOS RAM settings as the only
(and genuinely trivial!) exercise after powering-up.
> And I mean trivial in terms of how long it takes, not in terms of the
> importance of the job it does.
As do I. My apps and utils simply copy across, from one machine to
another. On a MS-Windows machine it means a complete re-install of
every one of them. Hours rather than minutes for the software -- and
not long for the hardware, for that matter.
John M Ward
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4f73266...@acornusers.org>,> > > So long as you ensure the CMOS battery is kept in good nick
> > > otherwise things can get messy. However, the same applies to an
> > > RO machine with a battery.
> > My oldest RiscPC has that problem, so I simply "load CMOS" from the
> > Config'
> Beware leakage from the battery corroding the main PCB!
Thanks for the reminder. This hasn't happened so far: I take the lid
off every now and again and check the innards -- mainly to blow any dust
out!
John M Ward
Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, John M Ward wrote:
> > In article <alpine.LSU.1.00.0...@cube.home.local>,
> > Tascam Holiday <tascam....@gmail.com> wrote:
[Re: failing Wintel computers]
> But this has happened to you every two years?
Thereabouts -- two to three years. Remember, this new beastie is only
my third: I had no unavoidable (in practice) need for one before 2002.
> > Of course, with my RISC OS computers, any of them can be replaced
> > (or a faulty hard drive) and fully restored from the latest backup,
> > all of which are taken of the complete system (simply by copying
> > across the network with no extra software) at least once a week,
> > plus (typically) twice-daily data backups. I have six generations
> > of such backups for all my live RISC OS machines (five of 'em now),
> > of which the latest of each is also stored off-site at one or other
> > location, in a strongly encrypted form.
> Then why aren't you keeping backups of your PC too?
I do; but that isn't done in the same way, and I do not have full
confidence in this system as matters stand. If it can't be simply
copied to and fro there's something severely amiss, in my view.
> It's just as easy.
It is not. On my "proper" computers it is simply a matter of
drag-copying via the built-in filer, and that's it. Indeed, I can even
selectively copy (back) selected folders only, such as a backup copy of
!Boot (which I did on one of my machines recently, as I found I'd done
something wrong and couldn't find what that was quickly, so reverted).
> Assuming you're using Windows, then you can use Norton Ghost
> (40 quid), or DriveImage XML (http://www.runtime.org/dixml.htm) if
> you want something free.
I have Acronis TrueImage.
> > By the way: I used to work for London's premier Tascam dealer...
> Nothing to do with me!
Oh, all right, then -- I'll let you off this time :-)
John M Ward
C J Craig <Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> PC World Man said you should reformat your HD & re-install Windows &
> programs at least once a year.
I can confirm that this is indeed common advice, and has been for some
years now. Primitive technology and all that...
> Not sure what he said about back up!
Perhaps that it does indeed get one's back up :-)
> When I tried that it took another 3 days up-dating windows & office,
> so presumably I got all the "temp" files back again
Ceratinly all the Service Pack stuff (which is huge! over 100 MB just
for patches...) will have been downloaded and installed -- and the
machine restarted probably three times in the process. As I said above:
primitive (and, for that matter, American) tech'. I prefer British: we
seem to have a much "cleaner" way of doing things.
John M Ward
> > Then why aren't you keeping backups of your PC too? It's just as
> > easy. Assuming you're using Windows, then you can use Norton Ghost
> > (40 quid), or DriveImage XML (http://www.runtime.org/dixml.htm) if
> > you want something free.
[Paul's anto-Norton Ghost rant snipped, of necessity!]
> Most Norton products are worse than the viruses they're supposed to
> guard against. They cause more problems than ever before, and cause
> your PC to severely slow down and become crippled.
THis has been my own experience, and advice from various (completely
independent of each other) sources has been to do as you say, i.e.
remove it.I have NOD32 (of all things) on Hoppy, after strong personal
recommendations. I had never even heard of it before.
> For anti-virus, use AVG.
Not bad...
> > > By the way: I used to work for London's premier Tascam dealer...
> > Nothing to do with me!
> Referring to the big music shop down Charing Cross road??
No: Tascam was Teac's professional division.
> I bought several of my first synthesizers in there!
I don't think it would have had that name... I was in the pro part of
REW in Charing Cross Road between 1970 and 1974, when we built-up what
was essentially a hi-fi shop into that plus a pro audio dealer with some
exclusive agencies and considerable knowledge. Those were great days,
until the boss's eldest son, Jan Murray, went off to create PC World. I
had already gone to the Civic Service by that time...
John
<jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> On a MS-Windows machine it means a complete re-install of
> every one of them. Hours rather than minutes for the
> software --
Not if you understand the concept of multi-tasking. Set it
going -> make a drink -> check installation's progress ->
finish drink -> check installation's progress -> wash the
car -> check installation's progress -> mow the lawn etc.
--
John
new...@blueyonder.co.uk
j dot mccartney atte blueyonder dot co dot uk
http://www.jm689.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
John
<jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> Ceratinly all the Service Pack stuff (which is huge!
> over 100 MB just for patches...) will have been
> downloaded and installed -- and the machine restarted
> probably three times in the process. As I said above:
> primitive (and, for that matter, American) tech'.
I recently saw a description of how to make a Windows
installation disk complete with all the latest patches. I
forget where it was but it might have been in Computer
Shopper or Computer Active. Try their web sites.
> I prefer British: we seem to have a much "cleaner" way of
> doing things.
What, baths once a week on a Friday night in a tin bath in
front of the fire instead of daily showers?
druck
> In article <4f7631a...@acornusers.org>, John M Ward
> <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
>> On a MS-Windows machine it means a complete re-install of
>> every one of them. Hours rather than minutes for the
>> software --
> Not if you understand the concept of multi-tasking. Set it
> going -> make a drink -> check installation's progress ->
> finish drink -> check installation's progress -> wash the
> car -> check installation's progress -> mow the lawn etc.
Only if you want to have to do it all over again properly tomorrow.
Many installers require a reboot afterwards to replace dlls etc, not
all installers will co-operate over the various methods of doing this.
The only safe way is to do it one at a time.
John
> > In article <4f7631a...@acornusers.org>, John M Ward
> > <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> >> On a MS-Windows machine it means a complete re-install
> >> of every one of them. Hours rather than minutes for
> >> the software --
> > Not if you understand the concept of multi-tasking. Set
> > it going -> make a drink -> check installation's
> > progress -> finish drink -> check installation's
> > progress -> wash the car -> check installation's
> > progress -> mow the lawn etc.
> Only if you want to have to do it all over again properly
> tomorrow. Many installers require a reboot afterwards to
> replace dlls etc, not all installers will co-operate over
> the various methods of doing this. The only safe way is
> to do it one at a time.
Then it'll tell if it needs a reboot you when you come back
and check.
Stuart
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f7631a...@acornusers.org>, John M Ward
> <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > On a MS-Windows machine it means a complete re-install of
> > every one of them. Hours rather than minutes for the
> > software --
> Not if you understand the concept of multi-tasking. Set it
> going -> make a drink -> check installation's progress ->
> finish drink -> check installation's progress -> wash the
> car -> check installation's progress -> mow the lawn etc.
:-)
Steven Pampling
John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I recently saw a description of how to make a Windows
> installation disk complete with all the latest patches.
Add the word slipstream into the search.
You basically build an install set that includes the patches as
replacements for the original files. The result loads in the same length of
time as the original install, is as "stable" as the patched version but
never has an outdated file anywhere on disc.
It isn't actually worth the effort unless you experience regular problems
or perennially install and remove obscure software.
--
Steve Pampling
John
Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4f76451d...@blueyonder.co.uk>, John
> <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I recently saw a description of how to make a Windows
> > installation disk complete with all the latest patches.
> Add the word slipstream into the search.
Mmm! What a difference one word makes. Thanks Steven.
> You basically build an install set that includes the
> patches as replacements for the original files. The
> result loads in the same length of time as the original
> install, is as "stable" as the patched version but never
> has an outdated file anywhere on disc.
Yes, this gels with what I remember of the article.
> It isn't actually worth the effort unless you experience
> regular problems or perennially install and remove
> obscure software.
But John Ward might just find it useful. It'd be cheaper
than a new computer.
Greg
steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com says...
> In article <4f76451d...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> John <new...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I recently saw a description of how to make a Windows
> > installation disk complete with all the latest patches.
>
> Add the word slipstream into the search.
Also add 'unattended' and it saves watching the bloody thing as well.
--
Greg Harris (Norwich)
Glenn Richards
> With my first PC I did eventually realise that Norton was hobbling
> the thing so now as soon as a new PC comes out of its box Norton is
> kicked off.
All my desktop PC systems were built from components and had a clean
install of XP without any bundled rubbish.
My laptops however... first thing I do is nuke the pre-installed OS and
put something decent on there. Invariably they used to come with XP Home
(crippleware), nowadays you get Vista Home Basic.
One of the pre-requisites now for purchasing a laptop, whether for
myself or a customer, is "are XP drivers available"? The machine
immediately gets reformatted and XP Pro installed!
At least Acer have stopped supplying laptops with the hard disk split
into two FAT32 partitions - running XP.
> PCs from the High Street come with all sorts of stuff pre-installed,
> shovel-ware for want of a better word. It is never clear to me what
> start up things can be removed to ensure the PC's performance is not
> degraded by superfluous junk. It does not seem entirely sensible to
> cripple something with demos in an attempt to sell further products.
There was an article somewhere (might have been The Register) about
"crapware" like this. Interesting reading.
--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/
IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation
David Pitt
Glenn Richards <gl...@squirrelsolutions.co.uk> wrote:
>David Pitt wrote:
>
>> With my first PC I did eventually realise that Norton was hobbling
>> the thing so now as soon as a new PC comes out of its box Norton is
>> kicked off.
>
>All my desktop PC systems were built from components and had a clean
>install of XP without any bundled rubbish.
>
>My laptops however... first thing I do is nuke the pre-installed OS and
>put something decent on there. Invariably they used to come with XP Home
>(crippleware), nowadays you get Vista Home Basic.
>
>One of the pre-requisites now for purchasing a laptop, whether for
>myself or a customer, is "are XP drivers available"? The machine
>immediately gets reformatted and XP Pro installed!
Not only are PCs bought on the High Street loaded with assorted junk
but the supplied CDs do not help. My two Toshibas came with restore CDs
which were just a copy of the CD image, Norton, shovelware and all. What
was not there was a WindowsXP or Vista CD, so a clean install is out of
the question. Not having the WindowsXP is a particular hazard as
there are useful utilities on the disc that are not part of the standard
disc installation, backup is one such. In the event of trouble there is
no CD to boot from. Oddly CDs for MicroSoft Works CDs were supplied.
For all the control, not to mention world domination, Microsoft has
machines carrying their OSes are supplied in a sorry state to the
public.
In the Lakeside shopping centre there is a newly arrived Apple shop
which is a lovely as PC World is scruffy. That's Apple selling their own
stuff, it led me to wonder if Macs are supplied in a better state.
[snip]
>There was an article somewhere (might have been The Register) about
>"crapware" like this. Interesting reading.
Thanks, that is interesting.
Ben Shimmin
[...]
> In the Lakeside shopping centre there is a newly arrived Apple shop
> which is a lovely as PC World is scruffy. That's Apple selling their own
> stuff, it led me to wonder if Macs are supplied in a better state.
Apple supply the operating system on DVD from which you can reinstall,
boot, or perform maintenance, if necessary.
The only `junk' you get when you buy a Mac are trial versions of
Apple's own iWork suite (which is great, and well worth paying 55GBP to
activate when the trial expires after a month) and of Microsoft Office.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`At the time (late 80s), Unix was an incredibly expensive OS, totally
unsuitable for the home user. Now it's an incredibly cheap OS, totally
unsuitable for the home user...' -- Dickon Hood
David Pitt
Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>David Pitt <pit...@pittdj.co.uk>:
>
>[...]
>
>> In the Lakeside shopping centre there is a newly arrived Apple shop
>> which is a lovely as PC World is scruffy. That's Apple selling their own
>> stuff, it led me to wonder if Macs are supplied in a better state.
>
>Apple supply the operating system on DVD from which you can reinstall,
>boot, or perform maintenance, if necessary.
That is the bit that is missing from all three of the Windows PCs I
have. Even with Vista Ultimate there seems to no way of making a
bootable DVD. I found out the hard way that the Vista backups I had made
are unreachable without a boot CD. And it gets better, I have just
had to re-install Vista and the supplied restore DVD claimed the whole
drive obliterating my Linux partitions.
>The only `junk' you get when you buy a Mac are trial versions of
>Apple's own iWork suite (which is great, and well worth paying 55GBP to
>activate when the trial expires after a month) and of Microsoft Office.
It does seem that the MAC is a better thought out, more looked after,
package
I am having a bad day!
Roger Darlington
> On RISC OS, very few files are held open for update, so that they cannot
> be copied, in the first place. Databases, EasiWriter and Pdf are the
> only apps that come to mind that have open files.
>
And Temp-Bin, and I think Bookmaker and BDrand.
--
Cheers
Roger
If your boss wants a power-point presentation, then give him a mains
plug.
John
> > On RISC OS, very few files are held open for update, so
> > that they cannot be copied, in the first place.
> > Databases, EasiWriter and Pdf are the only apps that
> > come to mind that have open files.
> >
> And Temp-Bin, and I think Bookmaker and BDrand.
I've just run TechWriter with an open document and run Paul
Vigay's CloseFiles. It showed only BookMaker and NetSurf
with files open (apart from some font files). I suspect
that EasiWriter wouldn't hold a file open either.
I can confirm PDF has a document file open while it's being
displayed.