Adobe Photoshop benchmarks
Martik
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Cafe/4363/download.html
Here are my averages for each run of the 1st 6 Intermediate tests (AMD
Athlon 1700+ oc'd to 1.84Ghz actual):
1.9
3.5
2.9
2
2.1
3.3
Someone please report results on their Mac, I won't compare or attack - just
curious.
ZnU
"Martik" <mar...@telus.net> wrote:
Althon G5
1.9 0.2
3.5 0.7
2.9 1.2
2.0 0.5
2.1 0.7
3.3 1.3
That's a dual 2 GHz G5 with 1 GB of RAM, running Photoshop CS.
--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
lefty
> In article <PfVrb.12596$Ws6.11102@edtnps84>,
> "Martik" <mar...@telus.net> wrote:
>> Here are some benchmarks:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Cafe/4363/download.html
>>
>> Here are my averages for each run of the 1st 6 Intermediate tests (AMD
>> Athlon 1700+ oc'd to 1.84Ghz actual):
> Althon G5
> 1.9 0.2
> 3.5 0.7
> 2.9 1.2
> 2.0 0.5
> 2.1 0.7
> 3.3 1.3
>
> That's a dual 2 GHz G5 with 1 GB of RAM, running Photoshop CS.
interesting example of the "deminishing returns" in pc shopping. i think a
athlon system in about that range would go for about $500, but for what ...
six times that price, one can get better numbers.
Snit
Are those numbers the only way you rate a machine?
Lloyd Parsons
<le...@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
And if what you are doing is hobbyist/home user, it might not be worth
it.
But for those that make a living doing this stuff, that could be damn
important!
Remember for the home user the computer is a cost, but for the business
user it is an investment. Big difference!
Lloyd
lefty
to be honest, i am curious. i'm a very occaisional gimp/photoshop user.
when i flail away in those graphic programs, i spend far more time trying
to get my selections right than i do applying filters and effects.
now, i understand from programming that there are small-time tasks that can
be nonetheless frustrating. perhaps the analog would be that we spend a
long time coding in an editor, and then wait in frustration for the much
smaller time spent in compilation phase.
so, maybe it reduces frustration ... but to be real about it, in both
programming and graphic editing, i think we'd have to look at the impact on
daily workflow.
i wonder if this wasn't where the adobe guy was coming from in his pc
suggestions. i wonder if it isn't easier to hit some "sweet spot" in
throughput with a sub $1k pc.
lefty
yes snit, those are the only numbers i've ever seen in my life, and i use
them not only to rate a machine, but also to buy my groceries and plan my
retirement.
Snit
Wow. Might I suggest another tool for planning your retirement; maybe
Quicken. Warning: if you install it on XP, the only way to fix your machine
is though a system restore. :)
John
Installed Photoshop CS on my machine and everything works wonderful. No
need to run System restore as usual for Adobe products. I have installed
hunndreds of programs over the last 2 years and only one(Quicken) messed
up my system. No problem. Less than 5 minutes to fix.
lefty
> now, i understand from programming that there are small-time tasks that
> can be nonetheless frustrating. perhaps the analog would be that we spend
> a long time coding in an editor, and then wait in frustration for the much
> smaller time spent in compilation phase.
btw, this reminds me of something. back in the floppy-disk days, i'd have a
bench press set up behind by desk at home, and do bench presses while the
compiles chunked away.
now i compile faster, but bench-press less :-(
Snit
Wow - before it was 10 minutes. Now it is down to 5. Your OS just keeps
getting better! Sounds like a fisherman talking about the "big one" that
got away.
Steve Mackay
Hundreds? Uh huh... And you don't lie, right?
Snit
Yes... HUNDREDS. I have a bad habit of surfing to versiontracker.com (and a
couple others, but most often there) and playing with new things that come
out... Often 10-20 a week, though sometimes less. Most of the time I play
for a day or two and toss them out. If I keep them I put them in my
Applications folder. Right now my Applications folder has 378 item,
including some folders with multiple programs (though also a couple apps
with multiple versions - not sure how you want to count that). I would
*guess* I keep maybe 1 out of 3 or 4 apps I play with... Or less. That
means I have probably added 200 apps to my computer, and have thrown away
close to 1000 (though that may include some repeats of the same program,
different versions).
That does not include Classic apps - which I tend to ignore these days and
Unix not in the Apps folder.
I know most Windows folks find this hard to believe, but playing with lots
of software has never hurt my OS X machine. Sometimes in OS 9 (and before)
I had to use the Extensions Manager to return to my standard set. On
Windows the registry ends up getting hosed and you suffer from DLL hell.
For my geeky habits, Windows just does not do the job with enough stability
to keep me happy.
You were saying....?
John
Five minutes PER machine.
Steve Mackay
I can see it with OSX, but NOT with XP. You would end up with some
serious registry problems after installing, and uninstalling 'Hundreds' of
applications. In other words, like usual, Johny boy is lying thru his teeth.
Snit
And the fish was HOW big?
Snit
Exactly. I am not saying that XP does not have it group of users that it
can work well for, but for my uses it would likely fall apart very quickly.
John
Why would you end up with registry problems? I have installed hundreds
of Apps. Never ANY "registry problems". As usual Steve Mackay
demonstrates is knowledge of Win XP is ZERO.
Snit
When you have one file (or small set of files) that are needed for most
applications AND open to change by most application, it is a recipe for
disaster. Just about every program you launch, no less install, edits some
area of the registry. Even MS says that before you edit the registry "you
back up the registry and understand how to restore it if a problem occurs"
(http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;322756&sd=tech)
They do not make it clear if they mean manual editing or just the average
daily use that edits the registry. Even if they do mean JUST manual
editing, the risk for error and corruption is high with such open access to
these files. Between this weakness and DLL hell, MS really has a mess on
its hands.
John
There is no "DLL Hell" with Win XP. Win XP backs up its registry
automatically.
Snit
No DLL Hell with XP... Hmmmm, even MS admits that XP only 'helps to address
the "DLL hell" problem'
(http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/features.asp)
Seems not even MS claims that it XP eliminates it.
As far as backing up the registry: of course it does. When you have such a
huge weakness in your system you do what you can to defend it. It is the
way of things in XP. Registry backups instead of eliminating the problem,
insisting on the absolute need for virus checkers instead of building real
security, insistence on two button mice instead of building a better GUI:
these things are just the norm for XP.
Lloyd Parsons
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Bullshit, John! If the install doesn't get you, the fscking uninstall
will! Leaving crap all over the place, and certainly still in the
registry!
Lloyd
John
Junk left in the registry has no impact on system operation in over
99.5% of cases.
Steve Mackay
Well Winliar, you obviously have 0, Zilch, NADA experience with the
registry. It will become corrupted with that many programs being
installed/uninstalled.
You lied about the 'hundreds' of programs, be a man, admit it.
Snit
Not that I believe that, but even if true, you say this like it is a good
thing. How odd...
John
OK I should have just said over 400.
Peter Hayes
> Junk left in the registry has no impact on system operation in over
> 99.5% of cases.
Takes longer to parse, though, slowing everything down.
It's been proved time and again that simple text files are vastly more
efficient than the pseudo-database known as the Registry. Easier to edit,
no single point of failure.
--
Peter
Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
Snit
I just wonder if there are so few problems with the XP registry, why there
seems to be such an amazing variety of products designed to fix it? Here is
a small sample - it is by no means a full list of even all the programs that
claim to attempt to fix the XP registry from version tracker:
http://superwin.com/regvac.htm
http://www.batl.com/winclean.html
http://www.cleanreg.net/
http://www.easydesksoftware.com/perfect.htm
http://www.elcor.net/ard.php
http://www.iomatic.com/products/product.asp?ProductID=registrymedic
http://www.real.com/accessories/?prod=pwrtwk&src=011218EMAL14
http://www.registry-clean.com/
http://www.registry-clean.net/
http://www.registry-cleaner.net/
http://www.rosecitysoftware.com/reg1aid/
http://www.winguides.com/regmech/
Notice how several of these products even strive to make it easy to find
them - they use the terms like "registry-clean", "registry-cleaner", or
"cleanreg" in their domain names.
Now, I can neither prove not disprove Johns claims (as unlikely as they
seem), but it it very clear that *if* he is telling the truth (this time)
that it is still very common to have registry problems with XP. Ones that
apparently take more than a 5 minute system restore to fix.
Snit
> John wrote:
>
>> Junk left in the registry has no impact on system operation in over
>> 99.5% of cases.
>
> Takes longer to parse, though, slowing everything down.
>
> It's been proved time and again that simple text files are vastly more
> efficient than the pseudo-database known as the Registry. Easier to edit,
> no single point of failure.
Sort of like the old ini's. To make them better, perhaps Ms should
standardize them better; would make sense to use XML. Oh wait... That
sounds just like Apple's .plist or preference files. What do you know....
John
Registry fix it programs are for the most part equivalent to snake oil.
Snit
Snake oil tricks only work on a population that is desperate for a cure to
an illness (or illnesses) without good cures. This leads the conclusion
that if you are to be believed (a mighty big IF, btw), Windows users are so
used to "incurable" problems that a whole industry has sprung up to sell
them useless programs to fix problems that do not exist.
Perhaps you want to re-think your defense of XP. Just a thought.
Lloyd Parsons
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
You know, the only ones I've ever met in my nearly 60 years of living
that insist on giving numbers out all the time with decimal precision
is retarded folk and liars.
So, how about a poll, which is John?
Lloyd
Lloyd Parsons
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
John, you are supposed to be working, not dicking around with the
computers. There is NO business that has a need for '400' programs!
I will admit that I've looked at about a half-dozen PIM/CRM apps over
the weekend trying to find one I like. Strangely, with the exception
of the one I'm buying, they all just uninstalled with just a drag to
trash.
Not like Windows of any flavor, at all!
BTW, if you are a sales type like me, Daylite is the cat's meow! It is
every bit as powerful as ACT!, but cheaper and VERY flexible. It is a
bit complex to figure out, but the work is damn well worth it!
Lloyd
Snit
I mostly agree. Perhaps 99.5% agreement... :)
John
No need to. I have used XP since the day it was released on Oct 25,
2001 with nothing but satisfaction. In fact I am SO satisfied with it
that I just don't listen to the crap coming from those peddling inferior
technology. Technology which one always has worry whether it will be
compatible with the real world.
John
I came up with that number as an estimate Lloyd. I have installed a
minimum 400 programs and uninstalled about 200 of them with no registry
problems with impact at all. So based on my actual experience the
number is 100.0 %. But to be on the safe side I stated 99.5% as an
estimate.
Snit
Many people used snake oil (and the like) with complete satisfaction as
well. Perhaps you have expect nothing better than what XP can offer.
> In fact I am SO satisfied with it that I just don't listen to the crap coming
> from those peddling inferior technology.
Not sure I follow you here - so *you* do not listen to the people selling
the "inferior" XP registry fixers, but MANY MANY people do - based on the
number of products out there. Seems that others have higher expectations
that you.
> Technology which one always has worry whether it will be compatible with the
> real world.
Not sure I follow you? Is this in reference to XP's closed system?
Snit
What, were you using an original Pentium to do that math?
Lloyd Parsons
<snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Do I need to start another poll? ;-)
Lloyd
Snit
Education perhaps... Different programs for different grades and programs
for staff and tech folks. Still, 400 seems like a lot. Or, he can be like
me and just waste a lot of time dinking and testing. Though, as has been
covered, if you do that on XP, your machine will die quite quickly.
>
> I will admit that I've looked at about a half-dozen PIM/CRM apps over
> the weekend trying to find one I like. Strangely, with the exception
> of the one I'm buying, they all just uninstalled with just a drag to
> trash.
That is true of the majority of OS X programs. Even MS programs usually
install with drag and drop, though in the background they spew files like
no other Mac programs I have ever seen. Even the, with no registry to
corrupt, even MS can not do the damage on OS X that they do on XP.
Hey, semi random thought - if it is so easy to remove programs from Windows,
why was MS unable to remove IE even when ordered to by a court. Others did
find a way, but apparently the top minds at MS couldn't.
>
> Not like Windows of any flavor, at all!
Longhorn will fix that! Longhorn will fix that! Longhorn will fix that!
Longhorn will fix that! Longhorn will fix that! Longhorn will fix that!
There, if I say it enough will it come true?
John
No proof has been presented that installing multiple programs will
insure Win XP will "die quickly". Just assertions from those like Steve
Mackay that are as always full of it.
Martik
a
> athlon system in about that range would go for about $500, but for what
...
> six times that price, one can get better numbers.
Those are bogus G5 results
David Fritzinger
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
He's retarded. No, he's a liar! But, he is clearly retarded. Yeah, but
it is clear that he is also a liar.
Hell, let's just settle this by admitting that in Winnie's case, he's
both!
8^)
Dave Fritzinger
Snit
Proof - no. Support based on reported experiences AND a large number of
programs designed to reduce those problems. Also, MS's claim that you should
"back up the registry and understand how to restore it if a problem occurs".
Even MS knows the registry is prone to problems.
In fact, the only person who seems to be claiming the registry is not
problem prone is someone who claims to have been able to:
Recognize a problem with his computer
Track it down to Quicken
Uninstall Quicken
Post to this group how he was going to return Quicken
Test the problem
Do a System Restore
Test the problem again
Do a search on Intuits tech site - search long enough to give up
Do a search on MS's tech site - find a solution
Implement the solution
Re-install Quicken
Repeat the uninstall on machine #2
Repeat the System Restore on machine #2
Repeat the solution on machine #2
Re-install Quicken on machine #2
And all of that in 10 minutes!
Do you still claim all of that, John? If so, your credibility in my eyes is
pretty much shot; it is clearly not in the realm of possibility. Care to
correct any of that info above?
Steve Mackay
400? PROVE IT!
And you've had no problems?
You're nothing but a lying piece of shit.
Tim Adams
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
A slight problem with your list IF John is to be believed.
He did the install of Quicken twice on the same machine. At least he
claims to have run the system restore on the same computer twice and
once on a second computer 'for a test'. He also claimed to have only run
it, to fix problems with installing Quicken, bringing you to one
computer, two installs, two system restores and then, since he
apparently is still running Quicken, a third install.
Snit
Wow. Only a Senior Technologist would be able to do such a thing.
John
No. TEN minutes TOTAL work. Not done all at once. If you knew anything
about XP you would know what a fool you make by disputing what I have
said. Clearly you are not able to make an informed judgement.
John
Your list is wrong. I only REINSTALLED to one machine.
John
NO problems WITH the registry or the excellent Win XP OS except with
Quicken. Lots of problems with individual poorly written application.
YOU ARE THE LYING SHIT. I KNOW what I have done with my machine idiot.
David Fritzinger
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
So, your machine is an idiot as well?
8^)
Dave Fritzinger
Snit
Ok, so it DID take you longer than ten minutes to have your computer usable
in a fashion you were trying to use it (as a glorified check book). Even
with that, others have pointed out that my list is incomplete, based on your
claims. You apparently installed Quicken at least 3 times.
So let's say it takes 3 minutes to install Quicken. That is 9 minutes for
the 3 installs. Oh, plus at least a couple times on machine #2. That is
already 15. And, what 2 minutes for your super fast system restore. That
is 17. And research on Intuit.com, say another 10 minutes (you did give it
at least that long before you gave up, right) - and then say 2 minutes on
MS's site (including just getting there, that would be VERY fast). So now
we are at 29 minutes. Let's see, another minute to implement the solution, I
will even say on each computer (so really JUST 30 seconds each). We are now
up to 30 minutes. I forgot finding the problem and testing - so maybe 35
minutes... And I think you can agree that I have been VERY generous on most
of my estimates. An hour or more is probably MUCH closer to reality.
We are not talking being off here by less than second or two or some other
nitpicky silliness; it is clear your ten minute claim is a complete and
total farce. Or can you explain how you possibly did all you have said you
have done in 10 minutes. What things that I included did you not?
Snit
I see in this posting you seem to be accepting the posting to the thread.
You denied it elsewhere. Please get your lies straight.
Snit
What OS were you on when you had to deal with these poorly written
applications?
>
> YOU ARE THE LYING SHIT. I KNOW what I have done with my machine idiot.
You may know, but you have clearly been caught lying with your 10 minute
claims. Your reputation, in my eyes anyway, is pretty much lost.
John
You included an extra install and you included the time spent to
INITIALLY install Quicken on both machines. That is not part of the
troubleshooting process. I only have Quicken now on one machine. You
included time to search Quicken site. I did that after I had already
used System Restore. Probably 1-2 minutes there.
Wally
----------
In article <111120031705065984%lloydp...@spamac.com>, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
> You know, the only ones I've ever met in my nearly 60 years of living
> that insist on giving numbers out all the time with decimal precision
> is retarded folk and liars.
>
> So, how about a poll, which is John?
>
> Lloyd
Liar is I believe beyond doubt, retarded? I really would hate to lump John
in with decent retarded folk, *They* don't deserve that.
Wally
----------
In article <BBD6BE82.2F3CC%snit-...@cableone.net>, Snit
<snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
In John's fantasy world he should know in a little over 9 Hours........
5 minutes = 10 days....... ROTFLMAO
Snit
Ok, the first install should not be included. Fair enough. 32 minutes
instead of 35 (and we all know my above estimates are much faster than you
really did things). You still did your web research in an attempt to solve
the problem. That *is* part of troubleshooting.
Had you just claimed your only have had to do an hour of troubleshooting in
three years (a still impressive claim that would almost certainly be false),
you could at least have maintained some dignity in this discussion.
Alan Baker
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > We are not talking being off here by less than second or two or some
> > other nitpicky silliness; it is clear your ten minute claim is a
> > complete and total farce. Or can you explain how you possibly did
> > all you have said you have done in 10 minutes. What things that I
> > included did you not?
>
>
> You included an extra install and you included the time spent to
> INITIALLY install Quicken on both machines. That is not part of the
> troubleshooting process. I only have Quicken now on one machine. You
> included time to search Quicken site. I did that after I had already
> used System Restore. Probably 1-2 minutes there.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
"1-2 minutes" to make a conclusive determination that the solution to
your problems wasn't to be found. Sure.
Johnny: you'll realize as you grow to adulthood that some lies work
better than others. Had you claimed to have *found* a solution in 1-2
minutes, you might have been saying something plausible, but to
determine that *no* solution was there... ...that simply must take a
while.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
John
You include 3 minutes per install. I usually do other things while I
install a program. Such as work on another computer or take a coffee
break. I would say 45 seconds is a much more reasonable figure to use
for an install. Thats how long it takes to put in a CD and start the
install.
Snit
Um, the install still takes several minutes. Three is probably much faster
than the reality. 5-10 is more like it, esp. if it is true that it takes
you 45 seconds to just insert a CD and start an install.
Snit
> In article <vr34sci...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> We are not talking being off here by less than second or two or some
>>> other nitpicky silliness; it is clear your ten minute claim is a
>>> complete and total farce. Or can you explain how you possibly did
>>> all you have said you have done in 10 minutes. What things that I
>>> included did you not?
>>
>>
>> You included an extra install and you included the time spent to
>> INITIALLY install Quicken on both machines. That is not part of the
>> troubleshooting process. I only have Quicken now on one machine. You
>> included time to search Quicken site. I did that after I had already
>> used System Restore. Probably 1-2 minutes there.
>
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
>
> "1-2 minutes" to make a conclusive determination that the solution to
> your problems wasn't to be found. Sure.
>
> Johnny: you'll realize as you grow to adulthood that some lies work
> better than others. Had you claimed to have *found* a solution in 1-2
> minutes, you might have been saying something plausible, but to
> determine that *no* solution was there... ...that simply must take a
> while.
This is one of the few times I have seen where a Usenet debate has been so
clearly settled, yet one of the people stays in complete denial.
Ok. I am new here. :)
Snit
Perhaps it started when he was trying to convince some woman that the small
side of the ruler was inches.
StormDrain
> >> OK I should have just said over 400.
> >
> > 400? PROVE IT!
> > And you've had no problems?
> > You're nothing but a lying piece of shit.
>
>
> NO problems WITH the registry or the excellent Win XP OS except with
> Quicken. Lots of problems with individual poorly written application.
Wouldn't you rather use an OS that doesn't flip out and throw a tantrum
when it see a poorly written app? Quicken is only a money management
tool (a fancy database) I can't imagine it taxing the system too much.
It is good MS gave you System Restore when a simple app's problems cause
windows to go berserk. Saves you a reinstall...nice!
Tom Riddle
I don't think he is exagerating. I can solve all problems related to XP
with one simple flick of the power switch.
Wally
----------
In article <BBD6E6BF.2F423%snit-...@cableone.net>, Snit
<snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha OH! Please stop it! my sides hurt.
Raffael Cavallaro
> > interesting example of the "deminishing returns" in p.c. shopping. i think
> a
> > ethanol system in about that range would go for about $500, but for what
> ...
> > six times that price, one can get better numbers.
>
> Those are bogus G5 results
Seem similar to those I just ran on a machine here at the studio:
0.2
1.3
1.2
0.2
0.5
0.9
PS7.0.1 with G5 update, Dual G5 2GHz, 4MB RAM, under Panther (10.3).
This link:
<http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html>
makes it clear that going from 1GB to 2GB or more of RAM will more
than double Photoshop performance on a G5. Serious pros will have at
least that much (the G5 maxes out at 8GB).
Elizabot
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
>>In article <vr2n91f...@news.supernews.com>, John
>><nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <vr2iopg...@news.supernews.com>, John
>>>><nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 11/11/03 12:11 PM, "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 11/11/03 8:13 AM, "lefty" <le...@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 11/11/03 7:19 AM, "lefty" <le...@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Althon G5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1.9 0.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3.5 0.7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.9 1.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.0 0.5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2.1 0.7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3.3 1.3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's a dual 2 GHz G5 with 1 GB of RAM, running Photoshop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>interesting example of the "deminishing returns" in pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>shopping. i think a athlon system in about that range would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>go for about $500, but for what ... six times that price,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>one can get better numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>Bullshit, John! If the install doesn't get you, the fscking
>>>>uninstall will! Leaving crap all over the place, and certainly
>>>>still in the registry!
>>>>
>>>>Lloyd
>>>
>>>
>>>Junk left in the registry has no impact on system operation in over
>>>99.5% of cases.
>>>
>>
>>You know, the only ones I've ever met in my nearly 60 years of living
>>that insist on giving numbers out all the time with decimal precision
>>is retarded folk and liars.
>>
>>So, how about a poll, which is John?
>>
>>Lloyd
>
>
>
> I came up with that number as an estimate Lloyd. I have installed a
> minimum 400 programs and uninstalled about 200 of them with no registry
> problems with impact at all. So based on my actual experience the
> number is 100.0 %. But to be on the safe side I stated 99.5% as an
> estimate.
So you've said that there are over 500 machines in your building. Does this mean
you are not allowed access to them all?
Elizabot
> In article <vr2ofr1...@news.supernews.com>, John
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Mackay wrote:
>>
>>> Well Winliar, you obviously have 0, Zilch, NADA experience with
>>>the registry. It will become corrupted with that many programs being
>>>installed/uninstalled.
>>>
>>> You lied about the 'hundreds' of programs, be a man, admit it.
>>
>>
>>OK I should have just said over 400.
>>
>
> John, you are supposed to be working, not dicking around with the
> computers. There is NO business that has a need for '400' programs!
>
> I will admit that I've looked at about a half-dozen PIM/CRM apps over
> the weekend trying to find one I like. Strangely, with the exception
> of the one I'm buying, they all just uninstalled with just a drag to
> trash.
>
> Not like Windows of any flavor, at all!
>
> BTW, if you are a sales type like me, Daylite is the cat's meow! It is
> every bit as powerful as ACT!, but cheaper and VERY flexible. It is a
> bit complex to figure out, but the work is damn well worth it!
He didn't say 400 different programs. For all we know, he installed Quicken on
200 machines and then uninstalled it and installed Money instead. ;-)
Elizabot
>>>programs for staff and tech folks. Still, 400 seems like a lot. Or,
>>>he can be like me and just waste a lot of time dinking and testing.
>>>Though, as has been covered, if you do that on XP, your machine will
>>>die quite quickly.
>>>
>>>>
Elizabot
Yeah, and it will take me about 15 seconds to open a window, unplug the machine,
and toss it out.
Elizabot
Snit
Would you let him have full access to your machines?
Snit
ZnU
wrote:
> > interesting example of the "deminishing returns" in pc shopping. i think
> a
> > athlon system in about that range would go for about $500, but for what
> ...
> > six times that price, one can get better numbers.
>
> Those are bogus G5 results
Usually when people accuse me of lying they at least give me a bit more
of an explanation.
--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
Elizabot
If he entered my house, I'd shoot him.
Wally
----------
I doubt that he will choose to correct the fact that he first reported the
problem on 22 August, but didn't think to check the MS site until 1st Sept,
so the time frame for putting up with this "No problem" is closer to 10 days
10minutes!* LOL
*note this is REAL time not to be confused with John's FANTASY time.
Steve Mackay
Gd6sb.582$xc7.8...@news3.news.adelphia.net, "lefty"
<le...@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
>> In article <PfVrb.12596$Ws6.11102@edtnps84>,
>> "Martik" <mar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>> Here are some benchmarks:
>>> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Cafe/4363/download.html
>>>
>>> Here are my averages for each run of the 1st 6 Intermediate tests (AMD
>>> Athlon 1700+ oc'd to 1.84Ghz actual):
>
>> Althon G5
>> 1.9 0.2
>> 3.5 0.7
>> 2.9 1.2
>> 2.0 0.5
>> 2.1 0.7
>> 3.3 1.3
>>
>> That's a dual 2 GHz G5 with 1 GB of RAM, running Photoshop CS.
>
> interesting example of the "deminishing returns" in pc shopping. i think a
> athlon system in about that range would go for about $500, but for what ...
> six times that price, one can get better numbers.
I actually figured and Athlon to do better than that.
Here's a Dual G4 1GHZ 1.5 gig of ram
0.5
2.2
1.7
0.4
1.4
2.5
C Lund
> a
> > athlon system in about that range would go for about $500, but for what
> ...
> > six times that price, one can get better numbers.
What makes you say that?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> NO problems WITH the registry or the excellent Win XP OS except with
> Quicken. Lots of problems with individual poorly written application.
So.. how many poorly written apps have you had problems with?
> YOU ARE THE LYING SHIT. I KNOW what I have done with my machine idiot.
Yes, I'm sure you know what you've done with your machine. The
question is whether what you've done and what you've said you've done
are the same...
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Tim Adams
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> On 11/11/03 6:00 PM, "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <BBD6C7C0.2F3E1%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/11/03 4:39 PM, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Snit wrote:
> >>>> On 11/11/03 4:10 PM, "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <vr2ofr1...@news.supernews.com>, John
> >>>>> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
> >>>>>>> John wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/03 12:11 PM, "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> John wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/03 8:13 AM, "lefty" <le...@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/03 7:19 AM, "lefty" <le...@halfwit.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Althon G5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9 0.2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 0.7
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9 1.2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 0.5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1 0.7
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.3 1.3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a dual 2 GHz G5 with 1 GB of RAM, running
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Photoshop CS.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting example of the "deminishing returns" in pc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shopping. i think a athlon system in about that range
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would go for about $500, but for what ... six times that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> price, one can get better numbers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well Winliar, you obviously have 0, Zilch, NADA experience with
> >>>>>>> the registry. It will become corrupted with that many programs
> >>>>>>> being installed/uninstalled.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You lied about the 'hundreds' of programs, be a man, admit it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OK I should have just said over 400.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> John, you are supposed to be working, not dicking around with the
> >>>>> computers. There is NO business that has a need for '400' programs!
> >>>>
> >>>> Education perhaps... Different programs for different grades and
> >>>> programs for staff and tech folks. Still, 400 seems like a lot. Or,
> >>>> he can be like me and just waste a lot of time dinking and testing.
> >>>> Though, as has been covered, if you do that on XP, your machine will
> >>>> die quite quickly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> No proof has been presented that installing multiple programs will
> >>> insure Win XP will "die quickly". Just assertions from those like Steve
> >>> Mackay that are as always full of it.
> >>>
> >> Proof - no. Support based on reported experiences AND a large number of
> >> programs designed to reduce those problems. Also, MS's claim that you
> >> should
> >> "back up the registry and understand how to restore it if a problem
> >> occurs".
> >> Even MS knows the registry is prone to problems.
> >>
> >> In fact, the only person who seems to be claiming the registry is not
> >> problem prone is someone who claims to have been able to:
> >>
> >> Recognize a problem with his computer
> >> Track it down to Quicken
> >> Uninstall Quicken
> >> Post to this group how he was going to return Quicken
> >> Test the problem
> >> Do a System Restore
> >> Test the problem again
> >> Do a search on Intuits tech site - search long enough to give up
> >> Do a search on MS's tech site - find a solution
> >> Implement the solution
> >> Re-install Quicken
> >> Repeat the uninstall on machine #2
> >> Repeat the System Restore on machine #2
> >> Repeat the solution on machine #2
> >> Re-install Quicken on machine #2
> >>
> >> And all of that in 10 minutes!
> >>
> >> Do you still claim all of that, John? If so, your credibility in my eyes
> >> is
> >> pretty much shot; it is clearly not in the realm of possibility. Care to
> >> correct any of that info above?
> >>
> >
> > A slight problem with your list IF John is to be believed.
> >
> > He did the install of Quicken twice on the same machine. At least he
> > claims to have run the system restore on the same computer twice and
> > once on a second computer 'for a test'. He also claimed to have only run
> > it, to fix problems with installing Quicken, bringing you to one
> > computer, two installs, two system restores and then, since he
> > apparently is still running Quicken, a third install.
>
> Wow. Only a Senior Technologist would be able to do such a thing.
>
Why I think he is getting only 10 minutes - being a 'senior
technologist' after spending a couple of minutes with a problem, he
throws his arms up in the air, calls his companies tech support and lets
them do the rest, rather all, of the work getting his system back and
running right. So he can honestly say HE spent only 10 minutes with the
problem. Tech support on the other hand...
Tim Adams
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> >> No. TEN minutes TOTAL work. Not done all at once. If you knew
> >> anything about XP you would know what a fool you make by disputing
> >> what I have said. Clearly you are not able to make an informed
> >> judgement.
> >>
> > Ok, so it DID take you longer than ten minutes to have your computer
> > usable in a fashion you were trying to use it (as a glorified check
> > book). Even with that, others have pointed out that my list is
> > incomplete, based on your claims. You apparently installed Quicken
> > at least 3 times.
> >
> > So let's say it takes 3 minutes to install Quicken. That is 9
> > minutes for the 3 installs. Oh, plus at least a couple times on
> > machine #2. That is already 15. And, what 2 minutes for your super
> > fast system restore. That is 17. And research on Intuit.com, say
> > another 10 minutes (you did give it at least that long before you
> > gave up, right) - and then say 2 minutes on MS's site (including just
> > getting there, that would be VERY fast). So now we are at 29
> > minutes. Let's see, another minute to implement the solution, I will
> > even say on each computer (so really JUST 30 seconds each). We are
> > now up to 30 minutes. I forgot finding the problem and testing - so
> > maybe 35 minutes... And I think you can agree that I have been VERY
> > generous on most of my estimates. An hour or more is probably MUCH
> > closer to reality.
> >
> > We are not talking being off here by less than second or two or some
> > other nitpicky silliness; it is clear your ten minute claim is a
> > complete and total farce. Or can you explain how you possibly did
> > all you have said you have done in 10 minutes. What things that I
> > included did you not?
>
>
> You included an extra install and you included the time spent to
> INITIALLY install Quicken on both machines. That is not part of the
> troubleshooting process. I only have Quicken now on one machine. You
> included time to search Quicken site. I did that after I had already
> used System Restore. Probably 1-2 minutes there.
>
How do you get him for an extra install? You claimed to have run system
restore twice for quicken problems. Install - problem - system restore-
install - problem - system restore- install - fix and keep running.
Looks like 3 installs to me.
John
I am talking about 10 minutes total time I spent at the machine
troubleshooting. That does not include time WAITING at the machine
while Installing was taking place. I don't do that. I do something
else. it does not include time WAITING at the machine while System
Restore is running. I don't do that. I walk away and get a cup of
coffee or do something else. It includes ACTUAL time I am at the
machine.
Wally
----------
In article <vr4cfck...@news.supernews.com>, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> Wally wrote:
>> ----------
>> I doubt that he will choose to correct the fact that he first
>> reported the problem on 22 August, but didn't think to check the MS
>> site until 1st Sept, so the time frame for putting up with this "No
>> problem" is closer to 10 days 10minutes!* LOL
>>
>> *note this is REAL time not to be confused with John's FANTASY time.
>
>
>
> I am talking about 10 minutes total time I spent at the machine
> troubleshooting.
Ah, I understand "No problem. Less than 5 minutes to fix" must have been
either a typo or another problem entirely!
> That does not include time WAITING at the machine
> while Installing was taking place. I don't do that. I do something
> else. it does not include time WAITING at the machine while System
> Restore is running. I don't do that. I walk away and get a cup of
> coffee or do something else.
Its that regular an occurrence is it?
> It includes ACTUAL time I am at the machine.
But what of the time that the app was unusable.....10days? how does that
equate to being a "No problem" you bought the app to use it as you used
previous versions I assume?, how many of these other 400 apps you boast of
were also unusable "No problem" apps? I suppose that explains why you dumped
200 of them.
Elizabot
With that logic, if you work 8 hours a day, you should only get paid for an hour
and 20 minutes because the rest of the time is spent drinking coffee, etc.
Unless you're out delivering mail while you're waiting for your computer to
catch up, that is. ;-)
Snit
First, let's start with the obvious: that is *not* the way time is measured
when you are doing a job. If you were charging someone by they hour, would
you drive to their place, start a process, have a cup of coffee with them,
return to work, have another cup of coffee, etc. and charge them only 10
minutes of your time. No. It does not work that way. If you boss brought
you a problem and asked how long it would take to fix it, would you be able
to tell him (or her) ten minutes? No. It would clearly be a lie.
Ok, so now that it is clear that your way of measuring time is completely
contrary to any expectations anyone else would have - let me accept it for
the sake of argument. Let us just say that you really did mean that all
along and that you really believe that is a fair way to measure trouble
shooting time. You *still* claim to have done a complete enough search on
Intuit.com to have determined they did not have an answer. Then you went to
MS.com and found an answer. I do not believe you did those steps alone in
under 10 minutes. And that is time you have to be at the computer, not
elsewhere twiddling your thumbs.
From what others have posted, it seems the task took you 10 days. That does
*not* mean I think you went without sleep or eating or having to go potty
for 240 hours, but that the whole process, from recognition of the problem
to a complete solution, took at least 10 days. Not bad - if that is the
only problem you have had with your computers in years. Nothing to be
ashamed of. Just wish you would not claim it was only 10 minutes.
Snit
Perhaps, on average, he only spends a minute day at his computer?
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> >
> > "1-2 minutes" to make a conclusive determination that the solution to
> > your problems wasn't to be found. Sure.
> >
> > Johnny: you'll realize as you grow to adulthood that some lies work
> > better than others. Had you claimed to have *found* a solution in 1-2
> > minutes, you might have been saying something plausible, but to
> > determine that *no* solution was there... ...that simply must take a
> > while.
>
> This is one of the few times I have seen where a Usenet debate has been so
> clearly settled, yet one of the people stays in complete denial.
>
> Ok. I am new here. :)
>
I know what you did last summer...
Steve
Steve Carroll
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
> In article <vr2n91f...@news.supernews.com>, John
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > In article <vr2iopg...@news.supernews.com>, John
> > >>>>>> years and only one(Quicken) messed up my system. No problem.
> > >>>>>> Less than 5 minutes to fix.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hundreds? Uh huh... And you don't lie, right?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Yes... HUNDREDS. I have a bad habit of surfing to
> > >>>> versiontracker.com (and a couple others, but most often there) and
> > >>>> playing with new things that come out... Often 10-20 a week,
> > >>>> though sometimes less. Most of the time I play for a day or two
> > >>>> and toss them out. If I keep them I put them in my Applications
> > >>>> folder. Right now my Applications folder has 378 item, including
> > >>>> some folders with multiple programs (though also a couple apps
> > >>>> with multiple versions - not sure how you want to count that). I
> > >>>> would *guess* I keep maybe 1 out of 3 or 4 apps I play with... Or
> > >>>> less. That means I have probably added 200 apps to my computer,
> > >>>> and have thrown away close to 1000 (though that may include some
> > >>>> repeats of the same program, different versions).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That does not include Classic apps - which I tend to ignore these
> > >>>> days and Unix not in the Apps folder.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I know most Windows folks find this hard to believe, but playing
> > >>>> with lots of software has never hurt my OS X machine. Sometimes
> > >>>> in OS 9 (and before) I had to use the Extensions Manager to return
> > >>>> to my standard set. On Windows the registry ends up getting hosed
> > >>>> and you suffer from DLL hell. For my geeky habits, Windows just
> > >>>> does not do the job with enough stability to keep me happy.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You were saying....?
> > >>>
> > >>> I can see it with OSX, but NOT with XP. You would end up with
> > >>> some serious registry problems after installing, and uninstalling
> > >>> 'Hundreds' of applications. In other words, like usual, Johny boy is
> > >>> lying thru his teeth.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Why would you end up with registry problems? I have installed
> > >> hundreds of Apps. Never ANY "registry problems". As usual Steve
> > >> Mackay demonstrates is knowledge of Win XP is ZERO.
> > >>
> > > Bullshit, John! If the install doesn't get you, the fscking uninstall
> > > will! Leaving crap all over the place, and certainly still in the
> > > registry!
> > >
> > > Lloyd
> >
> >
> > Junk left in the registry has no impact on system operation in over
> > 99.5% of cases.
> >
> You know, the only ones I've ever met in my nearly 60 years of living
> that insist on giving numbers out all the time with decimal precision
> is retarded folk and liars.
>
> So, how about a poll, which is John?
>
> Lloyd
Can I vote for the combo-pack?
Steve
Snit
Hey! I was helping the sheep over the fence - that is all!
Jim Polaski
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
um, what a "Hundreds" of programs do you need to use.
Just asking.
--
Regards,
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget
Windows-the computer you need, Macintosh-The computer you Want!ant!iÐк
Jim Polaski
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Steve Mackay wrote:
> > John wrote:
> >> Steve Mackay wrote:
> >>> John wrote:
> >>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
> >>>>> Snit wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/11/03 12:11 PM, "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>> Well Winliar, you obviously have 0, Zilch, NADA experience with
> >>> the registry. It will become corrupted with that many programs being
> >>> installed/uninstalled.
> >>>
> >>> You lied about the 'hundreds' of programs, be a man, admit it.
> >>
> >>
> >> OK I should have just said over 400.
> >
> > 400? PROVE IT!
> > And you've had no problems?
> > You're nothing but a lying piece of shit.
>
>
> NO problems WITH the registry or the excellent Win XP OS except with
> Quicken. Lots of problems with individual poorly written application.
>
> YOU ARE THE LYING SHIT. I KNOW what I have done with my machine idiot.
>
The problem is johnny boy is that your experience does not parallel that
of anyone else with Windows. So many, many,many other folks have
problems with registry, even with XP.
Not johnny boy. And you've got the never to accuse Jobs of a RDF.
Jim Polaski
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> On 11/11/03 2:09 PM, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> When you have one file (or small set of files) that are needed for
> >> most applications AND open to change by most application, it is a
> >> recipe for disaster. Just about every program you launch, no less
> >> install, edits some area of the registry. Even MS says that before
> >> you edit the registry "you back up the registry and understand how to
> >> restore it if a problem occurs"
> >>
> > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;322756&sd=tech)
> >>
> >> They do not make it clear if they mean manual editing or just the
> >> average daily use that edits the registry. Even if they do mean JUST
> >> manual editing, the risk for error and corruption is high with such
> >> open access to these files. Between this weakness and DLL hell, MS
> >> really has a mess on its hands.
> >
> >
> > There is no "DLL Hell" with Win XP. Win XP backs up its registry
> > automatically.
> >
> No DLL Hell with XP... Hmmmm, even MS admits that XP only 'helps to address
> the "DLL hell" problem'
> (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/features.asp)
>
> Seems not even MS claims that it XP eliminates it.
>
> As far as backing up the registry: of course it does. When you have such a
> huge weakness in your system you do what you can to defend it. It is the
> way of things in XP. Registry backups instead of eliminating the problem,
> insisting on the absolute need for virus checkers instead of building real
> security, insistence on two button mice instead of building a better GUI:
> these things are just the norm for XP.
>
That's what happens when you copy what someone else has done. You see
what was done, but never really undstand the thinking behind it.
It's like the AD's in my advertising world who think they can be
photographers because they looked over various shoulders. They never
understand what the photographer was thinking about. They only see what
he did and then try to work backwards.
--
Regards,
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget
Windows-the computer you need, Macintosh-The computer you Want!ant!i?e
Raffael Cavallaro
> PS7.0.1 with G5 update, Dual G5 2GHz, 4MB RAM, under Panther (10.3).
That should be 4GB of RAM of course, not 4 MB. Sorry if the typo confused anyone.
David Fritzinger
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Well, the rest of the time he is delivering the mail...
Dave Fritzinger
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> On 11/11/03 4:39 PM, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/11/03 4:10 PM, "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <vr2ofr1...@news.supernews.com>, John
>>>>>>>>>>>> last 2 years and only one(Quicken) messed up my system. No
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem. Less than 5 minutes to fix.
>>>>>>> Well Winliar, you obviously have 0, Zilch, NADA experience with
>>>>>>> the registry. It will become corrupted with that many programs
>>>>>>> being installed/uninstalled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You lied about the 'hundreds' of programs, be a man, admit it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK I should have just said over 400.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John, you are supposed to be working, not dicking around with the
>>>>> computers. There is NO business that has a need for '400' programs!
>>>>
>>>> Education perhaps... Different programs for different grades and
>>>> programs for staff and tech folks. Still, 400 seems like a lot. Or,
>>>> he can be like me and just waste a lot of time dinking and testing.
>>>> Though, as has been covered, if you do that on XP, your machine will
>>>> die quite quickly.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> No proof has been presented that installing multiple programs will
>>> insure Win XP will "die quickly". Just assertions from those like Steve
>>> Mackay that are as always full of it.
>>>
>>
>> Proof - no. Support based on reported experiences AND a large number of
>> programs designed to reduce those problems. Also, MS's claim that you should
>> "back up the registry and understand how to restore it if a problem occurs".
>> Even MS knows the registry is prone to problems.
>>
>> In fact, the only person who seems to be claiming the registry is not
>> problem prone is someone who claims to have been able to:
>>
>> Recognize a problem with his computer
>> Track it down to Quicken
>> Uninstall Quicken
>> Post to this group how he was going to return Quicken
>> Test the problem
>> Do a System Restore
>> Test the problem again
>> Do a search on Intuits tech site - search long enough to give up
>> Do a search on MS's tech site - find a solution
>> Implement the solution
>> Re-install Quicken
>> Repeat the uninstall on machine #2
>> Repeat the System Restore on machine #2
>> Repeat the solution on machine #2
>> Re-install Quicken on machine #2
>>
>> And all of that in 10 minutes!
>>
>> Do you still claim all of that, John? If so, your credibility in my eyes is
>> pretty much shot; it is clearly not in the realm of possibility. Care to
>> correct any of that info above?
>>
> That about sums it up!
>
Sure does
Snit
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 11/11/03 11:57 PM:
>
>
[snip]
>>
>>If he entered my house, I'd shoot him.
>>
>
> Good plan
>
Elizabot
>>
>>That about sums it up!
>>
>
> Sure does
>