Chkdsk/Scandisk

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

Do you know who cares what YOU like and consider to be worthwhile
features versus bloat? You do, that's who. The point is, we each get
to make that decision for ourselves. You can claim that the newer OS's
have nothing you want or need, but that's you. You don't speak for
anyone else. I don't get to speak for anyone else, either. Each of us
only speaks for ourselves.

Is that so clueless Char? It was just me who disliked Vista, huh? Funny,
you can read stories by the millions who say the very same thing. And XP
is what, 10 years old now and yet it is the second most often used
Windows version today. It isn't just me Char, there are millions who
feels the very same way. Heck most of the ones posting in this thread
alone doesn't like the newer version of Windows either. You can keep
your head in the sand and pretend it is just me, but it really isn't.

Your problem with recording video has nothing to do with the OS, I'd
bet. You're probably using older low quality hardware and buggy
drivers, right? (AverMedia, if I remember correctly.) Try a HDHomerun
or Ceton tuner and prepare to be amazed.

My AverMedia tuner was manufactured after Windows 7 was released and I
bought both of mine just in 2012, Char. And it comes with Windows 7
drivers and everything. I am not talking about my old KWorld TV tuner
from 2001. And if I buy a HDHomerun or Ceton tuner and it is the same
old crap. Than what Char? You know how often I have got bad advice from
people like you? Nope not anymore! From now on you people have to prove
it first. As your word just isn't good enough anymore.

Regarding Win 7 and Word 2000, what can I tell you? The issue you
describe isn't there with newer versions of Word. Sometimes, when you
decide to stick with older software you have to be prepared to give
something up in return.

Or maybe the real reason is because Windows 7 doesn't support GDI
hardware acceleration, like XP and older Windows versions does.
Microsoft has gotten into a very bad habit lately of throwing out the
baby with the bath water. In the past, they were not so stupid. Must be
lots of fresh people at Microsoft nowadays, as the older experienced
ones were far smarter than that.

Hell just look at the latest version of Windows Live Mail. The dumb
programmers at Microsoft broke the ability to quote text and they are
too dumb to fix it. And newer stuff from Microsoft is only going to get
worse. As we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg now. And maybe now
you can see why some of us don't like the newer software, because it is
dumber than our older software.

2D Drawing APIs in Windows - DirectX Developer Blog - Site Home - MSDN
Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/directx/archive/2009/05/12/2d-drawing-apis-in-windows.aspx

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

Windows 8 is irrelevant until it's released. Focus on Windows 7.

Windows 8 will probably be here in October. And I don't get why you
rather stick your head in the sand and don't care how terrible the newer
Windows versions are? As it seems like all of the intelligent people who
knows what they are talking about are complaining about the newer
versions. And the real dummies who are memorized by all of the new eye
candy actually can't see anything wrong with them. But someday they too
will wise up and wake up and realized what really has happened. But then
history has a nasty habit of repeating itself over and over again.

 

[SC Tom]

I'm guessing you complitly forgot. ;-)

You're absolitly <sp> right I think it's a leftover from when I tried Firefox for a (short) while.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 00:57:13 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

In (e-mail address removed) typed: []

The CPU is a 1000mhz Intel Celeron, and I have 160 gigs of HD space
(Fat32). [I've never known if this CPU is a Pentium II or III]

If it is a Celeron that is what it is. A Pentium II and III are
different CPUs by Intel. Control Panel and System Properties should tell
you what CPU it is.

[]
Yes, but each successive generation of Celerons were actually in effect
a cut-down version of the current mainstream Pentium - in other words,
the speed/functionality/capability of the Celeron range approximately
mapped that of the front runner, with slight lags (or leaving out parts
that some applications, especially games, need).

Agreed. Given that it is a 1000MHz, that would likely make it a PIII -
the PII Celerons topped out at 500MHz IIRC.

 

[BillW50]

In J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:

In (e-mail address removed) typed: []

The CPU is a 1000mhz Intel Celeron, and I have 160 gigs of HD space
(Fat32). [I've never known if this CPU is a Pentium II or III]

If it is a Celeron that is what it is. A Pentium II and III are
different CPUs by Intel. Control Panel and System Properties should
tell you what CPU it is.

[]
Yes, but each successive generation of Celerons were actually in
effect a cut-down version of the current mainstream Pentium - in
other words, the speed/functionality/capability of the Celeron range
approximately mapped that of the front runner, with slight lags (or
leaving out parts that some applications, especially games, need).

Yes, good point! Intel never billed them that way and I just never
thought of them in that way. But the current Celeron's are spun off of
the i7 CPUs, so I shouldn't think of them that way anymore. ;-)

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed:

Is that so clueless Char? It was just me who disliked Vista, huh? Funny,
you can read stories by the millions who say the very same thing. And XP
is what, 10 years old now and yet it is the second most often used
Windows version today. It isn't just me Char, there are millions who
feels the very same way. Heck most of the ones posting in this thread
alone doesn't like the newer version of Windows either. You can keep
your head in the sand and pretend it is just me, but it really isn't.

Thanks for completely and utterly missing my point. Would you like to
try again?

My AverMedia tuner was manufactured after Windows 7 was released and I
bought both of mine just in 2012, Char.

I'm sorry. I feel badly that you wasted your money. Next time do more
research, including user reviews. www.avsforum.com is a great place to
learn what works and what doesn't.

And it comes with Windows 7
drivers and everything. I am not talking about my old KWorld TV tuner
from 2001. And if I buy a HDHomerun or Ceton tuner and it is the same
old crap. Than what Char? You know how often I have got bad advice from
people like you? Nope not anymore! From now on you people have to prove
it first. As your word just isn't good enough anymore.

I routinely record 4 HD channels, for an aggregate bandwidth of just
over 60 Megabits per second being written to the hard drive. The CPU
typically hovers between 2% to 5% and the hard drive blips about twice
a second. While that's going on, I can watch something else that I
previously recorded or copy/move a tv show to a networked computer, as
well as doing everything else that typically goes on in the background
on a running system. Meanwhile, your choice can't even keep up with a
single stream?

Or maybe the real reason is because Windows 7 doesn't support GDI
hardware acceleration, like XP and older Windows versions does.
Microsoft has gotten into a very bad habit lately of throwing out the
baby with the bath water. In the past, they were not so stupid. Must be
lots of fresh people at Microsoft nowadays, as the older experienced
ones were far smarter than that.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard your theory that everyone who knew anything
suddenly retired en masse, only to be replaced by college interns.
It's completely ridiculous, of course. The fact that you (repeatedly)
suggest such a thing shows complete ignorance about how big companies
work.

Windows 8 will probably be here in October. And I don't get why you
rather stick your head in the sand

There's a lot of things you don't get. ;-)
The rest of us can only do so much to bring you into the light.

 

[BillW50]

In

Thanks for completely and utterly missing my point. Would you like to
try again?


I'm sorry. I feel badly that you wasted your money. Next time do more
research, including user reviews. www.avsforum.com is a great place to
learn what works and what doesn't.

I didn't waste my money on my two TV tuners. I did waste my money on
newer Microsoft products though. And what does www.avsforum.com say
about these AverMedia Hybrid Ultra USB TV Tuner M039U anyway?

I routinely record 4 HD channels, for an aggregate bandwidth of just
over 60 Megabits per second being written to the hard drive. The CPU
typically hovers between 2% to 5% and the hard drive blips about twice
a second. While that's going on, I can watch something else that I
previously recorded or copy/move a tv show to a networked computer, as
well as doing everything else that typically goes on in the background
on a running system. Meanwhile, your choice can't even keep up with a
single stream?

So do people that have AverMedia TV tuners Char. When Jerryb06 (Ebay)
was selling these one eBay, he showed that he used 4 of them and
recorded four different programs at one time.

http://sites.google.com/site/jerryb06ebay/avertv_hybrid_ultra_usb_tv_tuner

I only have two tuners, but XP has no problems at all keeping up with
the ones I have and it doesn't even break a sweat. Under Windows 7/8 it
is totally different, the dang OS hogs so much of the CPU, there is
nothing left to record and convert the videos in real time.

You forget when I first started to use Windows 7 back in June 2009, I
installed it on a bunch of computers. One of them was an EeePC 702 which
runs XP just fine. Although running Windows 7 at idle, the dang CPU
would never drop less than 50% usage. And that was Windows 7 eating it
all up just to keep itself alive. And if you clicked on anything, you
had to wait and wait and wait.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard your theory that everyone who knew anything
suddenly retired en masse, only to be replaced by college interns.
It's completely ridiculous, of course. The fact that you (repeatedly)
suggest such a thing shows complete ignorance about how big companies
work.

Feel free to educate all of us Char. I have seen this time and time
again. Remember when Microsoft was developing OS/2 for IBM? Then IBM and
Microsoft had broken up and then what happened? Well IBM had to pay
Microsoft for every OS/2 they sold because it had Microsoft's code in
it. So the clueless programmers at IBM worked hard to remove all of the
Microsoft code so OS/2 would be all theirs and wouldn't have to pay
Microsoft a dime anymore.

And how did that work out Char? Well it didn't. As every time IBM
removed some of the Microsoft code, OS/2 started to fall apart. And the
only way those clueless IBM programmers could get it to work once again
is to plug Microsoft's code back in.

There's a lot of things you don't get. ;-)
The rest of us can only do so much to bring you into the light.

Naw, you have it backwards. Although you figure it out someday. It is
funny how you ignore things like Windows 7 doesn't support GDI hardware
acceleration. And I posted links and even a video of speed tests and you
still keep your head in the sand. Although I think it doesn't matter how
many hard facts people throw at you. As you are to memorized by all of
the eye candy that it has blinded you. That is okay, as that is what
Microsoft needs more of is lemmings just like you. As they know they are
not smart enough to keep the smarter crowd anymore.

 

[glee]

In

I didn't waste my money on my two TV tuners. I did waste my money on
newer Microsoft products though. And what does www.avsforum.com say
about these AverMedia Hybrid Ultra USB TV Tuner M039U anyway?


So do people that have AverMedia TV tuners Char. When Jerryb06 (Ebay)
was selling these one eBay, he showed that he used 4 of them and
recorded four different programs at one time.

http://sites.google.com/site/jerryb06ebay/avertv_hybrid_ultra_usb_tv_tuner

I only have two tuners, but XP has no problems at all keeping up with
the ones I have and it doesn't even break a sweat. Under Windows 7/8
it is totally different, the dang OS hogs so much of the CPU, there is
nothing left to record and convert the videos in real time.

You forget when I first started to use Windows 7 back in June 2009, I
installed it on a bunch of computers. One of them was an EeePC 702
which runs XP just fine. Although running Windows 7 at idle, the dang
CPU would never drop less than 50% usage. And that was Windows 7
eating it all up just to keep itself alive. And if you clicked on
anything, you had to wait and wait and wait.


Feel free to educate all of us Char. I have seen this time and time
again. Remember when Microsoft was developing OS/2 for IBM? Then IBM
and Microsoft had broken up and then what happened? Well IBM had to
pay Microsoft for every OS/2 they sold because it had Microsoft's code
in it. So the clueless programmers at IBM worked hard to remove all of
the Microsoft code so OS/2 would be all theirs and wouldn't have to
pay Microsoft a dime anymore.

And how did that work out Char? Well it didn't. As every time IBM
removed some of the Microsoft code, OS/2 started to fall apart. And
the only way those clueless IBM programmers could get it to work once
again is to plug Microsoft's code back in.


Naw, you have it backwards. Although you figure it out someday. It is
funny how you ignore things like Windows 7 doesn't support GDI
hardware acceleration. And I posted links and even a video of speed
tests and you still keep your head in the sand. Although I think it
doesn't matter how many hard facts people throw at you. As you are to
memorized by all of the eye candy that it has blinded you. That is
okay, as that is what Microsoft needs more of is lemmings just like
you. As they know they are not smart enough to keep the smarter crowd
anymore.

Bill, is there some reason you decided that because Char stated (quite
correctly) that the positive features of an OS are in the eye of the
beholder, and in large part, opinion, that you had to make such a rant
and call Char clueless? He or she is certainly not clueless, and your
opinion is far from the only one. From many of your comments in this
thread, it appears you don't have a very clear understanding of a lot of
aspects of the operating system or the development thereof. Whatever
happened to civil debate and respecting the opinions of others?
Geez....

 

[BillW50]

In

Bill, is there some reason you decided that because Char stated (quite
correctly) that the positive features of an OS are in the eye of the
beholder, and in large part, opinion, that you had to make such a rant
and call Char clueless? He or she is certainly not clueless, and your
opinion is far from the only one. From many of your comments in this
thread, it appears you don't have a very clear understanding of a lot
of aspects of the operating system or the development thereof.
Whatever happened to civil debate and respecting the opinions of
others? Geez....

For starters, Char calls me an idiot because I do not know what I am
talking about. But when you ask Char to elaborate, he always wimps out.
Char is all smoke and mirrors and I am being far too kind to him.

And I have no problem with the eye of the beholder thing. The problem I
have is when people like Char states things like Windows 7 is faster
than XP. And the only thing he uses to back up his claim is WiFi. And
while this part is true, this is all he has. Yet there are dozens of
other examples that he ignores that shows the truth is just the opposite
of his claims. And that is where I have a problem.

 

[glee]

In

For starters, Char calls me an idiot because I do not know what I am
talking about. But when you ask Char to elaborate, he always wimps
out. Char is all smoke and mirrors and I am being far too kind to him.

And I have no problem with the eye of the beholder thing. The problem
I have is when people like Char states things like Windows 7 is faster
than XP. And the only thing he uses to back up his claim is WiFi. And
while this part is true, this is all he has. Yet there are dozens of
other examples that he ignores that shows the truth is just the
opposite of his claims. And that is where I have a problem.

Interesting.... I read the posts more than once, and nowhere did I see
Char call you an idiot or any other name, and was actually rather civil
until you called him clueless. I think you are reading into it much
more than was said.
Windows 7, and even more so Vista, requires somewhat better hardware
than XP to run optimally. Every version of Windows has had that same
behavior over its previous version... needing more memory, faster
processors. There are a lot of advantages to Windows 7. If they don't
make up for the disadvantages as far as you're concerned, that's your
personal view. There are plenty of quite experienced computer
professionals that would strongly disagree with your assertions, and who
have none of the problems you describe. It's opinion. I don't
understand your hostility. {shrug}

 

[Char Jackson]

In

I didn't waste my money on my two TV tuners. I did waste my money on
newer Microsoft products though. And what does www.avsforum.com say
about these AverMedia Hybrid Ultra USB TV Tuner M039U anyway?

I'm sure you'll be happy to do your own homework and report back to
the class. You'll learn more that way than if someone simply spoon
feeds you.

I only have two tuners, but XP has no problems at all keeping up with
the ones I have and it doesn't even break a sweat. Under Windows 7/8 it
is totally different, the dang OS hogs so much of the CPU, there is
nothing left to record and convert the videos in real time.

If the OS is hogging the CPU, you have issues that need to be
resolved. That's not normal. Once you fix that, your tuner might
actually work, assuming it's as good as you say.

Feel free to educate all of us Char.

It's not "all of us" that need educating. It's just you. Companies as
big as Microsoft have entire departments dedicated to deciding exactly
what the company is going to do. It's laughable to think for one
second that they'd leave things up to the software developers, and
it's even more laughable that you'd think that. Get a clue, already.

many hard facts people throw at you. As you are to memorized by all of
the eye candy that it has blinded you. That is okay, as that is what
Microsoft needs more of is lemmings just like you. As they know they are
not smart enough to keep the smarter crowd anymore.

And you're part of the smarter crowd, right?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[BillW50]

In

Interesting.... I read the posts more than once, and nowhere did I see
Char call you an idiot or any other name, and was actually rather
civil until you called him clueless. I think you are reading into it
much more than was said.

So you followed every single exchange Char and myself has said to each
other in all of the other newsgroups we also posts to and came up to
that conclusion, did you?

Windows 7, and even more so Vista, requires somewhat better hardware
than XP to run optimally. Every version of Windows has had that same
behavior over its previous version... needing more memory, faster
processors.

Of course, and for Windows 7 they are:

* 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
* 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
* 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
* DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Windows 7 system requirements - Microsoft Windows
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements

And I have over a dozen computers here that meet and exceed the
requirements. And yet even on my fastest machine, Windows 7 is still too
slow and XP still creams it even on a computer 5 times slower. But isn't
that the same speed that this youtube video shows too?

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

Funny how some other smarter people learn later what I already knew, eh?

There are a lot of advantages to Windows 7. If they
don't make up for the disadvantages as far as you're concerned,
that's your personal view. There are plenty of quite experienced
computer professionals that would strongly disagree with your
assertions, and who have none of the problems you describe. It's
opinion.

For starters many of those so called experienced computer professionals
have a motive to tell you about how wonderful Windows 7 is. It is called
job security. And there is no money in telling you otherwise, so they
don't.

The exception to the above is the experienced computer professional who
cares more about others than they do themselves. And these won't lower
their standards to deceive you. And they are truly rare and likely to be
shunned by other experts who have no such morals.

I don't understand your hostility. {shrug}

I do understand. I have heard the same tired arguments for decades. Sure
the Windows version changes, and the people making the claims changes,
but the arguments are still the same. And history has proved them wrong
then, and the future will prove them wrong later. Nothing really
changes.

 

[Char Jackson]

In

For starters, Char calls me an idiot because I do not know what I am
talking about.

I frequently point out that you don't know what you're talking about,
(and I stand proudly behind that), but I don't remember calling you an
idiot. When someone else (in the Win 7 group, I believe) suggested you
might be insane, I did agree, but you have to agree that you show
certain signs, right?

But when you ask Char to elaborate, he always wimps out.
Char is all smoke and mirrors and I am being far too kind to him.

I appreciate your kindness. There's far too little of it these days.

And I have no problem with the eye of the beholder thing. The problem I
have is when people like Char states things like Windows 7 is faster
than XP.

I think I said it's not slower than XP, which isn't quite the same
thing, but I'm sure there are plenty of use cases where it actually is
faster, just as there are use cases where it's slower. Overall,
though, I don't think it's slower than XP.

And the only thing he uses to back up his claim is WiFi.

WiFi? What did I ever say about WiFi? I don't think it has ever come
up in our conversations, nor have I seen anyone else make the claim.
Might you be confused?

And
while this part is true, this is all he has. Yet there are dozens of
other examples that he ignores that shows the truth is just the opposite
of his claims. And that is where I have a problem.

Please explain.

 

[Char Jackson]

Bill, is there some reason you decided that because Char stated (quite
correctly) that the positive features of an OS are in the eye of the
beholder, and in large part, opinion, that you had to make such a rant
and call Char clueless? He or she is certainly not clueless, and your
opinion is far from the only one. From many of your comments in this
thread, it appears you don't have a very clear understanding of a lot of
aspects of the operating system or the development thereof. Whatever
happened to civil debate and respecting the opinions of others?
Geez....

Thanks. I realize that when you play in the mud you get muddy and
doing so doesn't get me any points for style and class, so I
appreciate the comments and hope you aren't giving me too much credit.

 

[glee]

In

So you followed every single exchange Char and myself has said to each
other in all of the other newsgroups we also posts to and came up to
that conclusion, did you?

And right there with that ludicrous statement, you show a really screwed
up attitude, and apparent reading comprehension problem.

Of course, and for Windows 7 they are:

* 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
* 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
* 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
* DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Windows 7 system requirements - Microsoft Windows
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements

No... proving again your lack of understanding. Those are the MINIMUM
specifications to install and run the operating system. If you've been
involved with Windows versions as much as you claim, you should know
that is not the *recommended* specifications. Windows 95 had minimum
system requirements too... a 386 processor and 4MB of memory... but you
could barely run it on that hardware, I know because I did. The system
ran but was terribly slow and could not easily run 3rd party programs.
It was the same with 98, ME, Vista.... the minimum requirements are only
what it takes to install the OS and run. Window XP had a system
requirement of 64MB of memory.... tell me how great it ran with that.
If you're running Windows 7 with the minimal (or close to minimal)
system specs, no wonder you can't get it to work to your liking.

And I have over a dozen computers here that meet and exceed the
requirements. And yet even on my fastest machine, Windows 7 is still
too slow and XP still creams it even on a computer 5 times slower. But
isn't that the same speed that this youtube video shows too?

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

Funny how some other smarter people learn later what I already knew,
eh?

Yeah right.... you really think a lot of yourself, eh?

For starters many of those so called experienced computer
professionals have a motive to tell you about how wonderful Windows 7
is. It is called job security. And there is no money in telling you
otherwise, so they don't.

Wow, it seems it is you that doesn't have a clue.... and apparently a
large chip on your shoulder.

The exception to the above is the experienced computer professional
who cares more about others than they do themselves. And these won't
lower their standards to deceive you. And they are truly rare and
likely to be shunned by other experts who have no such morals.

Oh you must think that's you, again. LOL... you are a piece of work,
I'll say that much for you.

I do understand. I have heard the same tired arguments for decades.
Sure the Windows version changes, and the people making the claims
changes, but the arguments are still the same. And history has proved
them wrong then, and the future will prove them wrong later. Nothing
really changes.

Whatever.... after reading this nonsense, I can see it's a waste of my
time addressing such a self-righteous person. YOU have all these
"moral" and all the professionals are after is job security... uh-huh,
sure. Have a nice day on that fantasy planet.

 

[BillW50]

In

It just seems like MS is taking away more and more control over the
OS from the user. Is that really "progress"? I guess I just don't
see the point in having a OS attempt to do "more for you", or have a
glitzier looking appearance, or dumbing down the interface (like the
trend to remove easy and direct access to files and folders that I
think you mentioned).

See Bill in Co gets it.

 

[BillW50]

In

I frequently point out that you don't know what you're talking about,
(and I stand proudly behind that), but I don't remember calling you an
idiot. When someone else (in the Win 7 group, I believe) suggested you
might be insane, I did agree, but you have to agree that you show
certain signs, right?

When you tell somebody they don't know what they are talking about, you
are literally telling them they are an idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

I appreciate your kindness. There's far too little of it these days.


I think I said it's not slower than XP, which isn't quite the same
thing, but I'm sure there are plenty of use cases where it actually is
faster, just as there are use cases where it's slower. Overall,
though, I don't think it's slower than XP.


WiFi? What did I ever say about WiFi? I don't think it has ever come
up in our conversations, nor have I seen anyone else make the claim.
Might you be confused?

Well if you don't what to admit you were right here, I won't argue with
you. We can take that one away. No problem.

Please explain.

We just went through a couple of them just today.

2D Drawing APIs in Windows
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/directx/archive/2009/05/12/2d-drawing-apis-in-windows.aspx

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

And you totally blew them off. Which is just like you Char.

 

[BillW50]

In

And right there with that ludicrous statement, you show a really
screwed up attitude, and apparent reading comprehension problem.

What is ludicrous about asking you if you followed every comment Chat
and myself had? It isn't ludicrous whatsoever. It is a serious question.
As how can you claim to be some sort of expert about communication
between Chat and myself if you haven't?

No... proving again your lack of understanding. Those are the MINIMUM
specifications to install and run the operating system. If you've
been involved with Windows versions as much as you claim, you should
know that is not the *recommended* specifications. Windows 95 had
minimum system requirements too... a 386 processor and 4MB of
memory... but you could barely run it on that hardware, I know
because I did. The system ran but was terribly slow and could not
easily run 3rd party programs. It was the same with 98, ME, Vista....
the minimum requirements are only what it takes to install the OS and
run. Window XP had a system requirement of 64MB of memory.... tell me
how great it ran with that. If you're running Windows 7 with the
minimal (or close to minimal) system specs, no wonder you can't get
it to work to your liking.

Yes so? Why are you telling me what I already know for? And no, it
doesn't prove my lack of understanding about something I already know.
Now that would be ludicrous!

Yeah right.... you really think a lot of yourself, eh?

Whoa! You totally blew off the part how I have over a dozen computers
that exceed the minimum requirements and even on the fastest one,
Windows 7 is still too slow... then give me a lecture about how the
minimum isn't good enough and how I should know better than that. So
what part of "exceed" don't you understand? And you have the balls to
claim I have a reading comprehension problem?

Wow, it seems it is you that doesn't have a clue.... and apparently a
large chip on your shoulder.

Nope, no chip Glen. It is called reality. Where do you think the phrase
"follow the money trail" comes from?

Oh you must think that's you, again. LOL... you are a piece of work,
I'll say that much for you.

And you have balls to lecture me about minimum standards when I clearly
stated over a dozen computers exceed the minimum. Then claim I have a
reading comprehension problem. And then claiming that asking you if you
followed all correspondence between Char and myself is just ludicrous.
It takes Super Sized Gonads to try to pull off what you are trying to
do!

Whatever.... after reading this nonsense, I can see it's a waste of my
time addressing such a self-righteous person. YOU have all these
"moral" and all the professionals are after is job security... uh-huh,
sure. Have a nice day on that fantasy planet.

What is fantasy about helping others? You mean it is only something you
only see in the comics or something? Please explain?

 

[BillW50]

Does 7 run _well_ on a single core with 1G? 2G? 3G? 4G? Does it make a
difference whether it is Starter, Home Premium, Pro, or Ultimate? I ask
with genuine curiosity; in 7's early days I heard some claims that it
actually ran better than XP on very limited hardware (e. g. 1G RAM),
though that might have been Starter only, and conversely I've heard
others say it's no good on single-core. My only actual experience of 7
has been on a multicore (I don't know how many) with 4G, on which it
seemed to run fine. I also didn't find I hated it as much as I'd
expected to; I did find some of the new way of doing things irritating
and installed Classic Shell (and didn't use libraries), but that might
change with familiarity.

All of my single core machines have Celerons. The fastest one is
1.83GHz. And I have about 9 single core machines. They all have 2GB of
RAM. And Windows 7 was too slow on all of them. My duo core machines,
Windows 7 is ok for email, newsgroups, video streaming, and browsing.
But not even the Intel T7400 has enough power to record TV programs
without maxing out the cores during recording and converting in real
time. They all except the fastest one has 2GB of RAM too. In all of my
testing, you need about 5 times more CPU power than you do with XP.

 

[Char Jackson]

In

When you tell somebody they don't know what they are talking about, you
are literally telling them they are an idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

Literally? First of all, you apparently don't know what literally
means. Secondly, I'd prefer to call you ignorant, but I won't argue if
you prefer to be considered an idiot. Just remember that it wasn't me
who labeled you that way. You voluntarily claimed that prize.

Well if you don't what to admit you were right here, I won't argue with
you. We can take that one away. No problem.

So you admit that you made that up? If so, thank you.

We just went through a couple of them just today.

2D Drawing APIs in Windows
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/directx/archive/2009/05/12/2d-drawing-apis-in-windows.aspx

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

And you totally blew them off. Which is just like you Char.

I'm not interested in watching youtube videos. If you have something
to say, just say it.

 

[Char Jackson]

All of my single core machines have Celerons. The fastest one is
1.83GHz. And I have about 9 single core machines. They all have 2GB of
RAM. And Windows 7 was too slow on all of them. My duo core machines,
Windows 7 is ok for email, newsgroups, video streaming, and browsing.
But not even the Intel T7400 has enough power to record TV programs
without maxing out the cores during recording and converting in real
time. They all except the fastest one has 2GB of RAM too. In all of my
testing, you need about 5 times more CPU power than you do with XP.

I feel comfortable drawing two conclusions at this point:
1. You apparently acquire hardware on a budget that's about three full
steps below "shoestring". By itself, there's nothing wrong with that,
at least until you start the never ending complaining.
2. If your testing shows that Win 7 needs 5 times more CPU than XP for
the same tasks, you need to seek assistance before you do further
testing. Your test cases are seriously flawed, as in majorly flawed.