Chkdsk/Scandisk

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

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.

You can claim anything you want Char. Disagree with a dictionary, or do
whatever you want too. I don't care!

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

No Char, I admitted that you don't remember. So I don't care if you
don't want to be right or not. But then again, it is just like you to
make things up like you are right now.

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

One was a youtube video and one wasn't. Anything else you want to make
up?

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

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.

And that youtube video that you refuse to see actually proves what I
have been saying along. But Char can't go there because it would make
him sound like he doesn't know what he is talking about. Keep it up
Char.

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed:

And that youtube video that you refuse to see actually proves what I
have been saying along. But Char can't go there because it would make
him sound like he doesn't know what he is talking about. Keep it up
Char.

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

You, sir, are as ignorant as they come if you think your youtube video
proves anything.

Next, you'll no doubt remind me that you prefer to be called an idiot,
but I'm here to tell you that ignorant and idiot are two different
things. I don't know if you're an idiot but there can be no doubt that
you're exceedingly ignorant.

Now, then, can we get back to discussing technical matters?

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed:

You can claim anything you want Char. Disagree with a dictionary, or do
whatever you want too. I don't care!

Show me a dictionary that equates ignorance with idiocy. I dare you.

Have you figured out what literally means yet?

No Char, I admitted that you don't remember. So I don't care if you
don't want to be right or not. But then again, it is just like you to
make things up like you are right now.

So show me where I said anything about WiFi being faster or slower or
whatever you're claiming. If you can't, it's because you made it up.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

In Yousuf Khan typed:

I don't see it that way. As the updates are causing more and more
problems all of the time. Years ago you didn't have to worry about
updates screwing up your system so much. Nowadays though, updates cause
more problems than malware does for many of us. Microsoft is getting as
bad as IBM was with OS/2 FixPaks. As whenever IBM fixed one bug, they
created three more new ones. It was just awful! And what did they do
after about 50 FixPaks? Plug in all of the original code which worked
the best anyway.

I've been using Microsoft operating systems since MS-DOS 3.2, and I can
remember one particularly bad bug was MS-DOS 6.0's compressed partition
feature. One day without doing anything particularly different than any
other day, I booted up into my machine to find that it was all gone. The
compressed volume suffered some kind of corruption and there was no way
to fix it. All data vanished, just like that! Prior to that I had been
using the DOS versions of Zip and other utilities and they used to work
rock-solid for years, so I had grown used to the idea of trusting
compression utilities. So I thought surely Microsoft's programmers might
understand it at least as well as these amateurs who created the
archivers. Apparently not.

Ever since then I've been particularly wary of trusting anything from
Microsoft. I didn't find Microsoft being more consistently
quality-conscious until Windows XP, where I suffered few fatal flaws.
Some stuff might have gotten slow, but I never found anything get
destroyed. Windows 7 has been mostly as reliable.

I found a problem during the upgrade of Windows 7 to SP1, where I ran
into a bug that prevented my system from being simply upgraded to SP1. I
had to do an Inplace Upgrade Install which removed all patches applied
until that point, and then I was able to apply the SP1 patch. But
fortunately these were not data loss events. In fact, the Inplace
upgrade allowed me to keep all of my programs installed and didn't
require a reinstall of them.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

In Yousuf Khan typed:

Yes I am sure that changes things. I always suspected that I am also
dyslexic. Another thing about me is that I appear to be able to read
upside down and mirror images very well too. I don't know what that
means, except I am good at solving the Rubik's Cube too.

Yeah, I'm pretty good at reading mirror writing too (never tried upside
down writing though). But I can't say I always was good at it, I think I
might have somehow taught myself. Maybe that's when I became dyslexic?

Yousuf Khan

 

[glee]

In

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?


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!


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?


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


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!


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

Wow, you need to take your meds or something.... go to anger management
classes, I don't know. You are really off the deep end with your
remarks. Good luck.

 

[glee]

In

See Bill in Co gets it.

Considering that Bill in CO has not used the newer operating systems, he
isn't "getting" anything because he's not speaking from personal
experience, just repeating what he's read from someone else.

 

[glee]

In message <[email protected]>, glee

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

[]
Agreed. My first "IBM-compatible" computer (I'd had others before
that) came with a DOS and Windows 3.1, and 4M of RAM; I think it just
about ran in that, though I remember doing a lot in DOS as it was
quicker. I did add more memory - IIRR (it's a long time ago!) I got it
up to 16 or 32M, and it ran well. I had the same (16 or 32M) when I
got '95, and it crawled again. I found 98SElite worked pretty well in
128M - I didn't find adding more made much difference, though might
have if I'd been processing video, I think. I've used XP with 256M,
and found it painful; when I got this netbook with XP, it had 1G.
After about a year I fitted the 2G I'd bought, and it seemed to make
little difference. (My PF is usually around 700M.)

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.

I've got an older laptop with Win7 Ultimate on it (an upgrade from
Vista) and using Aero, that has a single core processor (AMD Mobile
Sempron 3600+, which is ~2GHz) and 2GB of DDR2. It runs Windows 7 quite
well, but I don't do any CPU-intensive work on the laptop.... it is
mainly for Internet, some audio ripping, web site management. If I was
doing TV recording or video editing, it would, I'm sure, fall down
without at least a dual core and more memory. Windows 7 will show more
performance with more memory than with a faster processor, up to a
point. Single-cores are pretty much a thing of the past these days, but
there are still a lot out there (and here). Win7 does run well on more
limited hardware than Vista did, but better than XP on that hardware? I
doubt it. Win7 Starter is found on netbooks, has more limited features
(you can't even change the desktop background) because most netbooks are
optimized for power-saving, not performance, and use low-performance
power-saving processors. They also have relatively small hard drives
that are very limiting. Most that I have worked on are slow and
inconvenient.

My XP desktop also has a Sempron, a 2300+ of about 1.6GHz, and 1GB of
memory. The Windows 7 laptop is considerably faster in everything
except file manipulation. Vista and Seven are notorious for taking way
too long to move, copy or delete files. Even if I increased the memory
in XP to 2GB, I don't think it would catch the Windows 7 laptop.

The differences in Explorer annoy me too but the capabilities aren't
missing, they are just in different places like context menus, and we
old guys don't like having to do it a different way. I did not like
Vista but there have been a number of improvements over it, in Seven.

I do NOT look forward to Windows 8.... launching programs from a desktop
of tiled icons with no Start menu is, to me, a throwback to Windows 3.x
and the AOL of the early 90's.

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co typed:

I'm reading between the lines here.... are you suggesting Windows 7
is a "lighter" OS than Vista is? (I mean, less resource intensive,
smaller, and more fundamental than Vista was)? If so, that's nice to
know.

Nope, Windows 7 isn't lighter, it's just smarter in the act of
deception. Here this is how people think Windows 7 is faster than Vista
when in fact it really isn't.

Perception is reality

It's tempting to see this as a bit of a con. They've sped up
the front end so it feels like you're getting more done, but in
terms of real productivity it's no better than Vista.

But personally I think it's an inspired move. Over the past few
years, Microsoft has learnt the hard way the power of
perception. Once the masses got hold of the idea that Vista was
a lumbering step backwards, no Mojave Experiment could rescue
its reputation.

Now, to borrow a phrase from Steve Ballmer, they've "woken up
smarter." They've recognised that perceptions of speed focus
almost exclusively on interactive performance. Very few people
notice or care whether a big mail-merge job takes thirty
seconds or forty, but they sure as hell notice when they click
a button and nothing seems to happen. That's what wrecked
Vista's reputaton, not its disappointing benchmark scores; and
that's why we're all hankering after Windows 7 despite its
identical scores.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/11/10/windows-7-faster-or-just-smarter/

 

[BillW50]

In glee typed:

I do NOT look forward to Windows 8.... launching programs from a
desktop of tiled icons with no Start menu is, to me, a throwback to
Windows 3.x and the AOL of the early 90's.

I too was first annoyed by Windows 8 lack of a Start Menu. Although that
is easily fixed thanks to third party Start Menu utilities. I personally
use Aston Menu for my setup. But others are using Classic Menu and a few
others out there.

Two other improvements I like about Windows 8 is now the background and
the foreground of Aero glass are never close to same color. This means
you can now read the title text of the window. And for file transfers,
you now get a 2D graph of the speed variation during the transfer.

 

[BillW50]

In J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:

Well, it can't be _that_ bad; when 7 first came out, virtually all the
netbooks available in the shops rapidly became only available with 7
(without there being any change in architecture - mostly Atom
processors, 1G RAM, 160 or 250G HD). I assume they must have been
_usable_, or they wouldn't have sold, surely? I think they _were_ all
Starter Edition.

I put Windows 7 Ultimate on my Asus EeePC netbook and it was awful! It
ate 50% of the CPU at idle and if you click on something you had to wait
and wait. It was like watching grass grow. Put XP SP2 on the same
machine and that flies. I have 2GB of RAM on that machine, btw.

 

[BillW50]

Well, Ultimate probably _is_ pushing it (-:! (Also, is that the one with
only 16G, of SSD?)

It was an EeePC 702 with one replaceable SSD and nothing else. Stock
they came with 8GB, but I popped in a 16GB SSD because that is the
minimum to install Windows 7. After installation it came out to just
under 9GB.

(How about SP3?)

Every time I test performance between SP2 and SP3, I can't find any
difference. Just that it takes up more drive space and that is about
all. SP3 will fit within a 8GB drive, but I never got SP3 to fit on a
4GB drive yet.

 

[BillW50]

Well, that's true, in that I can only report on what I've been hearing about
in here, or have read about - coupled with what possible features I might be
missing, if anything, with my current setup. (so far, it seems I'm not
missing much . Perhaps there's a touch of Amish in me.

I too thought I might be missing out and started using Windows 7 since
June 2009 (far earlier than most Windows 7 users). And all of this time
I have been learning every nook and cranny of Windows 7. And after
almost of 3 years of using Windows 7, I still like Windows 2000/XP far
better. ;-)

I've been using Windows 8 for a couple of months now and parts are an
improvement and parts are worse than Windows 7. But if I had to say that
after using Windows 8 for 3 years which one would I like better? It is
still looking like Windows 2000/XP. ;-)

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I still use Windows98 most of the time. I'm not fond of XP, but I have
XP on my laptop computer, and must keep it to use the WIFI. One thing
that really irks me about XP is that it no longer has Scandisk. Chkdsk
is really a major pain to use, because it opens as a sort of "dos
prompt", and I cant see what it's doing. At least Scandisk showed what
was going on. If this is Microsoft's way of improving things, they sure
screwed up on this one. I should mention that I both use, and still
like MsDos. But I dont want chkdsk running underneath my desktop where
I cant see what it's doing. Why did MS abandon Scandisk? Chkdsk was an
archaic leftover from very early versions of MsDosm which was replaced
by Scandisk, then they dropped it in favor of this worthless and
annoying Chkdsk..... What is wrong with MS????

This started a very long meandering thread, but has the original poster
even responded since posting his original question?

Yousuf Khan

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed on Thu, 17 May 2012 23:04:15 -0500:

So show me where I said anything about WiFi being faster or slower or
whatever you're claiming. If you can't, it's because you made it up.

In Char Jackson typed on Sat, 19 May 2012 12:50:36 -0500:

Thanks for the links. I've browsed the first two and plan to get to
the rest later today. It's interesting that my experience was just the
opposite. Moving from XP to 7 brought my network transfer speeds up
from about 200 Mbps to 990+ Mbps, as I wrote about earlier this month
in the win7 group:
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Yup, I thought that was you. I just place the nonsense you say in short
term memory since I know it won't be much use in the future. And when
you learn zillions of new things per day, remembering WiFi instead of
network is pretty good for short-term memory. ;-)

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed on Thu, 17 May 2012 23:04:15 -0500:

In Char Jackson typed on Sat, 19 May 2012 12:50:36 -0500:

Yup, I thought that was you. I just place the nonsense you say in short
term memory since I know it won't be much use in the future. And when
you learn zillions of new things per day, remembering WiFi instead of
network is pretty good for short-term memory. ;-)

Oh, so that was where your BS claim of WiFi came from. Good to know,
thanks. I knew you made it up and now the mystery is solved.

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

Oh, so that was where your BS claim of WiFi came from. Good to know,
thanks. I knew you made it up and now the mystery is solved.

What did I make up Char? That is the only thing I ever heard you say
that Windows 7 does faster than XP. And that was the whole point. Once
again it flew right over your head and don't get it.

Although if you want to hear something made up. While there are many
things that you said and I can probably write a book about them. But
this is just one example.

"Sorry, I assumed they were legitimate copies of Windows 7."
- Char Jackson

They are legitimate, but you often make things up, don't you? And you
often get it wrong anyway.

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed:

What did I make up Char? That is the only thing I ever heard you say
that Windows 7 does faster than XP.

So your conclusion was that I was making a comprehensive product
comparison and that was all I could come up with?

Look, you can't keep claiming to be smarter than everyone else if you
can't understand even simple things.

 

[glee]

So your conclusion was that I was making a comprehensive product
comparison and that was all I could come up with?

Look, you can't keep claiming to be smarter than everyone else if you
can't understand even simple things.

Sadly, that seems to be the case. The only reason I began replying to
his posts is because I couldn't put up with leaving unanswered the
amount of misinformation he posts.