....

http://tinyurl.com/mlov32l

On 4/2/2014 12:14 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:32:24 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...

http://tinyurl.com/mlov32l


Malwarebytes just announced they will still be providing virus and
spyware protection for the XP systems for the foreseeable future.

My wife's company is seriously thinking about rolling the W/7 POS
system back to the XP system because the new one sucks so bad.

The irony, "lack of support" is the biggest concern ... on the new
system.



Hmmmm... There's absolutely nothing wrong with Win7. Out of the box
it is superior to XP IMO and experience with both. Win8 I can
understand although it's just a matter of getting used to.

Starting to think you are just so heavily invested in XP that you can't
give it up. XP is fine but Win7 is better.

On 4/2/14, 12:14 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:32:24 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...

http://tinyurl.com/mlov32l


Malwarebytes just announced they will still be providing virus and
spyware protection for the XP systems for the foreseeable future.

My wife's company is seriously thinking about rolling the W/7 POS
system back to the XP system because the new one sucks so bad.

The irony, "lack of support" is the biggest concern ... on the new
system.



Hmmmm. Just about everyone I know who uses Win 7 says it is a
significant improvement over "Vista." I actually don't know anyone in
business who uses Windoze and is still on XP. I've messed a bit with the
Win 7 setup on my wife's desktop and it seems to run just fine. All the
standard apps work well, and her several high-end or proprietary apps
work without glitches. She's got a couple of printers and a scanner and
they work without problems.

What sorts of problems is your wife encountering with Win 7? As for
"lack of support," I've not been a fan of Windoze support for a long time.

On 4/2/14, 4:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/2/2014 12:14 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:32:24 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

...

http://tinyurl.com/mlov32l


Malwarebytes just announced they will still be providing virus and
spyware protection for the XP systems for the foreseeable future.

My wife's company is seriously thinking about rolling the W/7 POS
system back to the XP system because the new one sucks so bad.

The irony, "lack of support" is the biggest concern ... on the new
system.



Hmmmm... There's absolutely nothing wrong with Win7. Out of the box
it is superior to XP IMO and experience with both. Win8 I can
understand although it's just a matter of getting used to.

Starting to think you are just so heavily invested in XP that you can't
give it up. XP is fine but Win7 is better.





I've only seen Win 8 running on computers at the Dell mall kiosks and at
Best Buy, and I wasn't interested enough to stop for a look-see. Win 7
seems to work fine on the business computers I have encountered.

Gregg doesn't specify what the Win 7 problems are with the setup with
which he is familiar. Perhaps it is integrating an odd bit of peripheral
hardware.

On 4/2/14, 10:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 06:57:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

What sorts of problems is your wife encountering with Win 7? As for
"lack of support," I've not been a fan of Windoze support for a long time.

This is not a problem with Windoze support, it is the POS application
and to go back to the one they like,they need to be running XP.



So, it isn't a Win 7 problem, particularly. That wasn't clear.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:51:01 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 06:57:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

What sorts of problems is your wife encountering with Win 7? As for
"lack of support," I've not been a fan of Windoze support for a long time.

This is not a problem with Windoze support, it is the POS application
and to go back to the one they like,they need to be running XP.

===

There is an option in Win 7 to install apps in a backward
compatability mode. It takes a bit of futzing around to find the
right settings for the install but it might do the trick. I agree
with you on the PITA networking issue but it does improve security by
a great deal. Overall I like Win 7 a lot. I'm running it right now
on a 3.4 Mhz machine with quad I7 processors and it is just blazing
fast, even with a lot of windows and a several processor intensive
tasks running 24/7.

On 4/2/2014 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 06:57:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Hmmmm. Just about everyone I know who uses Win 7 says it is a
significant improvement over "Vista."

Vista sucked, I think that was a pretty well known thing. It was so
bad that Microsoft offered an "upgrade to a more familiar interface"
AKA rolling back to XP for anyone who bought it.



Don't you think that many complaints about Vista and Win7 arise from
users with inadequate CPU speed and/or RAM? I think it also depends on
what version of each OS is being used and on what it is installed.

For example, the computer I am using right now is an older HP Pavilion
Notebook running Windows Vista Home Premium. It has an AMD Turion X2
Dual Core processor running at 2.10GHz. It has 4Gb of RAM and is a
64-bit system.

Other than having a slow boot-up cycle from cold, it has performed
perfectly since I bought it in 2009. Never had a crash. Never "bogged"
down. Seems just as fast as the Win7 machine or even the iMac for
browsing, watching videos or doing any of the music editing and movie
making that I did in support of the guitar shop performance venue.

The Windows 7 laptop is also a HP Pavilion, similar in terms of speed
and also has 4Gb of RAM. It has an Intel processor (forget which) and
is also a 64 bit machine. The big advantage of it over the Vista (for
me) is that it can view and process MP4 videos directly. XP and Vista
cannot deal with MP4. You have to convert them. Other than that,
there's not a big difference between it and the Vista. Both seem just
as fast and neither have ever "crashed".

The iMac is a bit faster in terms of processing audio recordings that I
do but it's not *that* much faster to make it a major selling point. It
also has twice the RAM (8Gb) than the Windows machines which probably
accounts for it's slightly faster speed.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I think it depends on what kind of
computer you are using and what kind of applications you use often.

For e-mail, word processing and other non-demanding applications just
about any computer and OS will do the job.

On 4/2/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:30:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/2/2014 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 06:57:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Hmmmm. Just about everyone I know who uses Win 7 says it is a
significant improvement over "Vista."

Vista sucked, I think that was a pretty well known thing. It was so
bad that Microsoft offered an "upgrade to a more familiar interface"
AKA rolling back to XP for anyone who bought it.



Don't you think that many complaints about Vista and Win7 arise from
users with inadequate CPU speed and/or RAM? I think it also depends on
what version of each OS is being used and on what it is installed.

I have never heard of anyone loading Vista or W/7 on their existing
machine. It is generally a machine sold with that OS bundled in it. I
assume they would use an adequate machine.

*I* loaded Vista on two existing machines. I was an official beta tester
for MS in those days. I never had serious problems with Vista.




The Windows 7 laptop is also a HP Pavilion, similar in terms of speed
and also has 4Gb of RAM. It has an Intel processor (forget which) and
is also a 64 bit machine. The big advantage of it over the Vista (for
me) is that it can view and process MP4 videos directly. XP and Vista
cannot deal with MP4. You have to convert them.

VLC player (free) has no problems with MP4 files and it will run on
W/98 if you want. You must be talking about Media Player. The only
files I have associated with that is WMV. VLC plays damned near
anything.
Generally "new" features in a microsoft OS are things that were
available before but not from MS. They either buy them out or they
simply reverse engineer a similar ap.
I started using VLC player close to a decade ago because it plays the
MPG files that my ReplayTV saves. That is the fastest way to get video
onto your file server. If I know I want to keep something I DVR it on
the Replay and transfer it to the PC.
The Sat/Cable DVRs won't let you do that. (Sonic Blue was sued out of
existence because it was so easy to do things with the content)


The iMac is a bit faster in terms of processing audio recordings that I
do but it's not *that* much faster to make it a major selling point. It
also has twice the RAM (8Gb) than the Windows machines which probably
accounts for it's slightly faster speed.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I think it depends on what kind of
computer you are using and what kind of applications you use often.

For e-mail, word processing and other non-demanding applications just
about any computer and OS will do the job.


My point exactly. In fact, you have to work pretty hard to find
something that needs that blazing speed. Most of it is simply churning
hard to feed the bloated OS code.

On 4/2/14, 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:42:31 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/2/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:


I have never heard of anyone loading Vista or W/7 on their existing
machine. It is generally a machine sold with that OS bundled in it. I
assume they would use an adequate machine.

*I* loaded Vista on two existing machines. I was an official beta tester
for MS in those days. I never had serious problems with Vista.


We know you are special and a glutton for punishment. I was talking
about regular people who actually do useful things with their
computer.
There may be people who are dumb enough to ignore the system
requirements and load a new OS on an old machine but it you really
want to go fast, load an old OS on a new machine.




Before MS approved me for the Vista beta, I filled out a questionnaire
to "qualify" my gear at the time. It qualified. The original Windoze
betas were for punishment gluttons, as they arrived on about 20 hard
case floppies. Every week.

On 4/2/2014 12:37 PM, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:30:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/2/2014 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 06:57:49 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Hmmmm. Just about everyone I know who uses Win 7 says it is a
significant improvement over "Vista."

Vista sucked, I think that was a pretty well known thing. It was so
bad that Microsoft offered an "upgrade to a more familiar interface"
AKA rolling back to XP for anyone who bought it.



Don't you think that many complaints about Vista and Win7 arise from
users with inadequate CPU speed and/or RAM? I think it also depends on
what version of each OS is being used and on what it is installed.


I have never heard of anyone loading Vista or W/7 on their existing
machine. It is generally a machine sold with that OS bundled in it. I
assume they would use an adequate machine.


True, but many "budget" machines are sold at places like Best Buy,
Walmart etc., that have the bare minimum requirements to run a specific
OS. Also, there are different versions of both Vista and Win 7.,
including 32 bit and 64 bit versions.



The Windows 7 laptop is also a HP Pavilion, similar in terms of speed
and also has 4Gb of RAM. It has an Intel processor (forget which) and
is also a 64 bit machine. The big advantage of it over the Vista (for
me) is that it can view and process MP4 videos directly. XP and Vista
cannot deal with MP4. You have to convert them.

VLC player (free) has no problems with MP4 files and it will run on
W/98 if you want. You must be talking about Media Player. The only
files I have associated with that is WMV. VLC plays damned near
anything.


I have used VLC on the Vista computer. It's fine. But I also made many
videos of performances at the shop using Windows "Movie Maker".
My HD camera stored files in mp4 format. The version of Movie Maker in
Visa couldn't read them, so I'd have to convert them. The version of
Movie Maker in Win7 accepts mp4 files and has many more editing features.

BTW, I found and use a really cool application called
"Screencast-O-Matic". You can record any video and audio playing on
your screen and store as mp4, avi, or flv files. Quality is equal to
the original.
The free version limits the length of any recording and puts a logo on
it. For $15 per year you can get unlimited recording time and no logo.
Works well and has some editing features as well.




The iMac is a bit faster in terms of processing audio recordings that I
do but it's not *that* much faster to make it a major selling point. It
also has twice the RAM (8Gb) than the Windows machines which probably
accounts for it's slightly faster speed.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I think it depends on what kind of
computer you are using and what kind of applications you use often.

For e-mail, word processing and other non-demanding applications just
about any computer and OS will do the job.


My point exactly. In fact, you have to work pretty hard to find
something that needs that blazing speed. Most of it is simply churning
hard to feed the bloated OS code.