Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] Microsoft

Expand Messages
  • phil
    I bought a 500mgh machine in May, with Win 98 SE and it is slower than mud. Maybe it is the programs I run. I have about 5 gigs of applications that I run.
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 20, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I bought a 500mgh machine in May, with Win 98 SE and it is slower
      than mud. Maybe it is the programs I run. I have about 5 gigs of
      applications that I run.

      But a lot of people leave their machines running (I do) rather than go
      through all the waiting.

      Phil E.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Larry Thomas" <larryt@...>
      To: <ntb-OffTopic@egroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:33 AM
      Subject: Re: [NTO] Microsoft


      >
      > Hi Phil,
      >
      > At 11:17 AM 06/20/2000 -0700, you wrote:
      > >I am the one that started this last round of MS bashing. I did
      > >it by praising Bill Gates and MS. Notice I don't put $ for an S.
      > >
      > >BUT- - - - - Why does it take five minutes for a computer to start up?
      > >
      > >Why can't Microsoft make them "Instant On and Instant Off."
      >
      > I can't say. I don't have the technical knowledge. I bought a new 600
      mhz
      > computer in March and I am running Windows 98 SE. It loads up ready to
      use
      > in about 30 seconds. On my old Pentium 120 machine, Windows 98 (original
      > version) took between two and three and a half minutes to load before I
      > could do anything at all.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Larry
      > larryt@...
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Find long lost high school friends:
      > http://click.egroups.com/1/5535/9/_/_/_/961526018/
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
    • Larry Thomas
      Hi Phil, ... My brother sets up computers for other people and he says that some things can make computers run slower - sometimes a lot slower. Having huge
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 20, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Phil,

        At 11:39 AM 06/20/2000 -0700, you wrote:
        >I bought a 500mgh machine in May, with Win 98 SE and it is slower
        >than mud. Maybe it is the programs I run. I have about 5 gigs of
        >applications that I run.
        >
        >But a lot of people leave their machines running (I do) rather than go
        >through all the waiting.
        >
        >Phil E.

        My brother sets up computers for other people and he says that some things
        can make computers run slower - sometimes a lot slower. Having huge
        numbers of fonts installed, or lots of utilities in your startup folder,
        large numbers of screen savers or desktop dodads plus 640x480 bitmap
        wallpapers and wallpaper changers running are some of the things he
        mentioned that I can remember. I remember because I had them on my old
        system. I have not yet installed these on my new system but I plan to
        place them into another partition on my system and see what happens to the
        bootup time for that partition.

        You might want to check out some of the websites for tricks and tips on
        speeding up your system.

        Regards,

        Larry
        larryt@...
      • Len
        Hello All; IMHO MS s present problems stem from their past success. MS began with DOS and continued to improve the OSs in discrete steps to Win-2000 because of
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 20, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello All;

          IMHO MS's present problems stem from their past success.
          MS began with DOS and continued to improve the OSs in discrete steps to
          Win-2000 because of their customer's requirements and to attract new
          customers. The problems with MS OS software has been that at each
          stage of development, development time (cost) and coustomers requirements
          for backward compatability have required that thousands of trade-off
          decisions to be made by management, system designers and the by the
          individual programers.

          System Engineers must define the design requirements and provide the
          system functional design including the software modules interfaces.
          Backward compatability requires that each programer research previously
          written code to be certain his particular code is functionally compatable.
          Systems tests must be designed and performed to insure all design
          requirements are met under any foreseeable combination of conditions.

          The people performing these tasks are very well paid and as in all such
          endevors the final product is only as good as the weakest link (or links)
          in the chain. This requires that the code be checked and tested at every
          significant level of assembly and any must problems found be corrected.

          Wheither MS spends as much as they should when costs, profit, and demand are
          evaluated is known only to MS management and others they may have told.

          I have read that MS wanted to design Win 2000 and Win Millenium from
          scratch but the costs would have been too high.

          Regards, Len

          Leonard O. Hargrove, Jr.
          E-Mail: Len <NoteTabA@...>
        • Jody
          Hi Phil, ... Congratulations! :) We are not really bashing M$ or Billy Boy Gate$, but just sharing our likes and dislike$. ... ... If you are serious
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 20, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Phil,

            > I am the one that started this last round of MS bashing. I did
            > it by praising Bill Gates and MS. Notice I don't put $ for an
            > S.

            Congratulations! :) We are not really bashing M$ or Billy Boy
            Gate$, but just sharing our likes and dislike$.

            > Bill Gates money is tainted. Taint mine.

            <bg>

            > Why does it take five minutes for a computer to start up?

            If you are serious about that amount of time, then something is
            wrong somewhere unless you are starting a large amount of
            programs and large ones on startup. Like Larry, it takes me
            about 30-35 seconds to get my desktop and Taskbar, but then
            another minute or so to start my other programs. That is partly
            due to waiting for a connect to be established so Eudora can be
            launched to check mail.

            > Why can't Microsoft make them "Instant On and Instant Off."

            Partly because of folk that require everything done for them, out
            of the box and it works. It is also a big program with a whole
            lot of things to do on startup. Web integration eats up a lot of
            time and resources as well, even when it is turned off. It
            certainly is not like the old 3.X days, that is for sure.

            There are a lot of freeware utilities for shut down here.
            http://winfiles.cnet.com/apps/98/shell-shutdown.html
            http://www.computerdude.net/Shareware/Quick_Shutdown.htm


            > Don't tell me about all the crap they have to load, and all
            > that technical garbage.

            Oops, sorry. ;->

            > Why do they now take longer to shut down, than they used to
            > take to load up.

            There is a feature in Win98 that will allow fast shutdowns, but I
            cannot find it now. It can cause shut down errors though. If
            somebody knows where I am talking about perhaps you can refresh
            my memory. I though it was under Power, but no so.

            > If Microsoft would put some energy into making them closer to "
            > Instant on Instant off", I bet that time could be shortened
            > mightily.

            PC's are still young. They have come a long way and still have a
            long ways to go. My guess is a whole different system will have
            to be invented for you "Instant On/Off" to be just that. You can
            use utilities that will "slam dunk" your programs that are open
            though. There are a few ways a program can be closed and some
            are more graceful than others. Some of them are close to just
            killing the power and others are like using the programs Close
            command. The first, what I refer to as a "Slam Dunk," relies on
            Windows to do the cleanup and the last makes it so the program
            will clean up behind itself like freeing up memory, prompting the
            user to save unsaved files, etc.

            > Now what side am I on?

            You are a computer user expressing his opinions. ;)

            Quick Restart of Windows 98
            Click on Start > Shut Down
            Select Restart
            Click OK while holding down the Shift key
            Windows will now restart without executing a complete warm boot.

            ------

            Starting up and shutting down
            Unlike Win 95, when Win 98 shuts down, it shuts down immediately-
            -no more waiting for the screen that gives you permission to turn
            off your computer. Win 98 also supports the Advanced
            Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI); if your hardware
            supports this standard, you'll be able to put your computer to
            sleep without shutting it down. Plus, you'll probably notice that
            reboot is faster with Win 98, since it can skip a number of
            initialization tests when you turn it on.

            In Windows help read this: power management, ACPI

            Happy Topics,
            Jody

            The NoteTab Off-Topic List
            mailto:ntb-OffTopic-Subscribe@...
            mailto:ntb-OffTopic-UnSubscribe@...
          • phil
            The thrust of what I meant by MS improving Win 98 so it was closer to instant on/instant off was that THEY should do something to try and achieve that magical
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 21, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              The thrust of what I meant by MS improving Win 98 so it was closer
              to instant on/instant off was that THEY should do something to try
              and achieve that magical goal. I don't have the smarts to do it, but
              they sure do. If it is only a money saving thing on their part, then
              I will start spelling it with a " $ " instead of an " S ".

              BUT !!!!! PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS BETTER. I HEAR LINUX
              BEING DISCUSSED, BUT IT HAS IT'S PROBLEMS. OS-2 WAS
              BALLYHOO'D FOR A WHILE, BUT IT SEEMED TO DIE A
              QUIET DEATH SOMEWHERE.

              People suggest SLOW on/off is my problem. I have a virus program,
              a thing to simulate activity on the web so my ISP won"t cut me off, and
              one picture (wallpaper) of the Earth from space. That is it for USER
              OPENING programs on start. The rest of what starts are system files,
              no more applications. My desktop has just the crap MS puts on it.

              It is their fault it loads slow. As the computers/hard drives get bigger
              and better, the slow on/off problem gets worse.

              Phil E
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.