On 11/21/13, 10:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 8:54 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 8:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that
they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison.
Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64 bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure
they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed
they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as
fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and
Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.


Sometimes there is more going on than just the startup of the operating
system.

On my desktop, running Mac OSX 10.9, the start up procedure includes
not
only the OS, but a connection to my server and a connection to a half
dozen folders on that server and a couple of programs I run in the
backaground, so it takes a little longer for the boot-up. But since it
is a Mac, I rarely boot it up because it doesn't crash, and I don't
have
the BSODs that plague Windows. In fact, the last time I rebooted was a
few weeks ago when I uploaded and installed the latest *free*
version of
the OS. I just leave the desktop machine ON and after 15 minutes of no
keyboard activity or backup activity, the screen blanks out and the
hard
drive spools off.

My laptop also runs OSX 10.9, but I don't usually connect it to the
server, so the boot up is very fast, fastest I have ever seen,
actually,
on a consumer computer. The laptop has no hard drive in the traditional
sense...it has an SSD. I'll have to time the boot up but my guess is
that it takes no more than five seconds from the time I push the ON
button.




It's funny you mention crashes. I can't remember the last time either
of my Windows based computers crashed. I also rarely shut them
completely off either. I put them in "sleep" mode when they are not
being used. The only time a reboot is required is after an update of
the OS and occasionally after a major update by AVG (anti-virus). I
have them set so I can pick and choose when I want the updates to be
installed.

XP was (is) a very stable program. The last time I recall routine
crashes was back before it came along.

I recently read that XP, Vista, Win7 and Win8 were all derived from
Windows NT. I remember it because NT was an "industrialized" version
of Windows or something. All the CAD PC stations in my company ran on
Windows NT.




Many of the interim updates for Windows 7 require a reboot, according to
my wife, who runs that OS on her home computer. There seem to be
"security" updates every week.

I still use Microsoft's Office Suite, the Mac version. I've never liked
it because of its complexity but most of my clients use it and when I
prepare files or presentations for them, the work output has to be 100%
compatible. I've tried some of the open source substitutes for these
Microsoft programs, and they do work OK, but invariably there are
"formatting" problems when importing or exporting to the non-Microsoft
versions.

My favorite word processor, XyWrite, fell by the wayside decades ago.


One of my laptops (the Vista machine) has the full Microsoft Office
suite installed. I use "Open Office" in the other one. I don't recall
any problems with formatting issues using Open Office as long as you
save the document in a fairly recent Word version. My lawyer friend was
helping me draft a fairly lengthy legal document a while ago. He uses
Mac computers exclusively. We were able to email the drafts back and
forth, make changes and corrections without any difficulty. I was using
Open Office. He was using whatever Microsoft Office program that ran on
his Mac.

He's an interesting guy. In addition to being a rock musician from the
60's with a somewhat major hit record that he still receives royalty
checks for (he was a good friend of Duane Allmond), a lawyer, a guitar
builder and a Democratic Socialist, he also wrote code and developed
applications for Apple for a few years. He's a total Apple freak and
always has the latest and greatest iPhone, OS or whatever. He can't
understand why I, with my technical background, don't have the same
level of interest or enthusiasm about smart phones and computers. I've
tried to explain to him that to me they are just a tool. If they work
and do the job I need them to do, I don't worry about having the latest
and greatest.

You'd get along famously with him. He's a good guy and we often have
interesting but friendly political debates, unlike some that go on here.

Some of us are capable of "friendly" political debates.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.


When the time comes that I need a new computer, I am definitely going to
look for a hard disk-less model. I'll get one with the SSD drive an
use "The Cloud" for mass storage, if needed.

On 11/21/13, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.


When the time comes that I need a new computer, I am definitely going to
look for a hard disk-less model. I'll get one with the SSD drive an
use "The Cloud" for mass storage, if needed.




My iMac desktop comes off of AppleCare soon, so I am thinking of selling
it and getting a new iMac in 2014, one with only an SSD. I have a ton of
software on my current iMac, and am only using 190 GBs of a 1000 GBs
drive, so I think a 500 GBs SSD will be more than sufficient. I keep all
my text, data, music and movie files on my server, and on a separate
"critical stuff" backup drive, and I keep some of the music in "the cloud."

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison. Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64 bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from XP.
When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a
decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and
it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it. Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)




Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.

In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode.

--
Americans deserve better.

On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that
they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison.
Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64 bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure
they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed
they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as
fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and
Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from XP.
When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a
decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and
it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it. Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)




Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.

In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode.


Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes
that few extra seconds matter?

Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since
basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash"
that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" here

On 11/21/13, 11:30 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H

wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the
following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that
they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously
mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison.
Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64
bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure
they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed
they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as
fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and
Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from XP.
When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a
decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and
it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over
Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that
most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially
boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no
longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it. Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)




Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.

In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode.


Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes
that few extra seconds matter?

Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since
basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash"
that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" here


Ahh. I see indirectly that our 7th grade jokester, FlaJim, doesn't know
the difference on a computer between "sleep" mode and a power up from
absolutely off. Well, of course.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:30:58 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that
they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison.
Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64 bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure
they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed
they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as
fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and
Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from XP.
When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a
decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and
it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it. Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)




Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.

In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode.


Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes
that few extra seconds matter?

Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since
basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash"
that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" here

Once you get my age, each second matters.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 11/21/2013 11:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 11:30 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H

wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff.
But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the
following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to
open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that
they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously
mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison.
Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64
bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure
they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed
they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as
fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and
Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from
XP.
When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a
decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and
it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over
Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that
most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU
speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially
boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop
for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no
longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it.
Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)




Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it
that
fast.

In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode.


Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes
that few extra seconds matter?

Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since
basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash"
that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" here


Ahh. I see indirectly that our 7th grade jokester, FlaJim, doesn't know
the difference on a computer between "sleep" mode and a power up from
absolutely off. Well, of course.

Not interested what you see directly or indirectly. Although cold
booting in 12 seconds is kind of cool.

--
Americans deserve better.

On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that
they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison.
Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64 bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure
they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed
they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as
fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and
Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from XP.
When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a
decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and
it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it. Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)




Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.

In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode.



I just timed sleep mode to ready to go (including connecting to router
and Internet) on the Vista laptop. About 3-4 seconds.

On 11/21/13, 3:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H

wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank©
wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of
things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I
like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the
time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the
following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to
Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that
they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously
mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison.
Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64
bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64
bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure
they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed
they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as
fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and
Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from XP.
When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a
decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and
it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over
Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that
most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially
boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no
longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it. Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)




Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key
on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it
does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents
folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that
fast.

In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode.



I just timed sleep mode to ready to go (including connecting to router
and Internet) on the Vista laptop. About 3-4 seconds.


I shut my laptop completely off when I am not using it. Desktop after 15
minutes the screen goes black and the hard drive spools down. I believe,
though, the net connection stays active unless I change that setting.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.