On 2/3/2014 5:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:02:20 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:48:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.


Who cares if it is faster, as long as the XP machine is going as fast
as it needs to go?
Most of the delay is in "calling home" on those applications, not
handling the local transaction.
Games and video processing are the main power hogs on a PC. If you are
just "computing" your old 4.77 mz PC/XT went as fast as you needed to
go. (Visicalc spread sheets etc)
We ran a quarter million dollar business on one.

I can't type faster than my machine can display. I figure that's good enough.



If you browse and shop on the Internet XP's age will begin to show.
Actually it has already. Graphic displays on websites are getting more
and more complex and Win 7 and 8 simply handle them better. I could see
that on the Compaq I had running XP before it died. I had this Vista
and the Win 7 also when it worked. All three were basically the same in
terms of CPU speed and RAM and all three were/are "Multimedia" models,
supposedly optimized for multimedia, something a computer guru suggested
to me when I was buying the XP machine years ago. He said that a
computer optimized for multimedia (what the optimization is ... I don't
know) would generally run faster and better for all applications and
uses. I can't verify that except my laptops run a heck of a lot faster
than my wife's Dell desktop. Then again, I am not sure how her Dell is
populated in terms of CPU and RAM.

If all you use your computer for is email and newsgroups, Win 3.1 would
probably still work. :-)

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/3/2014 5:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:02:20 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:48:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.


Who cares if it is faster, as long as the XP machine is going as fast
as it needs to go?
Most of the delay is in "calling home" on those applications, not
handling the local transaction.
Games and video processing are the main power hogs on a PC. If you are
just "computing" your old 4.77 mz PC/XT went as fast as you needed to
go. (Visicalc spread sheets etc)
We ran a quarter million dollar business on one.

I can't type faster than my machine can display. I figure that's good enough.



If you browse and shop on the Internet XP's age will begin to show.
Actually it has already. Graphic displays on websites are getting more
and more complex and Win 7 and 8 simply handle them better. I could see
that on the Compaq I had running XP before it died. I had this Vista
and the Win 7 also when it worked. All three were basically the same in
terms of CPU speed and RAM and all three were/are "Multimedia" models,
supposedly optimized for multimedia, something a computer guru suggested
to me when I was buying the XP machine years ago. He said that a
computer optimized for multimedia (what the optimization is ... I don't
know) would generally run faster and better for all applications and
uses. I can't verify that except my laptops run a heck of a lot faster
than my wife's Dell desktop. Then again, I am not sure how her Dell is
populated in terms of CPU and RAM.

If all you use your computer for is email and newsgroups, Win 3.1 would
probably still work. :-)

I think part of the problem with Win 7 was if you picked to run 64 bit and
not 32 bit. Prevented a lot of legacy programs from running. Was a major
shortfall for MS. If you ran Win 7 Professional, you could get an XP
emulator, but not the Home version.

In article ,
says...


If there is one thing I really miss from DOS and W/3.x it is that we
lost the RAM drive capability. At a certain point you get better
performance using RAM to cache your hard drive than to just give it to
the OS to use. That is particularly true in a data intensive
application like dBase.

You can use a RAM disk with Win 7.
No real reason to, but there it is.

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:45:54 -0500, wrote:

If there is one thing I really miss from DOS and W/3.x it is that we
lost the RAM drive capability. At a certain point you get better
performance using RAM to cache your hard drive than to just give it to
the OS to use. That is particularly true in a data intensive
application like dBase.

===

Ask and you shall receive:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/26091..._ram_disk.html

Of course all of that is predicated on having lots of RAM and a more
or less recent version of Windows, preferably a 64 bit version which
can leverage more than 4 gig of RAM.

The newer machines with lots of RAM and more up to date versions of
Windows also do a good job of creating a virtual cache. Of course
the controller board for newer hard disks usually has a fair amount of
cache built in.

With all due respect, a lot has happened since Win 3.2 and Win95.

I could offer you a good price on an 2 x 4 processor server blade with
Win-7 64 bit professional pre-installed. The fans are a tad noisy but
tolerable. Power consumption running all 8 processor cores flat out
is about 175 watts.

The speed is amazing with applications that can multiprocess.

On 2/3/14, 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:04:24 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january

Microsoft has not given their business users any compelling reason to
switch.
If your mission is not significantly changing, why should you change
your hardware and software?
99% of all real business applications ran just fine on Windows 3.1 on
a 396. If you are just doing bookkeeping, inventory and point of sale,
you don't need that much computing power.
All of these flashy graphics do not actually add much to the average
business man's operation.
Hardware is pretty stagnant these days so I am not really sure why
they need a different OS.



Apple offers incremental improvements to its OS, not do-overs, and its
price is right. Mavericks, the latest, costs $0.00. I was going to put
Win 7 on my Macbook Air, but for $100+, I simply decided not to waste
the money.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

In article , says...

On 2/3/14, 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:04:24 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january

Microsoft has not given their business users any compelling reason to
switch.
If your mission is not significantly changing, why should you change
your hardware and software?
99% of all real business applications ran just fine on Windows 3.1 on
a 396. If you are just doing bookkeeping, inventory and point of sale,
you don't need that much computing power.
All of these flashy graphics do not actually add much to the average
business man's operation.
Hardware is pretty stagnant these days so I am not really sure why
they need a different OS.



Apple offers incremental improvements to its OS, not do-overs, and its
price is right. Mavericks, the latest, costs $0.00. I was going to put
Win 7 on my Macbook Air, but for $100+, I simply decided not to waste
the money.

What's $100 after spending $1000 on a laptop?
But if you don't need Win 7, why even think about it?

On Monday, February 3, 2014 1:27:00 PM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...



On 2/3/14, 11:46 AM, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:04:24 -0500, Poco Loco

wrote:



Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.



http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january



Microsoft has not given their business users any compelling reason to

switch.

If your mission is not significantly changing, why should you change

your hardware and software?

99% of all real business applications ran just fine on Windows 3.1 on

a 396. If you are just doing bookkeeping, inventory and point of sale,

you don't need that much computing power.

All of these flashy graphics do not actually add much to the average

business man's operation.

Hardware is pretty stagnant these days so I am not really sure why

they need a different OS.







Apple offers incremental improvements to its OS, not do-overs, and its

price is right. Mavericks, the latest, costs $0.00. I was going to put

Win 7 on my Macbook Air, but for $100+, I simply decided not to waste

the money.



What's $100 after spending $1000 on a laptop?
But if you don't need Win 7, why even think about it?

Besides, the Apple OS isn't really free. Its cost is just bundled into the overpriced Mac hardware.

In article , says...

On 2/3/14, 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:04:24 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january

Microsoft has not given their business users any compelling reason to
switch.
If your mission is not significantly changing, why should you change
your hardware and software?
99% of all real business applications ran just fine on Windows 3.1 on
a 396. If you are just doing bookkeeping, inventory and point of sale,
you don't need that much computing power.
All of these flashy graphics do not actually add much to the average
business man's operation.
Hardware is pretty stagnant these days so I am not really sure why
they need a different OS.



Apple offers incremental improvements to its OS, not do-overs, and its
price is right. Mavericks, the latest, costs $0.00. I was going to put
Win 7 on my Macbook Air, but for $100+, I simply decided not to waste
the money.

What's $100 after spending +$1000 on a laptop?
But if you don't need Win 7, why even think about it?

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/3/14, 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:04:24 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january

Microsoft has not given their business users any compelling reason to
switch.
If your mission is not significantly changing, why should you change
your hardware and software?
99% of all real business applications ran just fine on Windows 3.1 on
a 396. If you are just doing bookkeeping, inventory and point of sale,
you don't need that much computing power.
All of these flashy graphics do not actually add much to the average
business man's operation.
Hardware is pretty stagnant these days so I am not really sure why
they need a different OS.



Apple offers incremental improvements to its OS, not do-overs, and its
price is right. Mavericks, the latest, costs $0.00. I was going to put
Win 7 on my Macbook Air, but for $100+, I simply decided not to waste the money.


Mavericks is a lot more expensive than $0.00! You have paid at least 30%
more for the hardware.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:

Apple offers incremental improvements to its OS, not do-overs, and its
price is right. Mavericks, the latest, costs $0.00. I was going to put
Win 7 on my Macbook Air, but for $100+, I simply decided not to waste the money.


True, Mavericks was a free upgrade but not without some disappointments.
It will not run some popular programs that previous versions of the
Apple OSX ran.

An example is Pro-Tools 9. I had a brand new, unopened box with
Pro-Tools that I was looking forward to installing in the iMac once I
became familiar with it. Pro-Tools is a professional grade audio
recording software package.

Pro-Tools isn't cheap. The current version is $699. I decided to
install my copy only to find out that Mavericks (which I upgraded to a
month ago) won't run it. My options are to revert back to the older,
10.8.5 OSX (whatever they called it) or go out and purchase the newer
version.

I'll stick with the full Garage Band for now.

That all said though, I like the iMac. Nice display and is faster for
some of the things I like to do with audio and video. For many purposes
though I still think it's an overgrown, high priced iPhone. :-)