Did you have Windows 7?
 

"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
...
> If so, do you like it or no and why? Just curious if it is as good as
> the magazines and Internet articles says it is?
>

I like Vista.

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:49:01 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
.. .
>> If so, do you like it or no and why? Just curious if it is as good as
>> the magazines and Internet articles says it is?
>>
>
>I like Vista.
>

I've read that to upgrade from Vista to 7, is not worth the price.
Most of the improvements can be made in Vista by turning off the
annoying stuff. Improvements that can't be made by Vista are
"usually" not of much value to the home user.

My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.

I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
success. So far I like Vista.

Ron Kelley

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:00:16 -0700, Ron wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:49:01 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> If so, do you like it or no and why? Just curious if it is as good as
>>> the magazines and Internet articles says it is?
>>>
>>
>>I like Vista.
>>
>
> I've read that to upgrade from Vista to 7, is not worth the price.
> Most of the improvements can be made in Vista by turning off the
> annoying stuff. Improvements that can't be made by Vista are
> "usually" not of much value to the home user.
>
> My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
> three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
> and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
> a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.
>
> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
> success. So far I like Vista.
>
> Ron Kelley

i've had no problems with vista (yes, you do have to turn off the annoying
User Account Control (UAC)). i'm hoping that anything scary that happens
due to having this 'valuable' security option turned off is caught by a
daily virus scan by AVG. (i'm also the only user of this non-networked
machine.)

but you do have to have a machine capacious enough to run it. anything
that came pre-loaded with it should fit that bill. and printers are so
cheap now (especially if you get some package deal) that i didn't worry
about obsolete drivers.

i would consider booping up to windows seven if it was free (or even cheap)
to paid vista users, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards (or, more
precisely, microsoft's DNA).

your pal,
blake

Did you have Windows 7?
 

Ron wrote:
>
> My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
> three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
> and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
> a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.
>
> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
> success. So far I like Vista.

Same here. I bought a Dell last year with Vista loaded. It took a bit of
getting used to how things work on the new system. It is so much easier
to use that earlier versions of Windows. I have no complaints.

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:31 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:00:16 -0700, Ron wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:49:01 -0400, "cybercat" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
...
>>>> If so, do you like it or no and why? Just curious if it is as good as
>>>> the magazines and Internet articles says it is?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I like Vista.
>>>
>>
>> I've read that to upgrade from Vista to 7, is not worth the price.
>> Most of the improvements can be made in Vista by turning off the
>> annoying stuff. Improvements that can't be made by Vista are
>> "usually" not of much value to the home user.
>>
>> My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
>> three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
>> and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
>> a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.
>>
>> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
>> success. So far I like Vista.
>>
>> Ron Kelley
>
>i've had no problems with vista (yes, you do have to turn off the annoying
>User Account Control (UAC)). i'm hoping that anything scary that happens
>due to having this 'valuable' security option turned off is caught by a
>daily virus scan by AVG. (i'm also the only user of this non-networked
>machine.)
>
>but you do have to have a machine capacious enough to run it. anything
>that came pre-loaded with it should fit that bill. and printers are so
>cheap now (especially if you get some package deal) that i didn't worry
>about obsolete drivers.

Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
information. ;-)

>
>i would consider booping up to windows seven if it was free (or even cheap)
>to paid vista users, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards (or, more
>precisely, microsoft's DNA).
>

I'm not sure I'd even go for a free upgrade at this point. I have
this thing running like I want it and don't really want to introduce a
new OS and a chance to mess it up.

Ron Kelley

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:26:57 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Ron wrote:
>>
>> My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
>> three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
>> and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
>> a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.
>>
>> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
>> success. So far I like Vista.
>
>Same here. I bought a Dell last year with Vista loaded. It took a bit of
>getting used to how things work on the new system. It is so much easier
>to use that earlier versions of Windows. I have no complaints.

It does take some getting used to. Not too bad though. I think
learning where Vista stores my files took a little time, but that's
taken care of now. I like it.

Ron Kelley

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:26:10 -0700, Ron > wrote:

-->On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:31 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:
-->
-->>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:00:16 -0700, Ron wrote:
-->>
-->>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:49:01 -0400, "cybercat" >
-->>> wrote:
-->>>
-->>>>
-->>>>"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
m...
-->>>>> If so, do you like it or no and why? Just curious if it is as good as
-->>>>> the magazines and Internet articles says it is?
-->>>>>
-->>>>
-->>>>I like Vista.
-->>>>
-->>>
-->>> I've read that to upgrade from Vista to 7, is not worth the price.
-->>> Most of the improvements can be made in Vista by turning off the
-->>> annoying stuff. Improvements that can't be made by Vista are
-->>> "usually" not of much value to the home user.
-->>>
-->>> My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
-->>> three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
-->>> and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
-->>> a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.
-->>>
-->>> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
-->>> success. So far I like Vista.
-->>>
-->>> Ron Kelley
-->>
-->>i've had no problems with vista (yes, you do have to turn off the annoying
-->>User Account Control (UAC)). i'm hoping that anything scary that happens
-->>due to having this 'valuable' security option turned off is caught by a
-->>daily virus scan by AVG. (i'm also the only user of this non-networked
-->>machine.)
-->>
-->>but you do have to have a machine capacious enough to run it. anything
-->>that came pre-loaded with it should fit that bill. and printers are so
-->>cheap now (especially if you get some package deal) that i didn't worry
-->>about obsolete drivers.
-->
-->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
-->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
-->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
-->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
-->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
-->information. ;-)



Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If it was, I'd
think twice about giving them any more of your money.

Did you have Windows 7?
 

Ron wrote:

>>> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
>>> success. So far I like Vista.
>> Same here. I bought a Dell last year with Vista loaded. It took a bit of
>> getting used to how things work on the new system. It is so much easier
>> to use that earlier versions of Windows. I have no complaints.
>
> It does take some getting used to. Not too bad though. I think
> learning where Vista stores my files took a little time, but that's
> taken care of now. I like it.

I was impressed that I could get to my pictures by clicking on Start and
then Pictures and there they were. Once I got the hang of it I found it
so much easier.

Did you have Windows 7?
 

SCP wrote:

> -->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
> -->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
> -->information. ;-)
>
>
>
> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If it was, I'd
> think twice about giving them any more of your money.

That certainly sounds contrary to my admittedly limited knowledge of how
computers work. I was under the impression that increased RAM meant
faster performance because it eliminates the need to access virtual
memory on the hard disk, which means additional processing and swapping.

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:51:05 -0400, Dave Smith >
wrote:

-->SCP wrote:
-->
-->> -->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
-->> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
-->> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
-->> -->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
-->> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
-->> -->information. ;-)
-->>
-->>
-->>
-->> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If it
was, I'd
-->> think twice about giving them any more of your money.
-->
-->That certainly sounds contrary to my admittedly limited knowledge of how
-->computers work. I was under the impression that increased RAM meant
-->faster performance because it eliminates the need to access virtual
-->memory on the hard disk, which means additional processing and swapping.

Exactually

Did you have Windows 7?
 

In article >,
SCP > wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:26:10 -0700, Ron > wrote:
>
> -->On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:31 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:

> -->>but you do have to have a machine capacious enough to run it. anything
> -->>that came pre-loaded with it should fit that bill. and printers are so
> -->>cheap now (especially if you get some package deal) that i didn't worry
> -->>about obsolete drivers.
> -->
> -->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
> -->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
> -->information. ;-)
>
> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If it was,
> I'd
> think twice about giving them any more of your money.

Speaking of money, it's the root of all evil. The more money you have,
the worse your life will. Just as a kindness to you, I'd be willing to
take all your money off your hands, and make you truly happy. You don't
even need to thank me, I'm just doing it because I feel generous today.

I feel the same way about memory. Send me your memory.

My personal suspicion, based on not knowing the situation, is that
upgrading the memory was a problem there, so the sales person invented a
story (which may have a grain of truth to it). Machines often come from
the factory with max memory in the slots. Say you've got four slots and
2GB. That may translate into four .5GB memory cards. You can't just
add a couple of 1GB cards, because there's no slots. If you take out
two "old" cards, you've lost memory. So, you either have to yank out
all four cards and replace them with 1GB cards, or do something else.
And I'm guessing that .5GB memory cards aren't real saleable right now.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Did you have Windows 7?
 

Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-FCD004.11212827102009@c-61-
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> peaking of money, it's the root of all evil


WRONG!!!

Lack of money is the root of all evil!!!

Andy

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:14:23 -0500, Stu wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:31 -0400, blake murphy >
> wrote:
>
> -->On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:00:16 -0700, Ron wrote:
> -->
> -->> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:49:01 -0400, "cybercat" >
> -->> wrote:
> -->>
> -->>>
> -->>>"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
> ...
> -->>>> If so, do you like it or no and why? Just curious if it is as good as
> -->>>> the magazines and Internet articles says it is?
> -->>>>
> -->>>
> -->>>I like Vista.
> -->>>
> -->>
> -->> I've read that to upgrade from Vista to 7, is not worth the price.
> -->> Most of the improvements can be made in Vista by turning off the
> -->> annoying stuff. Improvements that can't be made by Vista are
> -->> "usually" not of much value to the home user.
> -->>
> -->> My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
> -->> three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
> -->> and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
> -->> a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.
> -->>
> -->> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
> -->> success. So far I like Vista.
> -->>
> -->> Ron Kelley
> -->
> -->i've had no problems with vista (yes, you do have to turn off the annoying
> -->User Account Control (UAC)). i'm hoping that anything scary that happens
> -->due to having this 'valuable' security option turned off is caught by a
> -->daily virus scan by AVG. (i'm also the only user of this non-networked
> -->machine.)
>
> Blake, you're not using that free virus scanner are you?
>
> Try panda, cheap and a very high rating from users ... me I run norton as too
> many pooters on the system to protect.

i am indeed, with an occasional run of Malwarebytes¢ Anti-Malware. as far
as i know, both are fairly well-thought of.

i also don't do a whole lot of foolish things that would make me
vulnerable.

your pal,
blake

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:26:10 -0700, Ron wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:31 -0400, blake murphy

>>
>>i would consider booping up to windows seven if it was free (or even cheap)
>>to paid vista users, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards (or, more
>>precisely, microsoft's DNA).
>>
>
> I'm not sure I'd even go for a free upgrade at this point. I have
> this thing running like I want it and don't really want to introduce a
> new OS and a chance to mess it up.
>
> Ron Kelley

there is that.

your pal,
blake

Did you have Windows 7?
 

Dave Smith wrote:
> SCP wrote:
>
>> -->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
>> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
>> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
>> -->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
>> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
>> -->information. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If it
>> was, I'd
>> think twice about giving them any more of your money.
>
> That certainly sounds contrary to my admittedly limited knowledge of how
> computers work. I was under the impression that increased RAM meant
> faster performance because it eliminates the need to access virtual
> memory on the hard disk, which means additional processing and swapping.
xp handles around 3.2 gig of ram per core/chip just the way it was
written and of course win7 doesn't appear to have the limitation
the 3.2 gig limitation is tied to the 640 dos limitation I hear

Did you have Windows 7?
 

atec 7 7 wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> SCP wrote:
>>
>>> -->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
>>> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
>>> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
>>> -->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
>>> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some
>>> old
>>> -->information. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If
>>> it was, I'd
>>> think twice about giving them any more of your money.
>>
>> That certainly sounds contrary to my admittedly limited knowledge of
>> how computers work. I was under the impression that increased RAM
>> meant faster performance because it eliminates the need to access
>> virtual memory on the hard disk, which means additional processing and
>> swapping.
> xp handles around 3.2 gig of ram per core/chip just the way it was
> written and of course win7 doesn't appear to have the limitation
> the 3.2 gig limitation is tied to the 640 dos limitation I hear

White paper?

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:06:46 -0500, SCP > wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:26:10 -0700, Ron > wrote:
>
>-->On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:31 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:
>-->
>-->>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:00:16 -0700, Ron wrote:
>-->>
>-->>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:49:01 -0400, "cybercat" >
>-->>> wrote:
>-->>>
>-->>>>
>-->>>>"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
m...
>-->>>>> If so, do you like it or no and why? Just curious if it is as good as
>-->>>>> the magazines and Internet articles says it is?
>-->>>>>
>-->>>>
>-->>>>I like Vista.
>-->>>>
>-->>>
>-->>> I've read that to upgrade from Vista to 7, is not worth the price.
>-->>> Most of the improvements can be made in Vista by turning off the
>-->>> annoying stuff. Improvements that can't be made by Vista are
>-->>> "usually" not of much value to the home user.
>-->>>
>-->>> My computer (Dell) came with Vista preloaded. I've had it for nearly
>-->>> three years and the only problem I had was the inability to talk to
>-->>> and old Lexmark printer I had. Needed a new printer anyway so bought
>-->>> a HP. Great printer, no problems with Vista.
>-->>>
>-->>> I have automatic updates turned on... maybe that's the secret of
>-->>> success. So far I like Vista.
>-->>>
>-->>> Ron Kelley
>-->>
>-->>i've had no problems with vista (yes, you do have to turn off the annoying
>-->>User Account Control (UAC)). i'm hoping that anything scary that happens
>-->>due to having this 'valuable' security option turned off is caught by a
>-->>daily virus scan by AVG. (i'm also the only user of this non-networked
>-->>machine.)
>-->>
>-->>but you do have to have a machine capacious enough to run it. anything
>-->>that came pre-loaded with it should fit that bill. and printers are so
>-->>cheap now (especially if you get some package deal) that i didn't worry
>-->>about obsolete drivers.
>-->
>-->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
>-->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
>-->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
>-->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
>-->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
>-->information. ;-)
>
>
>
>Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If it was, I'd
>think twice about giving them any more of your money.

I was talking to directly to Dell. Yeah, the guy may have been a
salesperson, but he knew the computer pretty well.

Ron Kelley

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Oct 28, 7:42*am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
> atec 7 7 wrote:
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >> SCP wrote:
>
> >>> -->Right. *My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. *I asked the guy at
> >>> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
> >>> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
> >>> -->computer. *It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
> >>> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some
> >>> old
> >>> -->information. *;-)
>
> >>> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If
> >>> it was, I'd
> >>> think twice about giving them any more of your money.
>
> >> That certainly sounds contrary to my admittedly limited knowledge of
> >> how computers work. I was under the impression that increased RAM
> >> meant faster performance because it eliminates the need to access
> >> virtual memory on the hard disk, which means additional processing and
> >> swapping.
> > xp handles around 3.2 gig of ram per core/chip just the way it was
> > written and of course win7 doesn't appear to have the limitation
> > *the 3.2 gig limitation is tied to the 640 dos limitation I hear
>
> White paper?

From Windows thyemselves

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...ts_wi ndows_7

sheesh

Did you have Windows 7?
 

Pits09 wrote:
> On Oct 28, 7:42 am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>> atec 7 7 wrote:
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> SCP wrote:
>>>>> -->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
>>>>> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
>>>>> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
>>>>> -->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
>>>>> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some
>>>>> old
>>>>> -->information. ;-)
>>>>> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If
>>>>> it was, I'd
>>>>> think twice about giving them any more of your money.
>>>> That certainly sounds contrary to my admittedly limited knowledge of
>>>> how computers work. I was under the impression that increased RAM
>>>> meant faster performance because it eliminates the need to access
>>>> virtual memory on the hard disk, which means additional processing and
>>>> swapping.
>>> xp handles around 3.2 gig of ram per core/chip just the way it was
>>> written and of course win7 doesn't appear to have the limitation
>>> the 3.2 gig limitation is tied to the 640 dos limitation I hear
>> White paper?
>
> From Windows thyemselves
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...ts_wi ndows_7
>
> sheesh

I apologize for asking to be educated as to your opinion.

<not sheesh>

Bob

Did you have Windows 7?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:21:28 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> SCP > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:26:10 -0700, Ron > wrote:
>>
>> -->On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:40:31 -0400, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>
>> -->>but you do have to have a machine capacious enough to run it. anything
>> -->>that came pre-loaded with it should fit that bill. and printers are so
>> -->>cheap now (especially if you get some package deal) that i didn't worry
>> -->>about obsolete drivers.
>> -->
>> -->Right. My computer came with 2 gigs of memory. I asked the guy at
>> -->Dell, 'why not bump it up to 4 gigs... memory isn't that expensive'.
>> -->Turns out that anything over 2 gigs can actually slow down the
>> -->computer. It was explained to me at the time, but my personal memory
>> -->banks are so full now, anything new coming in just pushes out some old
>> -->information. ;-)
>>
>> Who told you that the checkout person, because it wasn't a tech. If it was,
>> I'd
>> think twice about giving them any more of your money.
>
> Speaking of money, it's the root of all evil. The more money you have,
> the worse your life will. Just as a kindness to you, I'd be willing to
> take all your money off your hands, and make you truly happy. You don't
> even need to thank me, I'm just doing it because I feel generous today.

i know you're joking, dan, but it's *the love of* money that is the root of
all evil.

that particular misquote just bugs me for some reason.

your pal,
blake

Did you have Windows 7?
 

In article >,
Bob Muncie > wrote:

> Pits09 wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 7:42 am, Bob Muncie > wrote:

> >> White paper?
> >
> > From Windows thyemselves
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...px#physical_me
> > mory_limits_windows_7
> >
> > sheesh
>
> I apologize for asking to be educated as to your opinion.
>
> <not sheesh>

I'll put in the "sheesh" for you. Only from Micro$oft. They call it
physical memory, but it appears that, depending on how much money you
give to M$, the OS will only use some limited amount of memory. So you
can in truth install 4GB of memory, but if you get the cheapest OS from
M$, it only looks at 2GB!

So, to go back to the original post, I still don't see how getting too
much memory could slow you down, but if your OS doesn't use that extra
memory, it's a waste of money.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Did you have Windows 7?
 

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
>> Pits09 wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 7:42 am, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
>>>> White paper?
>>> From Windows thyemselves
>>>
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...px#physical_me
>>> mory_limits_windows_7
>>>
>>> sheesh
>> I apologize for asking to be educated as to your opinion.
>>
>> <not sheesh>
>
> I'll put in the "sheesh" for you. Only from Micro$oft. They call it
> physical memory, but it appears that, depending on how much money you
> give to M$, the OS will only use some limited amount of memory. So you
> can in truth install 4GB of memory, but if you get the cheapest OS from
> M$, it only looks at 2GB!
>
> So, to go back to the original post, I still don't see how getting too
> much memory could slow you down, but if your OS doesn't use that extra
> memory, it's a waste of money.
>

The 640Kb usage, and 2Gb limit has been known for a long time. Tell me
something I don't know.

But to think that X amount of memory increases speed is what I was
addressing. Memory only allows you to run "more" things at the same
time. Not run them faster.

<another sigh>

Bob

Did you have Windows 7?
 

In article >,
Bob Muncie > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > I'll put in the "sheesh" for you. Only from Micro$oft. They call it
> > physical memory, but it appears that, depending on how much money you
> > give to M$, the OS will only use some limited amount of memory. So you
> > can in truth install 4GB of memory, but if you get the cheapest OS from
> > M$, it only looks at 2GB!
> >
> > So, to go back to the original post, I still don't see how getting too
> > much memory could slow you down, but if your OS doesn't use that extra
> > memory, it's a waste of money.
> >
>
> The 640Kb usage, and 2Gb limit has been known for a long time. Tell me
> something I don't know.
>
> But to think that X amount of memory increases speed is what I was
> addressing. Memory only allows you to run "more" things at the same
> time. Not run them faster.

But if you switch back and forth between applications a lot, like many
of us do, things will be much quicker if the applications are all loaded
into memory, because you don't have to wait for an application to load
from disk when you select it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Did you have Windows 7?
 

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>> I'll put in the "sheesh" for you. Only from Micro$oft. They call it
>>> physical memory, but it appears that, depending on how much money you
>>> give to M$, the OS will only use some limited amount of memory. So you
>>> can in truth install 4GB of memory, but if you get the cheapest OS from
>>> M$, it only looks at 2GB!
>>>
>>> So, to go back to the original post, I still don't see how getting too
>>> much memory could slow you down, but if your OS doesn't use that extra
>>> memory, it's a waste of money.
>>>
>> The 640Kb usage, and 2Gb limit has been known for a long time. Tell me
>> something I don't know.
>>
>> But to think that X amount of memory increases speed is what I was
>> addressing. Memory only allows you to run "more" things at the same
>> time. Not run them faster.
>
> But if you switch back and forth between applications a lot, like many
> of us do, things will be much quicker if the applications are all loaded
> into memory, because you don't have to wait for an application to load
> from disk when you select it.
>

I don't consider switching between apps "quicker" a major value.

I'd rather upgrade to a better PC/laptop.

Bob