Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 122
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigTreo
    So I will repeat. Truly new computer users need as much pre-installed software as possible. These are people that don't even know Internet Explorer let alone Opera or Firefox. If they were faced with a multiple choice menu they would just guess. To much of that experience can discourage a person from going any further. They would see it as just too confusing.
    I'd have no objection to this. During the install process you get a "express" and "custom" install. Express installs one app from each category as selected by the OEM vendor. Custom gives you the choice.

    Then, at any time, the user can go in and do custom, uninstalling the "express" apps and installing the alternates. I'd even be happy with Opera, MSIE, Mozilla and whatever all installed, if the user can then uninstall whatever he don't like.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigTreo
    Someone made an argument that one persons bloat is another persons functionality. I personally prefer as much functionality as possible. To me the solution is better hardware not less software. Since MS is not a hardware maker in general I hardly see where things like memory issues on the Treo 700 are there fault.
    But every piece of "functionality" you add introduces a system drain and a potential point if failure. Should we force peeps from pancake flat, no snow Florida to buy 4WD vehicles ? Why should they take the mpg hit if they never gonna use 4WD ? IF MSIE did not steal system resources even when it's not open, I wouldn't care but it does. If WMP did not steal system resources even when it's not open, I wouldn't care but it does.

    In a production environment, speed is worth purchasing. A 15% faster processor can take ya CPU cost from $300 to $1,000. 10% faster hard drives can take ya from $300 to $1000. These have a positive ROI cause labor offsets these costs. But as he guy paying for these workstations, I am kinda pi$$ed that I gotta lose up to 25% or my machine's performance (see table at link below) and my $2,000 "performance investment", because MS decides they need to "embed" programs within the OS that I am never going to use.

    http://www.litepc.com/perform.html
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    IF MSIE did not steal system resources even when it's not open, I wouldn't care but it does. If WMP did not steal system resources even when it's not open, I wouldn't care but it does.

    http://www.litepc.com/perform.html
    This is pure paranoia. How and when does this happen. Do you have proof. Dont you have a process viewer?

    Surur
  4. #64  
    When I look at pages like that one I am instantly reminded that I am not a real computer geek. It just doesn't have any real life meaning to me in my world of computers. I don't have the fastest PCs around but when I do a clean install of XP, my computers fly. I don't need them to be any more efficient. In fact the only time I start having trouble is when I let the wrong person surf the web. The next thing you know you are battling spyware hell.

    I definitely would agree if you said that PCs that come from HP and the like, come with to many of their "open at startup" system enhancement BS. When I buy a new laptop the first thing I do is format the hard drive and install a clean copy of XP. The apps provided by the hardware vendors can be uninstalled but you will never get the system to run the same as a clean install.

    I agree that the real issue is the ability to uninstall what you don't want. With a little digging and time all PC users will find the right apps to ADD to compliment their taste. The issue is with the apps that can't be unistalled.

    I would be much more interested in seeing the list of embedded apps that drain system resources. I just can't think of that many. When I say this I am talking about apps that come with the OS not the ones that come from hardware vendors.
  5. #65  
    Surur,

    Nope, don't want to go back to DOS, or Win 98...I want a REAL operating system on my PC. One written by folks that understand what happens to systems resources, when they code something. One where programmers don't preload DLLs to do Kanji (Japanese) when I'm an American that will never use those resources. Don't assume that a better OS means more RAM being consumed.

    It was a rant...glad you noticed, but at its kernel (pun intended), is the root cause here...young programmers that don't know the meaning of the word "moderation" when it comes to consuming systems resources.

    Regards,

    Big
  6. #66  
    Kupe,

    I helped "write" CompuServe, "back-in-the-day" (1985-1990), and, true, if you used the videotext version, you simply dialed, and VT-100 terminal emulated in. Then, those other tools came out, and eventually, CIS clients came (via CD), near the end of my term there. But nothing was "embedded" in DOS, or Win 3.1, etc...that procluded using that mechanism. I can use FireFox or Netscape, or any of the other web browsers (read: HTML client applications)...and I can use an FTP tool to do file transfers...I don't need to use IE...it is just a "convenient" free tool, from MS (beware MS bearing gifts...like alien abductions, check for anal probes afterwards).

    Regards,

    Big
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    This is pure paranoia. How and when does this happen. Do you have proof. Dont you have a process viewer?
    Didn't we do this already ? Process ID is ineffective when programmers are instructed to move the load from one process to the other. Netscape even tried to mimic the procedure by having part of itself load at boot with the "QuikLaunch" option. Lotus has "SuiteStart" to match MS's preloading for Office apps.

    It's quite simpe, to take a bunch of code for one process and bind it on to another.

    Let's say (picking numbers outta da sky).

    explore.exe - 3,500k
    iexplore.exe - 3,500k

    Now we "embed" most of iexplore into explore and we have:

    explore.exe - 6,250k
    iexplore.exe - 750k

    What does process ID data do for us ?

    The only way to measure the effect of what this does is to use a 3rd party tool like litepc offers. After rippping IE out, you can read the results in the table here:

    http://www.litepc.com/perform.html

    Adobe Pagemake time to complete drops from 147 to 118 .... a 24.6 performance penalty for having IR "embedded" in the OS. On your everyday home PC who cares...the impact is insignificant. On a photo editing or CAD machine where it can take 10+ minutes to perform an edit, big impact when you paying operators $40_+ / hr.
  8. #68  
    In fact you are quite mistaken. What has happened now is that if I want the features that are available due to a HTML renderer integration I would have to load the code twice under your scheme. You may ask why I want an HTML renderer in my file browser, but then you could ask the Gnome Nautilus file browser team the same question.

    Features may cost performance, but I dont see you complaining about the service which keeps an eye on your mounted drives and pop up a dialog offering to copy your pictures. I'm sure if you ripped that out you will gain 0.5% performance gain. Or how about the Netbios service, or the HTML rendered for help files? What about plug and play? It must be monitoring your hardware all the time. Much better if that was an optional component.

    Face it, unless you go to Linux and compile your own OS, you are not the one setting the priorities. MS has to serve the majority of the market, only want their computer to work out of the box, and for things to work easily and be integrated.

    Surur
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by big_daddy_mpd
    I helped "write" CompuServe, "back-in-the-day" (1985-1990), and, true, if you used the videotext version, you simply dialed, and VT-100 terminal emulated in. Then, those other tools came out, and eventually, CIS clients came (via CD), near the end of my term there. But nothing was "embedded" in DOS, or Win 3.1, etc...that procluded using that mechanism. I can use FireFox or Netscape, or any of the other web browsers (read: HTML client applications)...and I can use an FTP tool to do file transfers...I don't need to use IE...it is just a "convenient" free tool, from MS (beware MS bearing gifts...like alien abductions, check for anal probes afterwards).
    My hat's off to you Big Daddy - CServe in the 80s was the best.

    As for not needing to use IE, don't be so sure. Most people aren't aware that Internet Explorer and Windows File Explorer (explorer.exe and iexplore.exe) are essentially the same program with a different filename. You can prove it to yourself from a DOS prompt (Command Prompt) by typing explorer anyfile.text (assuming the .txt file is in the current directory) - it will pop up the text file in Internet Explorer. Hmmm...
  10.    #70  
    That's great stuff Kupe...

    On the other tangent, I LOVED Compuserve. That was all the rave, including having to remember your email name that consisted of a nice string of numbers. The thrill of 2400 to 9600 and then the ultra cool Zoom 14.4 kick-**** fax modems... to the Hayes 28.8 series... anyone remember that Hayes used to be the big name in modems? Heheh... wow have things changed...
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    In fact you are quite mistaken.
    Well I'm quite sure that I am not. I have "been there and done that" and the performance differences are measureable, noticeable and have a significant impact on our bottom line....well intot he thousands of dollars per year. Like the big fallacy of Win95 broadcast by MS to be faster, better blah blah blah than W4WGs. Go back and look at the December 1995 issue of PC magazine....this "roundup" issue included 65 W95 machines and 35 W4WGs machines. The authors went on and on about systems with this vid card havinga 2% advanatge and SCSI hard drives having a 5% advantage. Astoundingly one common difference was not mwntioned at all. The W95 machines were drastically slower than the W4WGs machines. In fact three manuafacturers submitted 2 identical machines, one with each OS. The 3 machines averaged 37% faster benchmarks than the W95 machine did. We duplicated the test in house on identical new state of the art $6k boxes.

    With Win95 loaded, best overall score was 45
    With W4WGs loaded, best overall score was 63

    We stayed with W4WGs for our immediate needs and held off buying hardware until SP3 was released for NT4...at that point our programs were stable on NT4 and scores went to 66.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    MS has to serve the majority of the market, only want their computer to work out of the box, and for things to work easily and be integrated.
    I disagree...the only thing MS intends to serve is its stockholders. Win98 with its embedded browser worked no better than Win95 or NT4 with it's removeable browser. We know from the LitePC site and the DOJ trial that MS lied about IE being unremoveable and Win98 w/ IE was as much as 25% slower than Win98 w/ IE removed.

    Are you saying that MS went thru all that extra effort to "embed" these programs into the OS for my benefit ? Would the user experience be any different if these items were miodualr ? How would the OOBE or long term satisfaction of the user be in any way detrimented if I could use a simple procedure to rip out MSIE, WMP or anything else I don't want ?

    Why provide the option to install or not install accessibility options for the handicapped ? I don't get that option when I design a building ? If accessibility options can be modular, why not IE, Outlook, MSIE ? There is no technical reason, the answer is purely "for finacial interests".
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigTreo
    When I buy a new laptop the first thing I do is format the hard drive and install a clean copy of XP.
    Assuming you get a copy of XP with the laptop. With most large vendors like Dell, HP, etc all you get is a "rescue CD". Another licensing bugaboo from our friends in Redmond who now say that if you have an OEM copy of XP, either preloaded rescue CD type or even the distributor pak, it is limited to the machine yu 1st install it on.
  13. #73  
    I still would like to see a list of these offending irremovable applications.

    Jack - Why not use Windows 2000. I believe it is a significantly stripped down version of XP. I thought it was intended for business use for that reason. I know that's what I do if I have a customer that has a slower PC. If speed is really what matters then Win2k is for you.
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigTreo
    I still would like to see a list of these offending irremovable applications.

    Jack - Why not use Windows 2000. I believe it is a significantly stripped down version of XP. I thought it was intended for business use for that reason. I know that's what I do if I have a customer that has a slower PC. If speed is really what matters then Win2k is for you.
    Windows 2000 is not a "lite" alternative to Windows XP. If it were than MS would have been continuing to provide XP Lite as a separate product line. No need to explain why.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigTreo
    I still would like to see a list of these offending irremovable applications.

    Jack - Why not use Windows 2000. I believe it is a significantly stripped down version of XP. I thought it was intended for business use for that reason. I know that's what I do if I have a customer that has a slower PC. If speed is really what matters then Win2k is for you.
    If you want a list of what can be removed, go to the LitePC site. MSIE is the biggest hog and has been well documented as causing up to 25% performance penalties.

    Win2k is not WinXP Lite. Corporate Amewrica didn't move to WinXP in a big way so MS started reporting Win2k sales as XP sales with a "downgrade to Win2k" to keep stockholders happy. If your logic holds tho, I should use DOS.

    Why not NT4 which I still use on CAD only boxes ? I want to be able to undock my alptop w/o shutting down, can't do that on NT4. Try getting support for NT4 and soon support for Win2k will be droopped. many program vendors no longer support even Win2k, especially game companies.

    If I want better mileage driving back and forth to work, that logic would have me walking or bicycling the 35 miles each way .
  16. #76  
    You guys are pretty funny. Win2k is a stripped down version of XP. XP was created by taking Win2k and adding consumer friendly "cool" features. I had a copy of XP way before itr was released to the masses. Way before drivers existed. Using Win2k drivers for over 90% of the apps out will work on XP. The same holds true the other way. You are right Jack. One day support will end for Win2k. Today isn't that day.

    Why make it seem like I said to use some ridiculously incomparable OS. Every semi computer geek (including you 2 gentleman knows that WinXP was a partial upgrade from Win2k). For many years large corporations would not switch to WinXP because of the proven stability of Win2k.

    Jack - are you telling me that the reason you don't want to use Win2k is because it's not compatible with your needs? I am havu=ing trouble getting simple answers for simple questions from you. At this point only have 2 questions for you. Any other comments are insignificant.

    1 - Can you list some of the apps that are resource killers that are built into XP and CAN'T be removed?

    2 - What is the reason you CAN'T use Win2k for you needs?

    Treoshmeo - Not asking you either of these questions. I appreciate your enthusiasm to help though.
  17.    #77  
    The point isn't about Jack. It's about what is

    1) Shipped to the majority of consumers
    2) Will be supported within the near future (Win 2k wont)
    3) the fact that WinXP has essential components embedded within the OS

    The fact that one genius can strip it down with an old OS which isn't the same although there is a better than usual driver compatibility is irrelevant.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigTreo
    You guys are pretty funny. Win2k is a stripped down version of XP.
    No. WinXP Home is WinXP "Lite". WinXP is to Win2k what Win98 was to Win95...the next version of the MS OS which has drivers and capabilities added to provide both necessary and useless as well as pain in the **** "features". AutoCAD 2006 is not a stripped down version of AutoCAD 2007, AutoCAD 2005 is not a stripped down version of AutoCAD 2006, AutoCAD 2004 is not a stripped down version of AutoCAD 2005. They are merely newer versions and each new version adds something or they'd have a hell of time getting anyone to pay those $595 upgrade prices.

    Want some differences between XP and 2k ? Try doing a system restore in Win2k. Try using msconfig in Win2k. It's not in Win2k tho you can steal it from an XP install and run it on Win2k. XP also has better wireless network support, and other features people may want / need. Many new hardware devices come ONLY with XP drivers....such as Logitech KB / Mouse sets. A Win2k box here had a KB failure and they sent us the new model as a warranty replacement....to bad it didn't work on Win2k. They don't manuafacture any BT KB's anymore for Win2k.

    The question at hand is "why must we experience performance penalties from MSIE (and other embedded apps) ?" and you are saying "if you want speed, go with Win2k " If I use Win2k, and accept the limitations (if any apply to me) that go with it, I am still burdened with the MSIE performance penalty. I still have my $2k investment in the hottest CPU and hard drives totally swallowed by MSIE's enbedment into the OS.

    Today isn't that day.
    They stopped supporting NT4 which, following your logic, must be a stripped down version of Win2k. The sunsetting of Win2k support by MS was scheduled for February 07....9 months from now....but with Vista being delayed will probably be extended.

    Jack - are you telling me that the reason you don't want to use Win2k is because it's not compatible with your needs?
    Er....I am using Win2k. I don't use WinXP in my offcie cause it provides no advantage to me (I do not need any of its extra features) and programs run faster on Win2k. A good summary of why I use Win2k is here:

    http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-1035-1041511-2.html

    But you are totally missing the point. MSIE is also bundled in Win2k so why are we talking about XP versus Win2k ? Is there a version of Win2k I don't know about w/o the 25% performance penalty from MSIE ? MSIE is still sucking resources out of WinXP, Win2k, Win98, WinME even when they are not loaded. The only way for me to avoid MSIE is to use NT4, which we still do on our main production box, but again support for NT4 ended over a year ago....NT4 has no USB, no hot docking, etc but it sure does fly.

    OTOH, let's move out into the "real world". In addition to MS, there I think you would agree that many many vendors selling windows programs....many of them, especially gaming companies, do NOT support their games on anything but the latest OS. In the last 15 months, I have upgraded my 3 kids machines to WinXP cause they received games or programs (flight simulators - my son is in training for pilot's license) that are not supported on any MS OS other than XP.

    1 - Can you list some of the apps that are resource killers that are built into XP and CAN'T be removed?
    How many times do you want me to do that ? It's in at least 3 or 4 of the preceding posts. Let's make it simple....and talk about just ONE app that has up to a 25% impact on performance as is indicated in the table shown on the link above.

    Microsoft Internet Explorer slows down Adobe Photoshop by 25%. Not running MSIE just having it on the box. When the PCLite folks ripped MSIE out of Win98, they were able to show 25% increases in speed with Adobe software. Does the average Home PC user get affected by this...probbaly not. Does the production office where you employee costs for photo editing and CAD technicians can reach $150 an hour get impacted.....yeah, big time.

    Follow this link and get a bit of history:

    http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=3297

    2 - What is the reason you CAN'T use Win2k for you needs?
    Again, I am using it....my sons can no longer do so as too many of the things they own (both hardware and software) are not supported on Win2k.
  19. #79  
    Well well well... if it isn't my bud Treoshmeo. Hey Jack, I am still looking for answers to my two very simple questions.

    As to you Mr. Shmeo. My point is that it IS about Jack and not about what's shipped to a majority of consumers. See you and Jack are very impressive when it comes to computer knowledge. I would assume that at work and probably in your private life as well you probably are around people with impressive computer minds also. So there is the problem. When you think of the majority of consumers you think of people like you. The truth is that the majority of consumers would have no idea what you are talking about nor would they care. Even if they did understand they would fall into a category of people who are unaffected by all of this. I am in front of a computer for a large portion of a regular day but this issue of embedded apps never affects me. As I stated before my limited computer knowledge makes me Zeus of computers in my world. You would probably picture a world of the dumb and poor and although some of those people may exist in my world they are not the majority. I am talking about people that work in offices in front of computers all day and only know how to use office apps and that's it. I am talikng about Loan Officers that make $200,000 per year plus and still are afraid to do anything further than email and Calyx Point (and they are not very good with email).

    You see Microsoft has been successful because they target the majority of computer users not the techno elite. You may say that they bully and use collusion but that goes to prove my point. They know that to rule the computer world the way it currently is, you don't need the best application you simply need the most prevalent application. The large majority of computer users today are sheep. They use office because they are supposed to. They don't know of an alternative.

    Take a look at the Treo 700w Love it or hate it poll. It appears that despite all of it's flaws a whopping majority still chose love it.

    Now I ask you Mr. Shmeo. If you were the head of Microsoft and your goal was to make the most money possible. Would you target the 76% majority or the 24% minority. Now before you get to carried away and want to give a witty and noble nod for the minority you must keep in mind that the minority I speak of is the hardest to capture. You see, this minority has no loyalty. They are well aware of ALL of their options and will bounce to who ever has the latest and greatest concept.

    So there you have it Mr. Shmeo. My question for you. Would you target the majority or the minority?

    My point, BTW, is simply that Jack is in the minority of computer users. He is affected by the pull on system resources created by this issue. A solution doesn't exist because MS has chosen to target it's majority to make the most money with the least effort and expense. So this leaves Jack to find answers on his own. I simply threw out one possible answer (Win2k) of course there are others.

    Wow that was a long one. I need to do a loan. Anyone want to refi? Okay I'm just kidding.

    Edit: Well Jack I see your answers now. I think we are seeing a little more on the same line now. I would agree that Win2k isn't an ideal solution but it is what it is. It's tough to be mad at MS for targeting the masses though. They probably should offer a stripped down version of WinXp. Especially for production environments like the one you speak of. Is it possible that when PCLite stripped out IE they also stripped other system hogs? Anyway there are stripped down versions of XP out there to be had.
    Last edited by BigTreo; 05/05/2006 at 11:19 AM.
  20.    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigTreo
    You see Microsoft has been successful because they target the majority of computer users not the techno elite. You may say that they bully and use collusion but that goes to prove my point. They know that to rule the computer world the way it currently is, you don't need the best application you simply need the most prevalent application. The large majority of computer users today are sheep. They use office because they are supposed to. They don't know of an alternative.

    Take a look at the Treo 700w Love it or hate it poll. It appears that despite all of it's flaws a whopping majority still chose love it.
    It seems you haven't learned a thing. There are a lot of great books and movies that will easier explain the points made to you.

    You keep on reiterating the same diatribe that Microsoft and other conglomerates/giants are responding to consumer demand. You miss the point that these companies are SO large and powerful that they alone can define what the consumer is and shall become. You're just not seeing this -- you only see the effect but not the cause and what has occurred over the past 10-15 years for things to be this way. If you think Microsoft is successful because they built great products targeted to the techophobics, then you are really lost and should do a lot more reading. Like many people seem to only remember historically that which occurred in the very recent past.

    So just how great are mobile technologies here compared to Japan and elsewhere? They suck. In many cases such is the same with consumer electronics. You think it's because US citizens are just too dumb to figure out the basics? No, it's because of an ability to sell the same products as many times as possible to the same consumers with incremental upgrades.

    Putting your faith in the "Treo 700w love it or hate it poll" on this forum to indicate anything of value is absurd, no offense.
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions