S
Stan Brown
If I'm not mistaken, the Win 7 installer disk gives you the option of
reformatting the hard drive before the install.
reformatting the hard drive before the install.
C
Char Jackson
Just for clarity's sake, please use the standard convention of lowerI doubt it.
I think what happened was that 250 Mb RAM was adequate when I bought it, but
each Windows and program upgrade was more bloated than the last, and in the
end it was spending most of its time swapping to disk.
case b for bits and upper case B for Bytes. In addition, there's no
such thing as 250, so you obviously meant to say 256 MB rather than
250 Mb (256 Megabytes versus 250 Megabits).
Regarding the startup and shutdown times you provided, I agree with
what Ken said above. Disk swapping will seriously slow things down,
but slowness to that degree implies that something was seriously
wrong.
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, I think you're probably right. XP might have been able to run OK inChar Jackson said:On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:34:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
256M (I never played much when XP originally came out), but by the time
of SP2 and SP3, I suspect 512M was minimal, and 1G what was really
required.
If we're going to be pedantic, don't put a capital M on it when youJust for clarity's sake, please use the standard convention of lower
case b for bits and upper case B for Bytes. In addition, there's no
such thing as 250, so you obviously meant to say 256 MB rather than
250 Mb (256 Megabytes versus 250 Megabits).
write it out: mega-, not Mega-. (-: [Also, it _can_ be other than a
multiple of a power of 2, if it uses shared graphics RAM - the amount
available to the OS is then the RAM minus the graphics amount; however,
6M is an unlikely size for that.] I also think there is unlikely to be
confusion over what is _meant_ here even if someone does use the wrong
b. (Finally, of course, it arguably isn't mega- - that's a million; I
forget what the suggested prefix for 2^20 is, like "kibi" rather than
"kilo" for 1024 rather than 1000!)
Agreed. Not necessarily malware, but certainly some error inRegarding the startup and shutdown times you provided, I agree with
what Ken said above. Disk swapping will seriously slow things down,
but slowness to that degree implies that something was seriously
wrong.
settings/configuration. (Or just conceivably a failing hard disc: modern
ones have error-correction circuitry that can conceal problems for a
very long time, but make the disc [seem to] run exceedingly slowly.
Rare, but I've seen it at least once: hardly ever showed a single error,
but the machine was taking a quarter of an hour to boot, and also slowed
to a crawl whenever it accessed the disc, though was fast enough when it
wasn't doing so.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010
D
Dominique
I didn't need help at that level as I don't use 3.x anymore but I wasYou're welcome. Glad to help.
under the impression that all hardware access went through DOS drivers
using CONFIG.SYS but I remember now that I had a "high end" soundcard
(for that period) that would work under Win3.1 but not under DOS so its
drivers were really for Windows not for DOS so that comfirm your point.
W
Wolf K
Bios dates i 2006, I built the machine in 2007. that's "ancient" theseA dual-core with 4G is hardly "ancient".
days. ;-0
[snip]
Bran fart. I meant 3-4GB. The program is a simple viewer that can doDo you mean something like disc images? If you mean pictures, I'd say
that's quite an unusual use of computing!
basic image tweaking such as gamma, contrast, etc.
[...]
I think your guess is better than mine: 64-bit emulation is in theIf that's the case, it suggests to me that compatibility mode hasn't
been well designed. (Might be the processor rather than the OS at fault
there though - depends where the emulation takes place.)
processor, so presumably you have processor emulating 64 bit and an OS
emulating 32 bit. Come to think of it, on my wife's laptop, with true
64-bit CPU, these programs start almost instantly.
Just returned from our church's tea and bazaar. Excellent desserts. ;-)Indeed. And depressing (to an engineer, anyway) when you see the piles
of once-good machines (I have such a pile!) fit for nothing but scrap
these days.
Have a good day,
Wolf K.
C
Char Jackson
Modern drives use DMA (direct memory access) until a certain number ofAgreed. Not necessarily malware, but certainly some error inChar Jackson said:Regarding the startup and shutdown times you provided, I agree with
what Ken said above. Disk swapping will seriously slow things down,
but slowness to that degree implies that something was seriously
wrong.
settings/configuration. (Or just conceivably a failing hard disc: modern
ones have error-correction circuitry that can conceal problems for a
very long time, but make the disc [seem to] run exceedingly slowly.
Rare, but I've seen it at least once: hardly ever showed a single error,
but the machine was taking a quarter of an hour to boot, and also slowed
to a crawl whenever it accessed the disc, though was fast enough when it
wasn't doing so.)
read or write failures. At that point they fall back to PIO
(programmed input/output), which is extremely slow in comparison. I
just dealt with that situation a few days ago. Fortunately for the
customer, it was just a loose SATA connector in that case.
W
Wolf K
The old laptop had 1GB to start, did an inordinate amount of swappingYes, I think you're probably right. XP might have been able to run OK in
256M (I never played much when XP originally came out), but by the time
of SP2 and SP3, I suspect 512M was minimal, and 1G what was really
required.
when switching programs, and ran much better when I maxed it to 2GB. XP
Home on 1.66 MHz dual-core Centrino. It is now happily running
LinuxMint. Resides in the living room for quick googles, and travels
with us (Linux is safer on public wi-fi or hotel networks, IMO).
HTH
Wolf K.
W
Wolf K
I beg to differ: Win 3.x was a semi-graphical command shell for DOS. AWindows 3.x was certainly an operating system. An operating system is
the software that handles I/O, manages the hardware, and runs the
applications (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system,
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/operating_system.html,
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/operating-system,
and lots of other definitions on the web).
Yes, Windows 3.x ran under DOS, but that's an example of one operating
system running under another operating system. Here's another example:
on mainframes, an operating system like IBM's MVS could run either
alone or under the operating system VM/370; that does *not* mean that
MVS wasn't an operating system when it was doing that.
fancy menu system. You could start any program directly from the CLI if
you wanted. You set it up so that the Windows shell didn't come up on
boot, only when invoked from the CLI. To put it another way: the only
sense in which W3.x was an OS was as an extended DOS.
IMO, Windows didn't become an operating system until -95 and later. But
since it was still DOS at the core, W9.x had serious weaknesses
multitasking, etc.
HTH
Wolf K.
K
Ken Blake
Just for clarity's sake, please use the standard convention of lower
case b for bits and upper case B for Bytes. In addition, there's no
such thing as 250, so you obviously meant to say 256 MB rather than
250 Mb (256 Megabytes versus 250 Megabits).
Regarding the startup and shutdown times you provided, I agree with
what Ken said above. Disk swapping will seriously slow things down,
but slowness to that degree implies that something was seriously
wrong.
Yes, especially since the slowdown he was talking about was with
regard to startup and shutdown, not running between them, when paging
would possibly be significant.
K
Ken Blake
In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson
Agreed. Not necessarily malware, but certainly some error inRegarding the startup and shutdown times you provided, I agree with
what Ken said above. Disk swapping will seriously slow things down,
but slowness to that degree implies that something was seriously
wrong.
settings/configuration. (Or just conceivably a failing hard disc: modern
ones have error-correction circuitry that can conceal problems for a
very long time, but make the disc [seem to] run exceedingly slowly.
Yes, I didn't mean it had to be malware. Rather, I said "very
*possibly* [emphasis added] a malware infection."
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
I think your "bran" farted again (-:. 3-4 M maybe? (IrfanView is it?)Wolf K said:Bran fart. I meant 3-4GB. The program is a simple viewer that can do
basic image tweaking such as gamma, contrast, etc.
So you've got a CPU pretending to be a 64-bit one when it's presumably a[...]I think your guess is better than mine: 64-bit emulation is in theIf that's the case, it suggests to me that compatibility mode hasn't
been well designed. (Might be the processor rather than the OS at fault
there though - depends where the emulation takes place.)
processor, so presumably you have processor emulating 64 bit and an OS
emulating 32 bit. Come to think of it, on my wife's laptop, with true
64-bit CPU, these programs start almost instantly.
32-bit one, and you're running a 64-bit version of an OS on it (that's
also available in a 32-bit version), and running that OS in 32-bit mode
to run the older software ... I'm not surprised it gets confused and has
to stop for tea!
Did you have the option of putting 32-bit W7 on this system? I can't
help thinking a (really) 32-bit processor would be "happier" with that,
but I could be wrong.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010
B
Bramblestick
I beg to differ: Win 3.x was a semi-graphical command shell for DOS. A
fancy menu system. You could start any program directly from the CLI if
you wanted. You set it up so that the Windows shell didn't come up on
boot, only when invoked from the CLI. To put it another way: the only
sense in which W3.x was an OS was as an extended DOS.
IMO, Windows didn't become an operating system until -95 and later. But
since it was still DOS at the core, W9.x had serious weaknesses
multitasking, etc.
HTH
Wolf K.
(OP) Thanks to all for your contributions - I'll go for the simple
repartition on reboot. I'm grateful for the various advice (including
the Microsoft help - not had good experience in the past, but I'll try
again if necessary..) & entertained by all the fall-through! Usenet news
lives! FWIW my first OS was George 3
I'll of course be back If I have problems.
Regards,
Bramblestick
B
Bramblestick
Since it's a laptop and if the BF hasn't wiped everything, there should be
an hidden partition to restore the original OS, the manual should explain
how to proceed.
What is the brand and model of that laptop?
The original OS was Vista (shudder) Which is why (I think) BF installed
Win7. Yeah. I could get an OEM, or upgrade, or other workaround, but
didn't think that it was worth the hassle. I'd prefer to just start again.
Bramblestick
W
Wolf K
I better quit for the day.I think your "bran" farted again (-:. 3-4 M maybe? (IrfanView is it?)
;-)
Wolf K.
W
Wolf K
It's an OEM 64-bit version. No 32-bit. At the time I was contemplating aSo you've got a CPU pretending to be a 64-bit one when it's presumably a
32-bit one, and you're running a 64-bit version of an OS on it (that's
also available in a 32-bit version), and running that OS in 32-bit mode
to run the older software ... I'm not surprised it gets confused and has
to stop for tea!
Did you have the option of putting 32-bit W7 on this system? I can't
help thinking a (really) 32-bit processor would be "happier" with that,
but I could be wrong.
[]
--
new desktop, with Terminator specs. But I've changed my mind. ;-0
Wolf K.
D
Dominique
You're probably right but if the hidden partition still exists, I wouldThe original OS was Vista (shudder) Which is why (I think) BF installed
Win7. Yeah. I could get an OEM, or upgrade, or other workaround, but
didn't think that it was worth the hassle. I'd prefer to just start again.
Bramblestick
make at least a backup of it in case She gives away the computer, she
could keep the Seven installation licence on a newer machine and gives
away the computer with its original OS; is there a COA sticker on the
bottom?
I've never used Vista but I would suggest that it's not that bad if it's
fully updated with adequate hardware depending what you do with the
computer.
S
Stan Brown
Have you been eating Colon Blow cereal again?Bran fart.
S
Steve Hayes
Just for clarity's sake, please use the standard convention of lower
case b for bits and upper case B for Bytes. In addition, there's no
such thing as 250, so you obviously meant to say 256 MB rather than
250 Mb (256 Megabytes versus 250 Megabits).
I'd better write it out and stick i9t to my monitor then, because I can never
remember which is which.
Well, I'll never know because it was nicked just when I was hunting for anRegarding the startup and shutdown times you provided, I agree with
what Ken said above. Disk swapping will seriously slow things down,
but slowness to that degree implies that something was seriously
wrong.
extra memory card to see if that would help.
S
Steve Hayes
The machine in question came with SP2, and decided to upgrade to SP3 when IYes, I think you're probably right. XP might have been able to run OK in
256M (I never played much when XP originally came out), but by the time
of SP2 and SP3, I suspect 512M was minimal, and 1G what was really
required.
was staying at a B&B in a strange town, and I wanted to read my e-mail quickly
using their WiFi before we packed up and left. So our five minute departure
time stretched to four hours while we waited forr it to finsih downloading and
installing it. We were lucky they didn't charge us for another day's stay.
That slowed the machine considerably, but so did the new versions of other
programs.
Changing the display to use fewer fancy graphic gizmos helped a little, butAgreed. Not necessarily malware, but certainly some error inRegarding the startup and shutdown times you provided, I agree with
what Ken said above. Disk swapping will seriously slow things down,
but slowness to that degree implies that something was seriously
wrong.
settings/configuration. (Or just conceivably a failing hard disc: modern
ones have error-correction circuitry that can conceal problems for a
very long time, but make the disc [seem to] run exceedingly slowly.
Rare, but I've seen it at least once: hardly ever showed a single error,
but the machine was taking a quarter of an hour to boot, and also slowed
to a crawl whenever it accessed the disc, though was fast enough when it
wasn't doing so.)
not much.
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]Steve Hayes said:I'd better write it out and stick i9t to my monitor then, because I can never
remember which is which.
Just remember - bigger b for the bigger thing.
Though I don't know that the convention was ever that widely taken up;
most times where either is used, all participants know what is meant.
The one place where confusion does seem to predominate - and, be
perpetuated by those with some advantage to be gained - is data
communication rates, which the industry still seems to prefer to use
bits in, presumably because it makes the numbers sound bigger. When
talking about RAM or disc sizes, I don't think it is often misunderstood
what is meant.
(It has for some time struck me as odd anyway that we continue to use
the - 8 bit - byte anyway, for RAM at least: RAM modules are many bytes
wide. And I'm not sure that, say, a 64 bit processor with 8 gigabytes is
any happier than a 32 bit one with 8 gigabytes: the 64 bit processor has
1G of memory locations, the 32 bit one has 2. Depends very much on what
it's actually doing, and if the task does involve only 8 or 16 bit data,
how well the processor - and the software - handles parallelism.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.