«

In his posting of Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Clemens Gleich writes
>
>> Is there any benefit in upgrading from XP Pro64 o Windows 7 64 please?
>
>The user interface is a big step forward, if you are a power user and
>do a lot via keyboard. I just love it.

Thanks Clemens

This computer is only used for Photoshop hence the 16G of ram which has
12G allocated to a ram disk which has been a great success. I really do
not attach any importance to nice user friendly interfaces etc, just as
long as it runs reliably and I can get the drivers I need then I'm a
happy chap.

my use of key strokes is confined to Photoshop so it looks as if 7 would
not be a useful move for me.<G>

Cheers

Richard

snip
--

1)
You have a good chance to get the money or W7 pro 1 to 1
if you sell xp x64 at ebay.

that must not last forever.

2)
W7 makes u read as much documents as linux did, if u install this.

jk

In his posting of Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Juergen Kluth writes
>1)
>You have a good chance to get the money or W7 pro 1 to 1
>if you sell xp x64 at ebay.

Thanks Juergen but I don't get it<G>

Cheers

Richard
>
>that must not last forever.
>
>2)
>W7 makes u read as much documents as linux did, if u install this.
>
>jk
>

--
Richard Kenward

In his posting of Thu, 24 Dec 2009, David Kerber writes
>In article <81de062b-e5ac-4767-81ae-4ccddbdc3747
>@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, says...
>>
>> On Dec 20, 4:46*pm, Richard <rich...@spamfree.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Ah that makes me feel better<G>
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I *do* think they get a little bit better each time. Networking is
>> better,
>
>In what way? I haven't noticed any difference; they're both extremely
>easy to set up networking.

David

The comment you are commenting on was not mine<G> Networking has not
been an issue for me with either NT, 2000 or XP. My issue at the moment
is with regard to getting the B. SATA dries to be recognised after the
removal of two out of the four! System is fine on the SCSI drives but
plug in the SATA drives and it will not boot and will not see the SATA
drives.. Plus those same drives into another system and no
problem....they are seen and I can pull the images off and move them
over the network to my main system. Perhaps I may be able to find the
solution over the holiday break.

Cheers

Richard
--

"Richard" <> wrote in message
news:...

>
> I was happy with NT4....never had any real problems, but when 2000 came
> along I really had no wish to move to XP when that arrived and only did do
> for the 64bit support when eventually that was offered.
>
> I hope 7 is well and truly sorted by the time drivers are no longer in XP
> Pro 64 for any vital new hardware such as printers!

I'd say Win 7 already is "sorted". It's not perfect but then nothing is, but
I'd say its the best Windows so far. And I'm primarily a mac owner these
days, so I'm hardly blinded by the Microsoft marketing machine when I say
that.

One advantage - I'd say that Win 7 x64 can be on a main desktop machine
without any reservations, which you probably couldn't say about XP x64. The
only issue is if you have any very old 16-bit software. But if you have 2
computers in the room with one dedicated to one job you may find that a
waste of resources if you can reduce that to just one computer doing
everything.

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message
news: t...
> In article <D02F5449-B58E-44DF-BEFB->,
> says...
>>
>> "Richard" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>
>> >
>> > I was happy with NT4....never had any real problems, but when 2000 came
>> > along I really had no wish to move to XP when that arrived and only did
>> > do
>> > for the 64bit support when eventually that was offered.
>> >
>> > I hope 7 is well and truly sorted by the time drivers are no longer in
>> > XP
>> > Pro 64 for any vital new hardware such as printers!
>>
>> I'd say Win 7 already is "sorted". It's not perfect but then nothing is,
>> but
>> I'd say its the best Windows so far. And I'm primarily a mac owner these
>> days, so I'm hardly blinded by the Microsoft marketing machine when I say
>> that.
>
> If you haven't used the older windows versions much, you may not realize
> how much useful functionality is missing from Win7, which was replaced
> by eye candy. Overall it's good and I'm going to stick with, but there
> is some significant functionality missing, which was in everything from
> NT on, that I had to replace with 3rd party software.

Can you specify what functionalities are missing from 7 that were in older
versions?

>
>
>>
>> One advantage - I'd say that Win 7 x64 can be on a main desktop machine
>> without any reservations, which you probably couldn't say about XP x64.
>> The
>> only issue is if you have any very old 16-bit software.
>
> And XP mode can take care of that for you.
>
>
>> But if you have 2
>> computers in the room with one dedicated to one job you may find that a
>> waste of resources if you can reduce that to just one computer doing
>> everything.
>
>

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message
news: t...
> In article <OtW8#>,
> says...
>>
>> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in
>> message
>
> ...
>
>> >> I'd say Win 7 already is "sorted". It's not perfect but then
> nothing is,
>> >> but
>> >> I'd say its the best Windows so far. And I'm primarily a mac owner
>> >> these
>> >> days, so I'm hardly blinded by the Microsoft marketing machine when I
>> >> say
>> >> that.
>> >
>> > If you haven't used the older windows versions much, you may not
>> > realize
>> > how much useful functionality is missing from Win7, which was replaced
>> > by eye candy. Overall it's good and I'm going to stick with, but there
>> > is some significant functionality missing, which was in everything from
>> > NT on, that I had to replace with 3rd party software.
>>
>> Can you specify what functionalities are missing from 7 that were in
>> older
>> versions?
>
> The specific ones I've run into are all in explorer, and they hurt my
> productivity by making it take more mouse movement and more clicks to
> get my work done:
>
> 1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop
> itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I
> position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember
> either their position or their size after logging off and back on and
> reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this
> correctly.

And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little customization,
even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set your desktop the
way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to the positions you
want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make them sanp into place
for neatness.

>
> 2) The desktop folders don't remember their layouts either: it opens
> every window in the layout the last explorer window closed used. For
> example, the explorer window I'm using to navigate my HD normally has
> the navigation pane, but not the details pane (I've never seen the point
> of the details pane; to me it contains no useful information). If that
> window is the last one I close when logging off or rebooting, my desktop
> folders then reopen with the navigation pane. Every version back to
> windows NT also remembered this.

This hasn't changed one iota going back to NT or Win 98 as there was a
default setting on any windows install with those versions as well, the
directions to do so changed slightly, but is more efficient. I assume maybe
it was set-up for your liking in previous version or that you haven't found
the path to make this stick yet. Go to Control Panel/Folder Options/View
Tab and uncheck box in window "Restore previous folder windows at logon", if
that is checked. Then open a folder, then on the right (with mouse hover)
select "more options" and slide the bar to what view you prefer. Then click
on the "Organize" button on the left side and select "Folder and search
options", then "View" tab and click the button (it will be ready when you
make changes) "Apply to Folders", and you should be good to go.

I can say that I have not had the problem you mention, as I arrange
different folders for my liking once I open that particular folder and with
them not sticking to that setting..

>
> 3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking
> on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition
> itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the
> bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up
> depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by
> clicking on the "+" works as expected.

That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the
directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double
click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and
expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of
the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less steps
to take.

>
> 4) The taskbar doesn't display my open windows in the order they were
> opened; it always groups similar types together. I understand that some
> people like this, but I wish I could turn it off and have it work the
> way NT, 2k and XP did in that respect.

It certainly does organize them in the order they were opened. If you have
different windows opened or numerous sessions of IE opened (for example),
when you hover over them on the taskbar, the items listed top to bottom are
what were opened first to last. If they are windows folders, they will also
show their paths.

>
> 5) There is no way of getting the navigation pane to show the lines
> connecting folders, like I got in XP when I turned off "Display simple
> folder view".

Why is this necessary? The navigation pane already has the folder trees,
otherwise having the lines as well, would be redundant. Having Windows
Explorer in the pane is the better function and WE is a better navigating
tool for browsing folders. I honestly don't remember there ever being line
in previous version, or I just didn't pay attention.

>
> 6) I can't search *inside* files unless the file extension is
> registered with the search engine. In fact it's a pain to search inside
> files at all, the way the desktop search interface is configured.
> Again, I much preferred the clarity of the older version's "advanced"
> settings.

Works a treat, and even better. With or without extensions, it shows any
name I type in and it places them in alphabetical order as well. if you
care, I can make a video or image of this working. Have you tried making
changes in Folder Options/ Search tab?

>
> 7) I don't like the way the "+" signs next to folders in the navigation
> pane appear and disappear when you move your mouse over that pane and
> back away from it. That makes it so that I can't tell if a folder has
> sub-folders without moving my mouse over to that pane, causing wasted
> time. This only occurs if the something other than the navigation pane
> has the focus.

But, it gets your attention that there are subfolders, no? Should this not
actually make it easier to tell that there are subfolders? I suspect this is
a means for helping performance of the PC, but I may be wrong.

>
>
>
> There may have been a couple of others, but these are the main
> irritants.
>
> All the above notwithstanding, I basically like Win7 and will stick with
> it, but I don't like the way they crippled windows explorer, and
> apparently changed some things just for the sake of change rather than
> to actually improve it. I have had no trouble with hardware drivers,
> since I bought the machine with Win7 installed.
>
> Windows 2000 was still my favorite version of windows, though, because
> of its execution speed and clean UI.

I really like it so far, especially when compared to Vista. It's very
informational with this rig I built and the errors I've gotten. I have been
able to make quick remedy with this feature. Win2000 was a very solid OS,
but times change and so does technology and it had to move on. Win2000
couldn't handle today's hardware and since MS is in the money-making
business, it wouldn't make sense to just keep building on the same OS,
though the file system (NTFS) is the same.

On 07/01/2010 in message <Ok4t5R#> Tom wrote:

>>1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop
>>itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I
>>position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember
>>either their position or their size after logging off and back on and
>>reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this
>>correctly.
>
>And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little
>customization, even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set
>your desktop the way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to
>the positions you want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make
>them sanp into place for neatness.

I think the point the OP made was that the folders themselves don't
remember their settings. In previous version of Windows the last 400
folders opened remembered their settings. In Win7 settings are remembered
only for the last folder closed.

>>3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking
>>on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition
>>itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the
>>bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up
>>depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by
>>clicking on the "+" works as expected.
>
>That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the
>directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double
>click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and
>expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of
>the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less
>steps to take.

I think the point the OP was making is that either double clicking a
folder or clicking on the expand arrow expands the folder then relocates
it at the bottom of the Tree View which is a total pain.

I'll add a couple of annoyances:

CD/DVD trays opening if you accidentally click on an empty drive in
Explorer. It seems that no MSFT programmer has ever used a PC with a door
on it.

The very light high-light colour when you are not focussed on the Tee
View, makes it very difficult to see where you are.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
(Ken Olson, president Digital Equipment, 1977)

"Jeff Gaines" <> wrote in message
news...
> On 07/01/2010 in message <Ok4t5R#> Tom
> wrote:
>
>>>1) I use desktop folders to organize shortcuts and to keep my desktop
>>>itself from being so cluttered. The most irritating one is that when I
>>>position and size desktop folders the way I like, they don't remember
>>>either their position or their size after logging off and back on and
>>>reopening them. Every version back to Windows NT remembered this
>>>correctly.
>>
>>And this still hasn't change, except Win7 allows for a little
>>customization, even with the sizes of the desktop/taskbars icons. To set
>>your desktop the way you like, use "autoarrange" then move the icons to
>>the positions you want. I also use "Align Icons to Gris" as well to make
>>them sanp into place for neatness.
>
> I think the point the OP made was that the folders themselves don't
> remember their settings. In previous version of Windows the last 400
> folders opened remembered their settings. In Win7 settings are remembered
> only for the last folder closed.

But they do remember the settings if you set the folder the way one wants it
to appear and then apply it as I described below. It was the same way with
previous versions of Windows, one had to set the options to make them appear
as one desires, or each folder would not appear the same when opened..

>
>>>3) Expanding the folder tree in the navigation pane by double-clicking
>>>on the folder name or icon causes the navigation pane to reposition
>>>itself awkwardly: the folder I just double-clicked on moves to the
>>>bottom of the pane rather than either staying in place, or moving up
>>>depending on how many subfolders are contained in it. Expanding by
>>>clicking on the "+" works as expected.
>>
>>That's because you are double clicking, if you're double clicking on the
>>directory path,you're getting the result you don't desire. Do not double
>>click on them, they already show in the main window when clicked once and
>>expands enough to show the directory in that folder within the the view of
>>the pane. Double clicking is simply not needed anymore, therefore less
>>steps to take.
>
> I think the point the OP was making is that either double clicking a
> folder or clicking on the expand arrow expands the folder then relocates
> it at the bottom of the Tree View which is a total pain.
>
> I'll add a couple of annoyances:
>
> CD/DVD trays opening if you accidentally click on an empty drive in
> Explorer. It seems that no MSFT programmer has ever used a PC with a door
> on it.
>
> The very light high-light colour when you are not focussed on the Tee
> View, makes it very difficult to see where you are.

As I noted, one doesn't have to double click a folder to get the desired
result, it is simply redundant with the new navigation pane set-up. I would
think that would be easier and faster. One also has to double-click on the
DVD/CD drives to make them open.

On 07/01/2010 in message <OyFNbP$> Tom wrote:

>As I noted, one doesn't have to double click a folder to get the desired
>result, it is simply redundant with the new navigation pane set-up. I
>would think that would be easier and faster. One also has to double-click
>on the DVD/CD drives to make them open.

I can't see any difference in the way Explorer is laid out from previous
versions except we now have arrow heads instead of plus signs, and the
connecting lines have been removed. To expand a folder in the Tree View
you either double click it or click on the plus/arrow head. When I do that
the Tree View scrolls to place the selected folder near the bottom of the
Tree View pane.
I don't have to double click an empty CD/DVD to make the drawer open,
single click is enough followed by the crunch as it hits the PC door.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If it's not broken, mess around with it until it is