Why upgrade from XP Pro 64 to Win 7 64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Richard, Dec 19, 2009.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Is there any benefit in upgrading from XP Pro64 o Windows 7 64 please?
    Does it run significantly faster for example.

    Cheers

    Richard
    --
     
    Richard, Dec 19, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    mikeyhsd Guest

    as with all upgrades your mileage may vary.

    it has the ability to be slightly faster.
    depends on your configuration.
    it is more secure for sure.
    and is on the list of OS to be supported for years compared to xp which is on the grave list.





    "Richard" <> wrote in message news:...
    Is there any benefit in upgrading from XP Pro64 o Windows 7 64 please?
    Does it run significantly faster for example.

    Cheers

    Richard
    --
     
    mikeyhsd, Dec 19, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Well, there's a lot more functionality in Win7. It's certainly more secure.
    And it is far better supported for drivers and software. Is it faster?
    Probably not, though if you have enough hardware to run 64-bit at all, it
    probably isn't any different in speed. Faster for some things, I suspect,
    though I honestly haven't done any direct tests. The real point is that
    Windows 7 is the future, and Windows XP x64 Edition is a dead-end.

    BTW, there is no direct upgrade available. You'll need to do a clean install
    when you move to Windows 7 64-bit. (You can use an Upgrade version, but it
    still requires a clean install.)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel




    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is there any benefit in upgrading from XP Pro64 o Windows 7 64 please?
    > Does it run significantly faster for example.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Richard
    > --
    >
    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 19, 2009
    #3
  4. Richard

    Richard Guest

    In his posting of Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Charlie Russel - MVP writes
    >Well, there's a lot more functionality in Win7. It's certainly more
    >secure. And it is far better supported for drivers and software. Is it
    >faster? Probably not, though if you have enough hardware to run 64-bit
    >at all, it probably isn't any different in speed. Faster for some
    >things, I suspect, though I honestly haven't done any direct tests. The
    >real point is that Windows 7 is the future, and Windows XP x64 Edition
    >is a dead-end.


    Thanks for that. Not sure that this is a problem for some time as
    basically this machine is for just running Photoshop very fast when
    working with files that start at nearly 2G and can end up being 5G.
    Still got Win 2000 installed on the office/Internet computer and it is
    fine.

    >
    >BTW, there is no direct upgrade available. You'll need to do a clean
    >install when you move to Windows 7 64-bit. (You can use an Upgrade
    >version, but it still requires a clean install.)
    >

    Thanks, I will try to remember this for when the time comes<G>

    Cheers

    Richard
    --
     
    Richard, Dec 19, 2009
    #4
  5. Richard

    Jim Guest

    On Dec 19, 11:39 am, Richard <> wrote:
    > Thanks, I will try to remember this for when the time comes<G>
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Richard


    Hi Richard,

    I think it's all about the money. I have upgraded my X64 machine to
    Vista 64-bit and just recently to Windows 7 64-bit. I haven't seen
    much change. My machine is still badly screwed up, as it was the last
    two times I upgraded. However, Windows 7 has one feature that I
    *really* like, which is the ability to *Force* a shutdown of programs
    which are locked up in the background. My machine was starting to
    take 20 minutes (literally) to shut down. Windows 7 has cut that to
    less than 5. Also the networking is *much* improved, particularly
    with other Windows 7 machines. Vista was a networking disaster for
    me. Nevertheless, I can't say that my hardware is much improved,
    other than the startups and shutdowns being quicker, which is not
    insignificant.

    I hope that helps! :)

    Jim
     
    Jim, Dec 20, 2009
    #5
  6. Richard

    Richard Guest

    In his posting of Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Jim writes
    >Hi Richard,
    >
    >I think it's all about the money. I have upgraded my X64 machine to
    >Vista 64-bit and just recently to Windows 7 64-bit. I haven't seen
    >much change. My machine is still badly screwed up, as it was the last
    >two times I upgraded. However, Windows 7 has one feature that I
    >*really* like, which is the ability to *Force* a shutdown of programs
    >which are locked up in the background. My machine was starting to
    >take 20 minutes (literally) to shut down. Windows 7 has cut that to
    >less than 5. Also the networking is *much* improved, particularly
    >with other Windows 7 machines. Vista was a networking disaster for
    >me. Nevertheless, I can't say that my hardware is much improved,
    >other than the startups and shutdowns being quicker, which is not
    >insignificant.
    >
    >I hope that helps! :)
    >
    >Jim


    Jim

    Ah that makes me feel better<G>

    Cheers

    Richard
    --
     
    Richard, Dec 20, 2009
    #6
  7. Richard

    Jim Guest

    On Dec 20, 4:46 pm, Richard <> wrote:
    > Ah that makes me feel better<G>


    Hi Richard,

    I *do* think they get a little bit better each time. Networking is
    better, and my printers are better supported in Windows 7.
    Nevertheless, the cost is considerable. Many of my programs were
    starting to run so slowly I was going to have to reformat anyway.
    This way I upgraded to Windows 7, and I gained some improvement, but I
    did *not* fix the problems.

    Jim
     
    Jim, Dec 21, 2009
    #7
  8. Richard

    Richard Guest

    In his posting of Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Jim writes
    >On Dec 20, 4:46 pm, Richard <> wrote:
    >> Ah that makes me feel better<G>

    >
    >Hi Richard,
    >
    >I *do* think they get a little bit better each time. Networking is
    >better, and my printers are better supported in Windows 7.
    >Nevertheless, the cost is considerable. Many of my programs were
    >starting to run so slowly I was going to have to reformat anyway.
    >This way I upgraded to Windows 7, and I gained some improvement, but I
    >did *not* fix the problems.
    >
    >Jim


    It seems to me Jim that we buy faster and faster computer systems to run
    more and more complicated software. I'm just being rather cynical but
    when Photoshop was in it's very early days it came on three floppy
    disks...at version CS2, the version I have stopped at, it takes up 420MB
    of a CD! I would agree that it is now a much more capable application!
    Then of course eight years ago the largest image files I worked on were
    about 40MB but not it is up to 1.8G before adding layers which bring
    many up to around 5Gs.

    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!

    Cheers

    Richard
    --
     
    Richard, Dec 21, 2009
    #8
  9. >>BTW, there is no direct upgrade available. You'll need to do a clean
    >>install when you move to Windows 7 64-bit. (You can use an Upgrade
    >>version, but it still requires a clean install.)
    >>

    > Thanks, I will try to remember this for when the time comes<G>


    There is a MS tool called "Easy Transfer", which you can download from their
    site. It's the same as the XP migration tool, but works for settings and
    files from XP to Windows 7. Makes moving faster. Transfer everything, *then*
    install your software. Your settings should be as before.


    Regards,
    Clemens
     
    Clemens Gleich, Dec 21, 2009
    #9

  10. > 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.

    > Does it run significantly faster for example.


    Can't help you there, but if speed is your sole reason: don't do it.

    > Cheers
    >
    > Richard


    Regards,
    Clemens
     
    Clemens Gleich, Dec 21, 2009
    #10
  11. Richard

    Richard Guest

    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
    --
     
    Richard, Dec 21, 2009
    #11
  12. 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
     
    Juergen Kluth, Dec 22, 2009
    #12
  13. Richard

    Richard Guest

    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
     
    Richard, Dec 22, 2009
    #13
  14. Richard

    Richard Guest

    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 <> 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, Dec 24, 2009
    #14
  15. Richard

    Rob Moir Guest

    "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.
     
    Rob Moir, Jan 1, 2010
    #15
  16. Richard

    Tom Guest

    "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > 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.

    >
    >
     
    Tom, Jan 4, 2010
    #16
  17. Richard

    Tom Guest

    "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_warrenrogersassociates.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Tom, Jan 7, 2010
    #17
  18. Richard

    Jeff Gaines Guest

    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, Jan 7, 2010
    #18
  19. Richard

    Tom Guest

    "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.
     
    Tom, Jan 7, 2010
    #19
  20. Richard

    Jeff Gaines Guest

    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
     
    Jeff Gaines, Jan 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEM=?=

    Win 2k Pro can't see Win XP Home

    =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEM=?=, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,774
    Chuck
    Mar 15, 2005
  2. Mark Patterson

    Help!!! Upgrade from Win 98SE - Win2000 Pro

    Mark Patterson, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    530
    Sultan
    Feb 4, 2004
  3. Daniel Dravot

    WIN XP Home to Pro upgrade

    Daniel Dravot, Jul 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,099
    Lindsay Heinz
    Jul 23, 2004
  4. Fenton Beasley

    "Upgrade" from Linux Red Hat v.8 to Win XP Pro

    Fenton Beasley, Apr 17, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    604
    philo
    Apr 17, 2006
  5. Big.Doc.D
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    945
    Big.Doc.D
    Jul 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page