G
Gene E. Bloch
What bluff?
B
BillW50
When Wolf stated that I was wrong about everything except this one time.On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:30:33 -0500, Wolf K wrote:
On 03/03/2012 8:52 AM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]
FYI:
I checked the headers on BillW50's posts. He has very carefully removed
several ,ines: From, Subject and Date being the most obvious.
What nonsense. The very article you're following up contains all
those headers. I don't know if it's even possible to have a Usenet
article without them, but in any case he is guiltless of the crime of
which you accuse him.What bluff?Like I did with Wolf, I'm calling your bluff. This ought to be
interesting. As almost everybody backs out of that one. ;-)
Then I asked Wolf to share some of the other examples. Although Wolf has
no comment. What a surprise, not.
G
Geo55
Op Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:52:48 -0000, schreef Philip Herlihy
But with 2 GB It is too slow.
I am running Windows 7 64 bits with 8 GB ram and it is working good.Those who have directly compared W7 and Vista on the same hardware seem
to be saying that W7 runs faster, but you may find W7 is a lot slower
than XP. XP can run reasonably well with 768MB of memory, but most
people say you need 2GB or more to run W7 well, for example.
But with 2 GB It is too slow.
G
Gene E. Bloch
On 3/3/2012 10:51 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:30:33 -0500, Wolf K wrote:
On 03/03/2012 8:52 AM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]
FYI:
I checked the headers on BillW50's posts. He has very carefully removed
several ,ines: From, Subject and Date being the most obvious.
What nonsense. The very article you're following up contains all
those headers. I don't know if it's even possible to have a Usenet
article without them, but in any case he is guiltless of the crime of
which you accuse him.What bluff?Like I did with Wolf, I'm calling your bluff. This ought to be
interesting. As almost everybody backs out of that one. ;-)
But your reply that I questioned was to Stan Brown.When Wolf stated that I was wrong about everything except this one time. Then
I asked Wolf to share some of the other examples. Although Wolf has no
comment. What a surprise, not.
B
BillW50
Oh! Then never mind. ;-)On 3/03/2012, BillW50 posted:
On 3/3/2012 10:51 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:30:33 -0500, Wolf K wrote:
On 03/03/2012 8:52 AM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]
FYI:
I checked the headers on BillW50's posts. He has very carefully
removed
several ,ines: From, Subject and Date being the most obvious.
What nonsense. The very article you're following up contains all
those headers. I don't know if it's even possible to have a Usenet
article without them, but in any case he is guiltless of the crime of
which you accuse him.
Like I did with Wolf, I'm calling your bluff. This ought to be
interesting. As almost everybody backs out of that one. ;-)
What bluff?But your reply that I questioned was to Stan Brown.When Wolf stated that I was wrong about everything except this one
time. Then I asked Wolf to share some of the other examples. Although
Wolf has no comment. What a surprise, not.
G
Gene E. Bloch
On 3/3/2012 2:11 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On 3/03/2012, BillW50 posted:
On 3/3/2012 10:51 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:30:33 -0500, Wolf K wrote:
On 03/03/2012 8:52 AM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]
FYI:
I checked the headers on BillW50's posts. He has very carefully
removed
several ,ines: From, Subject and Date being the most obvious.
What nonsense. The very article you're following up contains all
those headers. I don't know if it's even possible to have a Usenet
article without them, but in any case he is guiltless of the crime of
which you accuse him.
Like I did with Wolf, I'm calling your bluff. This ought to be
interesting. As almost everybody backs out of that one. ;-)
What bluff?But your reply that I questioned was to Stan Brown.When Wolf stated that I was wrong about everything except this one
time. Then I asked Wolf to share some of the other examples. Although
Wolf has no comment. What a surprise, not.
These things happen...Oh! Then never mind. ;-)
Can you believe it that I never made such an error? I can't believe it
either ;-)
Y
Yousuf Khan
One of the biggest hogs on my 8GB of RAM Win7-64-bit machine isHow much RAM you need for *any* version of Windows depends on what
apps you run, but most people running a typical range of business
applications Windows 7 need at least 2GB. On the other hand, if you do
little more than e-mail, 1GB could be fine. My netbook is an example
of that. It runs Windows 7 Ultimate with 1GB; it's slow but adequate
for my needs, which are just doing e-mail while traveling with it.
Thunderbird, it can easily use up over 1GB by itself. The next biggest
hog is Firefox, so even switching to webmail isn't an option. So that
turns around the entire argument that you don't need a lot of RAM if all
you're doing is email.
Yousuf Khan
K
Ken Blake
One of the biggest hogs on my 8GB of RAM Win7-64-bit machine is
Thunderbird, it can easily use up over 1GB by itself. The next biggest
hog is Firefox, so even switching to webmail isn't an option. So that
turns around the entire argument that you don't need a lot of RAM if all
you're doing is email.
Well then, don't use webmail or Thunderbird. What you use is entirely
up to you. And if what you want to use makes the amount of RAM on your
machine inadequate, then fine, change the program, add more RAM, run a
different version of Windows, whatever you prefer.
I'm not trying to talk anyone into doing what I do, but I use
Microsoft Outlook, and I can attest to its running on my 1GB Windows 7
netbook without a problem. Not particularly fast, but fast enough for
me. If that works for you, fine. If it doesn't work for you, then do
something else.
C
Char Jackson
At least you didn't say, "I thought I was wrong once, but I wasThese things happen...
Can you believe it that I never made such an error? I can't believe it
either ;-)
mistaken." ;-)
S
Stan Brown
Bluff? What bluff?Like I did with Wolf, I'm calling your bluff. This ought to beWhat nonsense. The very article you're following up contains allOn 03/03/2012 8:52 AM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]
FYI:
I checked the headers on BillW50's posts. He has very carefully removed
several ,ines: From, Subject and Date being the most obvious.
those headers. I don't know if it's even possible to have a Usenet
article without them, but in any case he is guiltless of the crime of
which you accuse him.
interesting. As almost everybody backs out of that one. ;-)
Sheesh -- this is what I get for defending you against a false
accusation?
S
Stan Brown
Pardon me, but I'm skeptical. My Firefox process is using about 60One of the biggest hogs on my 8GB of RAM Win7-64-bit machine is
Thunderbird, it can easily use up over 1GB by itself. The next biggest
hog is Firefox, so even switching to webmail isn't an option. So that
turns around the entire argument that you don't need a lot of RAM if all
you're doing is email.
MB, according to Task Mangler, and Thunderbird is using about half
that.
It's not impossible that your Thunderbird is using 33 times as much
RAM as mine, but it seems unlikely to me unless there's a pretty bad
memory leak. What happens if you close and reopen it?
P
Paul
Any chance it reads all the News files from the profile, into RAM ?Stan said:Pardon me, but I'm skeptical. My Firefox process is using about 60
MB, according to Task Mangler, and Thunderbird is using about half
that.
It's not impossible that your Thunderbird is using 33 times as much
RAM as mine, but it seems unlikely to me unless there's a pretty bad
memory leak. What happens if you close and reopen it?
That might account for it. Mine is at 200MB right now.
At some point, a bit of careful pruning of the News folder
might help.
If I do a search on the Sent item right now, the disk light
hardly flashes at all, which suggests it is sitting in RAM.
Maybe some of the other files are like that too.
Paul
S
Steve Hayes
But there is no such upgrade DVD from XP to 7.Stan Brown <[email protected]> ?ivait
When using an "Upgrade" DVD, you must NOT reformat the drive because the
upgrade installer must check for a valid previous version of Windows. If
the disk is reformatted, Windows won't activate.
You would have to upgrade to Vista first, and then to 7.
R
Rob
I have an i5 processor x64 and 16Gb ram and run adobe. For me there isOp Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:52:48 -0000, schreef Philip Herlihy
I am running Windows 7 64 bits with 8 GB ram and it is working good.
But with 2 GB It is too slow.
a notable difference between 8Gb and 16Gb.
R
Rob
Most sensible reply yet.Yes, there is, somewhat. If you're only interested in not losing your
old files, then you can do what's called a "Custom Install" of Windows
7. What this does is it transfers all of your "\Windows", "\Program
Files", and "\Documents & Settings" directories to new subdirectory
hierarchy called "\Windows.old". This is just a backup of all of these
old files, and you won't lose any of the files, but you will lose all of
your settings for them, as the registry will be brand new.
Hopefully, your drive or partition will be large enough to contain both
Windows XP and Windows 7 files on the same drive. When Windows 7 is
done, you will have a newly installed Windows installation, with no
settings carried over from the previous Windows. Then you will have to
reinstall your apps under the new Windows 7, one at a time. You can
refer back to the "Windows.old" directory to figure out which
applications you previously had installed.
You, at some point, also start transferring all of your old XP data
files in My Documents, My Pictures, My Music, etc. to their equivalents
under Windows 7. This is a simple copy/move and paste operation using
Explorer, no special utilities required.
Yousuf Khan
I have now run the W7 disc installing the setup as an update from within
XP OS.
This went smoothly allowing an update to W7 even to the part where it
transferred and kept the serial over into W7. No extra drivers were
necessary, the partitions were not touched and the hidden restore
partition is still on the HDD of the laptop.
haven't had any feed back as to what has happened to the file structure
although it was all backed up so a clean install was possible if necessary.
So its now up and running W7 ultimate.
J
John Williamson
I'm typing on a machine that I did that exact upgrade on. XP SP3 asSteve said:But there is no such upgrade DVD from XP to 7.
bought, I installed 7 using a Home Prelium upgrade DVD. It didn't
reformat the HD.
The only problem I had was that I couldn't be bothered to find out how
to make it dual boot.
Y
Yousuf Khan
I use Thunderbird as my newsreader too, so that's when memoryPardon me, but I'm skeptical. My Firefox process is using about 60
MB, according to Task Mangler, and Thunderbird is using about half
that.
It's not impossible that your Thunderbird is using 33 times as much
RAM as mine, but it seems unlikely to me unless there's a pretty bad
memory leak. What happens if you close and reopen it?
utilization skyrockets on it. Nothing that can be done about it, it's a
well known bug, the Thunderbird developers are aware of it, and it is
such a little-used feature of Thunderbird that they don't have much of a
priority for fixing it. I had to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB to delay the
problem.
Yousuf Khan
J
John Williamson
Just out of interest, is this a bug that has recently appeared? I useYousuf said:I use Thunderbird as my newsreader too, so that's when memory
utilization skyrockets on it. Nothing that can be done about it, it's a
well known bug, the Thunderbird developers are aware of it, and it is
such a little-used feature of Thunderbird that they don't have much of a
priority for fixing it. I had to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB to delay the
problem.
Thunderbird 2.0.24 both for e-mail and news, and at this moment, it's
using 99,650Kb of RAM under Windows 7 Home Premium 32 bit with 2Gb of RAM.
It may be yet another reason not to update TB, apart from the 'orrible
interface and the way it loses posts on the later versions.
B
BillW50
In
one. Nothing new there.
Both Firefox and Thunderbird has been plagued by memory leaks since dayYousuf said:I use Thunderbird as my newsreader too, so that's when memory
utilization skyrockets on it. Nothing that can be done about it, it's
a well known bug, the Thunderbird developers are aware of it, and it
is such a little-used feature of Thunderbird that they don't have
much of a priority for fixing it. I had to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB to
delay the problem.
Yousuf Khan
one. Nothing new there.
B
BillW50
In
My apology Stan, it was a busy day yesterday. :-(Stan said:Bluff? What bluff?Like I did with Wolf, I'm calling your bluff. This ought to beOn Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:30:33 -0500, Wolf K wrote:
On 03/03/2012 8:52 AM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]
FYI:
I checked the headers on BillW50's posts. He has very carefully
removed several ,ines: From, Subject and Date being the most
obvious.
What nonsense. The very article you're following up contains all
those headers. I don't know if it's even possible to have a Usenet
article without them, but in any case he is guiltless of the crime
of which you accuse him.
interesting. As almost everybody backs out of that one. ;-)
Sheesh -- this is what I get for defending you against a false
accusation?
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.