Re: Chkdsk/Scandisk

glee wrote:

"Bill in Co" wrote in message
news:

Bill in Co wrote:

glee wrote:

"BillW50" wrote in message
news:jp3d4m$jeu$

In news:jp3cd4$eq5$,
glee wrote:

"BillW50" wrote in message
news:jp3bli$9t0$

In news:,
Char Jackson wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2012 04:12:11 -0500, "BillW50"

<snip>

Windows 7, and even more so Vista, requires somewhat better hardware
than XP to run optimally. Every version of Windows has had that
same
behavior over its previous version... needing more memory, faster
processors. There are a lot of advantages to Windows 7. If they
don't
make up for the disadvantages as far as you're concerned, that's
your
personal view. There are plenty of quite experienced computer
professionals that would strongly disagree with your assertions, and
who have none of the problems you describe. It's opinion. I don't
understand your hostility. {shrug}

I am curious as to what advantages you've found with these newer
OS's, Glen,
especially considering that you're a techie, and thus wouldn't be
wowed over
with just appearances. For example, what is it that is missing in
WinXP or
98SE? Well, ok, I can see some (possible) points against Win98SE,
with
its heap resource problems, limited USB support issues, and a greater
tendency to blue screen with some aberrant apps, but that was all
taken care
of in WinXP. (That said, I still admire 98SE for being so compact
and having true DOS capabililty and support, and it's just sticking to
the basics of just being an OS, per se. Little hand holding. :-)

And from what I've read, the later editions of Windows have taken
away some
stuff (and user control over it) that we've been accustomed to
having; you
even mentioned one with Windows Explorer. And even things like
control
over codec support (controlling what audio or video codecs you can
have installed) have been diminished, from what I read.

It just seems like MS is taking away more and more control over the
OS from the user. Is that "progress"? I guess I just don't see the
point
in having a OS attempt to do more for you, or have a glitzier looking
interface, or dumbing down the interface, plus the trend to remove
easy and direct access to files and folders that I think you
mentioned, Glen).

Can anybody here shed some light on what great features of these newer
OS's one is missing by sticking with an older OS like XP? I've
politely asked twice and gotten no concrete answers, and was just
*curious* as to any real life examples). But as a point of
reference, I'm still more than content using Office 2000 (and even MS
Works 4.5 on occasion), and maybe that's part of the problem. :-)

As already mentioned, Bill, you can look up the lists of new features,
if you can't try it for yourself. Networking has many more security
features allowing you to easily choose what type of connection you are
on when you set up the particular connection, security features are
customizable there also.

OK, thanks for at least mentioning those, Glen. (I guess for me those are
not a big issue, as I'm just a single user here).

Try using it for a while and you will find a
number of improvements over older Windows versions.

And I guess a few "cutbacks" on some of the more basic things, like ease in
file and directory accessibility, as you mentioned. Or things like
customizing the audio and video codecs you can install, at least from what I
had read.

I assume all of this is being done to make the OS more "bulletproof" for the
average consumer, by making it harder to access or control these things.

Some folks here sound just like the people who complained about Win95
"bloated" GUI when all they needed was DOS,

LOL. I have to concede I was in that camp too, at one point. :-)
Actually, there still are a few things I really prefer doing in DOS or its
shell, even now. A few things are even simpler or easier to do at the file
level.

people who complained about
the improvements made in Win98SE and insisted Win95 was better even
though 95 had no support for USB and many other issues.

I think Win95 had the distinct advantage of running well on a very minimal
system, and it was a very nice step up from Win 3.1. Two of the big
"pluses" being its dramatic upgrade in the windows interface, and the long
file name support that was missing in Win 3.1 and DOS.

If you like what you're using, stick with it, but if you're not using
the later versions, you can't really make any informed statements about
them.

Granted my knowledge is limited to what I read and hear about them, and
what, if anything, seems to be missing or lacking in what I now have. So
far I haven't discovered any "losses" that might impact me, so this works
great for me. :-)

On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:21:45 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:08:53 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Can anybody here shed some light on what great features of these newer
OS's
one is missing by sticking with an older OS like XP? I've politely
asked
twice and gotten no concrete answers, and was just *curious* as to any
real
life examples).

Feature lists are available online. Isn't it up to the individual to
figure out which of those features is great enough to warrant some
kind of upgrade?

I just thought it would be nice if someone would just mention such features.

That just sounds lazy. :-)

On 18/05/2012 12:08 AM, Bill in Co wrote:

Can anybody here shed some light on what great features of these newer OS's
one is missing by sticking with an older OS like XP? I've politely asked
twice and gotten no concrete answers, and was just *curious* as to any real
life examples). But as a point of reference, I'm still more than content
using Office 2000 (and even MS Works 4.5 on occasion), and maybe that's part
of the problem. :-)

I like the integrated search feature. I also like the Resource Monitor,
which is an upgrade to the Performance Monitor in XP.

Yousuf Khan

Char Jackson wrote:

On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:21:45 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:08:53 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Can anybody here shed some light on what great features of these newer
OS's
one is missing by sticking with an older OS like XP? I've politely
asked
twice and gotten no concrete answers, and was just *curious* as to any
real life examples).

Feature lists are available online. Isn't it up to the individual to
figure out which of those features is great enough to warrant some
kind of upgrade?

I just thought it would be nice if someone would just mention such
features.

That just sounds lazy. :-)

Guilty as charged, at least on that one.

On 5/18/2012 2:30 PM, Bill in Co wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:21:45 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:08:53 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Can anybody here shed some light on what great features of these newer
OS's
one is missing by sticking with an older OS like XP? I've politely
asked
twice and gotten no concrete answers, and was just *curious* as to any
real life examples).

Feature lists are available online. Isn't it up to the individual to
figure out which of those features is great enough to warrant some
kind of upgrade?

I just thought it would be nice if someone would just mention such
features.

That just sounds lazy. :-)

Guilty as charged, at least on that one.

Nonsense! Don't listen to Char, as Char doesn't know what he is talking
about anyway. As it is only the dummies who doesn't ask more experienced
ones questions. Remember the only dumb questions are the ones that are
never asked.

Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2