I Fancy A New PC

[Rumblestripe]

anyone who sticks with XP or Vista (worse) is plain daft,

 

File under "everything you know is wrong"! Vista once patched to SP1 is very stable and reliable, at least as good as Win7. Which if truth be told is Vista but fixed. I have a Dell Vista PC which is now five years old and has never given me any trouble and professionally I come across quite a few machines running it perfectly reliably (often with people thinking they were running 7!). Vista got a bad name when it first came out (MS had rushed it to market) but once teh patches came out it was fine.

[Jack]

It is - for a Windows platform. I like it, and I'm more than happy with it, anyone who sticks with XP or Vista (worse) is plain daft, unless they have a low spec PC when XP is acceptable.

 

Good old sweaping statement there

 

I stick with XP, because I'd be plain daft to use an OS which requires twice the memory and processor threads to complete the same task. But each to their own. I have a 2012 dell pc for which i was able to get xp drivers. I accept that this will probably be the last time I can do this, so unless '8' or whatever follows it is the canines testicles, that'll be when i switch to Linux.

 

Now, to boot my virtual machine with windows 3.11 in

[beast66606]

Thanks - fortunately having worked on PCs since day one I do have some idea what I'm talking about.

 

Windows 7 does not require twice the memory or processor threads, my machine (and hundreds of thousands of others) is perfectly capable of running Windows 7 64bit or XP WITHOUT any hardware changes, I think what you mean is the base requirement for Windows 7 is higher than XP.

 

But, hey, if you want to use an OS that's 10 years old, fill your boots. If you warm my post you can probably read (the bit you've quoted) "unless they have a low spec PC when XP is acceptable."

[beast66606]

File under "everything you know is wrong"! Vista once patched to SP1 is very stable and reliable, at least as good as Win7. Which if truth be told is Vista but fixed. I have a Dell Vista PC which is now five years old and has never given me any trouble and professionally I come across quite a few machines running it perfectly reliably (often with people thinking they were running 7!). Vista got a bad name when it first came out (MS had rushed it to market) but once teh patches came out it was fine.

 

Vista was one of the worst OS that Microsoft produced, I too ran Vista - why is it people assume that comments are plucked out of the air - without any real issues apart from VERY poor performance when using networked drives, this was never resolved by MS, not even with the patches.

Windows 7 walks all over Vista, the machine I'm typing this on now is my old Vista machine, now running 64bit W7 and it runs sweeter than it ever did under Vista.

 

I drive a Ford, that works perfectly for me, it doesn't make it as good as a Bentley though.

[beast66606]

PS - If anyone feels the need to run an old, outdated OS on their machines, please feel free, its a free world.

[30801]

Vista was one of the worst OS that Microsoft produced, I too ran Vista - why is it people assume that comments are plucked out of the air - without any real issues apart from VERY poor performance when using networked drives, this was never resolved by MS, not even with the patches.

Fair point about the network drive but Vista really wasn't that bad. It's stable. There are some very worthwhile security features. (Hey maybe running Internet Explorer as admin out of the box isn't such a good idea.)It has a real window manager with each window having its own display surface.

Vista's problems for the most part were with poorly written software that assumed everyone ran as admin. I'd take it over XP any time.

 

For worst MS OS you have to try hard to beat the pointless suckyness of Windows ME, but try using a Windows CE device for any length of time before you have to flip it over and poke the reset button with a paperclip.

 

This is all moot to the OP though as he'll be getting Windows 7

[melmerby]

The biggest problem I find with Windows 7 is that files/folders just aren't where they were on XP.

 

I have three PCs - a fairly old one with an Athlon 2500 and XP SP3, a newer one with AMD Athlon quad core 64 bit and XP SP3 (32 bit OS though) and a new laptop with a Core i7 running W7 64 bit.

 

Never really had a problem with stability on XP.

 

The worst Windows I had was 95, it was awful! worse than 3.1/Dos 5.0 (if that's possible) crashing all the time, hardly useable. The first "stable" version I had was 98 SR2.

Not perfect but a vast improvement on what went before.

 

Keith

[beast66606]

The biggest problem I find with Windows 7 is that files/folders just aren't where they were on XP.

 

Not sure what you mean here Keith, system files and folders may have moved, but your own structure will remain as created. The normally used system files such as My Documents have short cuts to them so the actual location is hidden/irrelevant. If you follow my advice regarding using a normal user for day to day work you can't access most of them anyway.

[melmerby]

Not sure what you mean here Keith, system files and folders may have moved, but your own structure will remain as created. The normally used system files such as My Documents have short cuts to them so the actual location is hidden/irrelevant. If you follow my advice regarding using a normal user for day to day work you can't access most of them anyway.

The problem is probably trying to use two systems as I use the desktop for most things (XP) and the laptop (W7) for the railway.

E.g. I find looking for downloads different. In XP they are under 'My Documents' but W7 puts them somewhere else.

 

EDIT AFAIK they are where Windows defaults them to.

 

If I stuck to one OS I would probably find it a lot easier.

 

Keith

[MJI]

Does anyone not think that Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista or XP? As far as I'm concerned, Windows 7 64-bit is the most reliable and stable OS that I have used.

 

DT

 

 

All versions of windows have serious issues.

 

XP the default file manager is horrid, I want details ALWAYS details NEVER sideways scrolly list, I DO NOT WANT file type, I know what they are, better than windows.

 

NTVDM clock loses time in background.

 

Vista - apart from main bugs, cannot run a full screen dos application

 

Windows 7 32bit - WASTE OF TIME, got the Vista screen bug and NETBIOS is killed off.

 

Windows 7 general - windows updates is extreme, we were having a scheduled power cut (power lines through trees) and I could not shut down a PC, no option there, luckily the power lasted long enough to do it. Next time I switched off at wall.

 

All are bugged with animated menus and make you work to disable.

[MJI]

It is - for a Windows platform. I like it, and I'm more than happy with it, anyone who sticks with XP or Vista (worse) is plain daft, unless they have a low spec PC when XP is acceptable.

 

Still uses for XP.

 

Last platform from Windows with decent DOS support, not possible to convert years of code in a short period of time.

 

Last not to phone home (prior to WGA spyware), so better for advocates of privacy.

 

But in some ways 2000 was better, but USB support makes a huge difference towards XP.

[MJI]

I liked 98 OSR2 but 95 was horrid and Windows Myalgic Encephalomyetis was terrible

[beast66606]

All versions of windows have serious issues.

 

Groan ..

 

XP the default file manager is horrid, I want details ALWAYS details NEVER sideways scrolly list, I DO NOT WANT file type, I know what they are, better than windows.

 

"Turn off file types for known files" has been around for a good while now ...

 

 

NTVDM clock loses time in background.

 

DOS - Yes I remember that, this prog provides support for 16 bit DOS apps under 32 bit Windows

 

Vista - apart from main bugs, cannot run a full screen dos application

 

I haven't got any true DOS applications, not sure I'd be that bothered if that is the case.

 

Windows 7 32bit - WASTE OF TIME, got the Vista screen bug and NETBIOS is killed off

 

Who wants netbios anyway ?

 

Windows 7 general - windows updates is extreme, we were having a scheduled power cut (power lines through trees) and I could not shut down a PC, no option there, luckily the power lasted long enough to do it. Next time I switched off at wall.

All are bugged with animated menus and make you work to disable.

 

You can choose to download updates and install them when you want, thus avoiding scheduled downtime. It is not possible to power off during an update as this leaves the machine in an indeterminate state - this is true for any OS, try applying a patch to Linux and power off in the middle. it may work, as Windows may work, or it may not.

I'd sooner they patched every issue as soon as they can, especially security vulnerabilities, rather than leaving it for the bad guys to find them.

 

Bugged with animated menus ? - they work fine for me, and it's not hard to change them - as hard as it would be to enable them if they were off by default.

[beast66606]

Still uses for XP.

 

Last platform from Windows with decent DOS support, not possible to convert years of code in a short period of time.

 

Last not to phone home (prior to WGA spyware), so better for advocates of privacy.

 

But in some ways 2000 was better, but USB support makes a huge difference towards XP.

 

The move away from DOS is hardly a new phenomena though, I converted all my old companies DOS based interfaces to Windows (or occasionally Unix) versions many, many years ago. I have no knowledge of your application, what it's written in or how well structured it is, so can't comment beyond that.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, if people want to use older OS thats fine - for them - but recommending them to new users (or on new machines) makes no sense at all, Linux, Mac or Windows 7 (at the moment) are the weapons of choice.

[MJI]

Groan ..

 

"Turn off file types for known files" has been around for a good while now ...

 

No such flag - but first thing I do is enable show file extensions

 

DOS - Yes I remember that, this prog provides support for 16 bit DOS apps under 32 bit Windows

 

I haven't got any true DOS applications, not sure I'd be that bothered if that is the case.

 

We have still, a lot in fact YEARS of coding, not all yet in Windows, most is, but a few customers still prefer the dos applications.

 

Who wants netbios anyway ?

 

Anyone wanting a dos application to handle data on a server, it is used for communications, this caught us out recenly when trying to reindex a system 32bit Win 7 our IP using dos reindex utility would not work, and the windows version was not up there, we run client server and use the same server for everything, the server originally started as a C/S addon for the dos language we used.

 

 

You can choose to download updates and install them when you want, thus avoiding scheduled downtime. It is not possible to power off during an update as this leaves the machine in an indeterminate state - this is true for any OS, try applying a patch to Linux and power off in the middle. it may work, as Windows may work, or it may not.

I'd sooner they patched every issue as soon as they can, especially security vulnerabilities, rather than leaving it for the bad guys to find them.

 

But with XP and before you can shut down without applying them, trivially, power turned off - nothing within my control.

 

Bugged with animated menus ? - they work fine for me, and it's not hard to change them - as hard as it would be to enable them if they were off by default.

 

They take ages to disable the lot and you still get the odd one escape.

[beast66606]

No such flag - but first thing I do is enable show file extensions

 

So you've actually turned on the thing you are complaining about ...

 

We have still, a lot in fact YEARS of coding, not all yet in Windows, most is, but a few customers still prefer the dos applications.

 

But not all of it will be DOS specific, depending on what's it's written in and how well structured it was of course.

 

 

But with XP and before you can shut down without applying them, trivially, power turned off - nothing within my control.

 

I can do that just fine on Windows 7, I set it to download as soon as, but ask me to install them. This PC currently has 14 updates to install, I can power off / reboot etc and it won't install them until I tell it too

[spamcan61]

Well I suppose the Win 7 has the 'libraries' thing which is a little different for an XP user like me, and the 'homegroups' concept, but that's about it. I find I can git rid of most of the annoying animations and other Disneyfication by poking around in Control Panel > Folder Options. Must admit Office 2003 runs lightning fast under Win 7 on my pretty average Core i3 laptop :-).

[melmerby]

A quick question Re: W7 and DOS

 

What is it that stops a simple DOS program (from 1992) from working on W7 (even if I tell it that it worked on XP SP3) when it works on earlier Windows OS?

 

Keith

[beast66606]

Could be a host of things .. try creating a short cut and tweaking some of the properties.

[MJI]

A quick question Re: W7 and DOS

 

What is it that stops a simple DOS program (from 1992) from working on W7 (even if I tell it that it worked on XP SP3) when it works on earlier Windows OS?

 

Keith

 

A few things

 

1) Lack of full screen, any dos apps using VESA mode will not work on Vista or newer.

2) Lack of Netbios, any dos apps using IP (even through layers) will not be able to communicate with their server.

 

Yes we use VGA mode VESA executables with client server access via IPX or IP

[MJI]

So you've actually turned on the thing you are complaining about ...

 

 

 

But not all of it will be DOS specific, depending on what's it's written in and how well structured it was of course.

 

 

 

 

I can do that just fine on Windows 7, I set it to download as soon as, but ask me to install them. This PC currently has 14 updates to install, I can power off / reboot etc and it won't install them until I tell it too

 

The thing I complained about is that Windows explorer puts a column in even if I remove it saying what the file type is, as soon as I change directory it reappears and puts the column I NEED (date & time) off the screen.

 

I know what type of file it is - they have extensions!

 

Oh one more bug in Windows 7, unable to open link scripts in Windows explorer, have to use CMD prompt and use notepad.

[beast66606]

The thing I complained about is that Windows explorer puts a column in even if I remove it saying what the file type is, as soon as I change directory it reappears and puts the column I NEED (date & time) off the screen.

 

I know what type of file it is - they have extensions!

 

 

I've just removed the type column and then set "show all folders the same" and it doesn't reappear, when navigating.

[BYMR]

I went mac and never looked back. A little bit pricier than a PC but a mac will last you for many a year and even retain a lot of it's value for when you are upgrading and need to sell it.

 

An imac or macbook pro depending on whether you want portability or not, they are a lot less prone to viruses, hardware issues and the OS is such a pleasure to work with compared to Windows systems (IMHO).

 

I'm sure this will get a lot of flack from what appears to be a primarily PC based community but I would recommend at least going to an apple store and having a look and a play. If that doesn't get the credit card swiping then head on over to PC world or Currys or wherever (are they both the same now) but be careful you don't fall foul of the typical PC sales pitch of...

 

"Oh browsing the web and checking emails... you need this and this and this and this with this printer and scanner combo bla bla bla and a digital mouse mat that also heats your cup of tea)"

 

I don't like PC sales people, does it show : )

[30801]

I went mac and never looked back. A little bit pricier than a PC but a mac will last you for many a year and even retain a lot of it's value for when you are upgrading and need to sell it.

 

An imac or macbook pro depending on whether you want portability or not, they are a lot less prone to viruses, hardware issues and the OS is such a pleasure to work with compared to Windows systems (IMHO).

 

I've had a few Macs and agree one would be fine for the OP, except he has two requirements 'best bang for buck' and 'online gaming'

With a MacBook you can spend £1000 and only get Intel integrated graphics which isn't good for gaming. Not that there's a great choice of Mac games without dual booting into Windows or mucking about with Crossover.

 

My personal experience of hardware reliability is poor. wih two of four Macs having trouble (Both Intel, the G4's worked fine) but you are right that they hold their value well. I was pleasantly suprised at what I got for my iMac with broken display on eBay

[Torper]

It would perhaps be helpful if the OP could give an indication as to how much he is prepared to spend.

 

DT