Choosing retailer for mimimum complaints

"bugbear" wrote in message
o.uk...
Andy wrote:
"james" wrote in message
...
so I'm a little out of touch with cost of new
cellphones but catching sight of the Amazon price tag of a
whisker under GBP400 froze my click finger quick as boiled
asparagus.

GBP400 for a cellphone?

Boy -- am I out of touch.

A bloke I went to school with is involved with Vertu phones.
Fancy a mobile for £23,000?

I assume vertu can strip the diamonds from an old one,
and re-bling a new one?

Given the rate of change in technology,
an "original" Vertu is a crap (but expensive)
phone by today's standards.

With Vertu you pay for the exclusivity and the concierge button.
And the fused sapphire screen as opposed to stick on bling.
That said even if I had the money I would never consider buying one.

Andy

Ste
wibbled on Monday 05 July 2010 06:17

On 4 July, 11:00, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article , Charles wrote:
Do not go back to XP. Go forward to Windows 7. Unlike Vista, Win 7 is
an unmitigated improvement over Windows XP.

The laptop might not have enough memory to run W7.

If it has enough memory to run Vista, it will have enough memory to run
Windows 7 faster. That's what I found when I upgraded mine.

And there's nothing to stop you adding more memory as well.

..or Ubuntu as a second system. You'll find that will run even faster.

There is nothing about a Linux system that is faster than Windows.

My experiences say otherwise.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Ste
wibbled on Monday 05 July 2010 06:17

There is nothing about a Linux system that is faster than Windows.

My experiences say otherwise.

Ditto.
Until very recently it was very clearly faster as I had a full 64 bit linux
system and a 32 bit windows system.
I now have Win7 (64 bit) which is much faster that the 32 bit XP system but
my linux system is still faster.

Andy

"Andy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Ste
wibbled on Monday 05 July 2010 06:17

There is nothing about a Linux system that is faster than Windows.

My experiences say otherwise.

Ditto.
Until very recently it was very clearly faster as I had a full 64 bit
linux system and a 32 bit windows system.
I now have Win7 (64 bit) which is much faster that the 32 bit XP system
but my linux system is still faster.

I find that when you actually run applications rather than windows managers
the OS makes little difference.
Of course if you like a particular app that runs on a particular OS it
becomes pointless worrying about which OS to use.
And as I run apps for 99.999% of the time the OS is pretty irrelevant, the
apps are not.

On 05/07/2010 09:31, [email protected] wrote:


"Andy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Ste
wibbled on Monday 05 July 2010 06:17

There is nothing about a Linux system that is faster than Windows.

My experiences say otherwise.

Ditto.
Until very recently it was very clearly faster as I had a full 64 bit
linux system and a 32 bit windows system.
I now have Win7 (64 bit) which is much faster that the 32 bit XP
system but my linux system is still faster.

I find that when you actually run applications rather than windows
managers the OS makes little difference.
Of course if you like a particular app that runs on a particular OS it
becomes pointless worrying about which OS to use.
And as I run apps for 99.999% of the time the OS is pretty irrelevant,
the apps are not.


I tried Linux for years as a desktop and still use it as a server OS -
got fed up with not being able to use certain apps. Maybe its better now.

But what really does **** me off is the 'importance' of the OS - should
it matter what flavour of OS you use - it should be transparent and just
let you get on with your apps with little intereference or self publicity.

After all, my office desk supports all the tools I use every day, it
doesn't scream 'look at me, fix my wonky leg' every day and doesn't
insist on a replacement for DESK 4 when Desk 3 is still sturdy.

Paul
wibbled on Monday 05 July 2010 09:39


I tried Linux for years as a desktop and still use it as a server OS -
got fed up with not being able to use certain apps. Maybe its better now.

But what really does **** me off is the 'importance' of the OS - should
it matter what flavour of OS you use - it should be transparent and just
let you get on with your apps with little intereference or self publicity.

After all, my office desk supports all the tools I use every day, it
doesn't scream 'look at me, fix my wonky leg' every day and doesn't
insist on a replacement for DESK 4 when Desk 3 is still sturdy.

I like a OS that doesn't need 1/2 dozen plus reboots to install then another
umpteen hours to load on the applications. I also like having an OS that
doesn't get taken down by either malware or the anti virus scanners designed
to prevent the former!

To me, linux is akin to your desk analogy (well, closer to that than MS
Windows which IME is more like a 1970's MFI desk...)

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Ste wrote:
On 4 July, 11:00, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article , Charles wrote:
Do not go back to XP. Go forward to Windows 7. Unlike Vista, Win 7 is
an unmitigated improvement over Windows XP.
The laptop might not have enough memory to run W7.
If it has enough memory to run Vista, it will have enough memory to run
Windows 7 faster. That's what I found when I upgraded mine.

And there's nothing to stop you adding more memory as well.

..or Ubuntu as a second system. You'll find that will run even faster.

There is nothing about a Linux system that is faster than Windows.

Bwahahaha.

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...

I find that when you actually run applications rather than windows
managers the OS makes little difference.
Of course if you like a particular app that runs on a particular OS it
becomes pointless worrying about which OS to use.
And as I run apps for 99.999% of the time the OS is pretty irrelevant, the
apps are not.

I am referring to apps. I write software and compile for Windows and linux
(mostly C++ and Java). The software generally runs faster on linux than
windows. Where I write data mining and conversion software with a lot of
disk access and memory access linux is measurably faster as it handles disks
and memory better (assuming you use a linux disk format and not a windows
disk format). In many cases it is a small margin but if I am trwaling
through Gbs of data the time saving becomes appreciable.
For low-end systems linux is by far the better system. I am involved with a
group that 'recycles' old PCs for people who may not be able to afford one
otherwise.
I have had a modern linux system running on a laptop that only windows 98
would look at. On many of the older systems linux would run smoothly where
XP would spend ages swapping data with the virtual disk even in basic office
apps.

For the standard office user then there is little difference in speed as
generally the slowest thing is the user (but the fact that linux and office
are free and linux is far less prone to malware tends to tip towards linux)
I play games on both linux and windows and some games actually run faster
under WINE on linux than natively on windows.

I am not saying that linux is the absolutely the best OS, it depends upon
what you use it for but for a basic office user linux is best suited and
cheapest IMO.

I use linux for office, music, web, usenet, email and programming.
I use windows for gaming, programming and video (because nothing on linux
touches Adobe Premiere yet).

Andy

"Andy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"[email protected]" wrote in message
...

I find that when you actually run applications rather than windows
managers the OS makes little difference.
Of course if you like a particular app that runs on a particular OS it
becomes pointless worrying about which OS to use.
And as I run apps for 99.999% of the time the OS is pretty irrelevant,
the apps are not.

I am referring to apps. I write software and compile for Windows and linux
(mostly C++ and Java). The software generally runs faster on linux than
windows. Where I write data mining and conversion software with a lot of
disk access and memory access linux is measurably faster as it handles
disks and memory better (assuming you use a linux disk format and not a
windows disk format). In many cases it is a small margin but if I am
trwaling through Gbs of data the time saving becomes appreciable.
For low-end systems linux is by far the better system. I am involved with
a group that 'recycles' old PCs for people who may not be able to afford
one otherwise.
I have had a modern linux system running on a laptop that only windows 98
would look at. On many of the older systems linux would run smoothly where
XP would spend ages swapping data with the virtual disk even in basic
office apps.

If it will run a modern linux with its window manager it will run win7.
the resource requirements are quite similar.
If you mean it will run a light weight linux distro then you are probably
right.

BTW I do like how you compare a 9 year old version of windows with a modern
linux rather than a nine year old version of linux.
This is quite common when linux user compare linux to windows, probably
because they have never tried anything more recent.


For the standard office user then there is little difference in speed as
generally the slowest thing is the user (but the fact that linux and
office are free and linux is far less prone to malware tends to tip
towards linux)
I play games on both linux and windows and some games actually run faster
under WINE on linux than natively on windows.

that may be true for some old windows systems, tried any directX 10 games on
wine?


I am not saying that linux is the absolutely the best OS, it depends upon
what you use it for but for a basic office user linux is best suited and
cheapest IMO.

I use linux for office, music, web, usenet, email and programming.
I use windows for gaming, programming and video (because nothing on linux
touches Adobe Premiere yet).

I use linux on four machines but I ain't going to put it on this hp tx2
laptop as its sh!t on it and I like the touch screen to work properly.

"[email protected]" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

If it will run a modern linux with its window manager it will run win7.
the resource requirements are quite similar. If you mean it will run a
light weight linux distro then you are probably right.

Hmm. I have here on my desk a ~4-5yo Dell Latitude D800.

It runs Ubuntu 10.04 very happily indeed. Compiz at full 1920x1200 runs
smoothly.

Win7, however, is slow and awkward, and since there are no Win7 drivers
(Vista drivers do not work) for the nVidia GeForce FX5650 Go video
controller in it, it is not at native resolution. It can sometimes be
persuaded to 1600x1200, if it's in a good mood, but more commonly sits at
1280x960.