Oh, the BLOAT! New PCs are so slow!

  • Thread starter Thread starter yep
  • Start date Start date
What Dell sells and what is "ok" are two different things if the buyer
is not sufficiently discriminating.

The "typical" user of XP who wants Internet, Email, and the occasional
game will want to have at *minimum* 256mb. Even then, there will be a
sigificant number of people who will be disappointed with XP and their
new Dell even with 256 mb.

Dell Support will probably tell them that there is a problem with XP and
to reinstall it.
 
Rob said:
The "typical" user of XP who wants Internet, Email, and the occasional
game will want to have at *minimum* 256mb. Even then, there will be a
sigificant number of people who will be disappointed with XP and their
new Dell even with 256 mb.

Dell Support will probably tell them that there is a problem with XP and
to reinstall it.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
PC-Gladiator said:
Yeah but don't say that in here because Dell is selling systems with 128MB
and that *has* to be OK. And if 128MB is OK then 256MB is way too much.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm glad they do. That means a lower selling price and more
money to buy aftermarket RAM at a much lower cost!
 
What Dell sells and what is "ok" are two different things if the buyer
is not sufficiently discriminating.

The "typical" user of XP who wants Internet, Email, and the occasional
game will want to have at *minimum* 256mb. Even then, there will be a
sigificant number of people who will be disappointed with XP and their
new Dell even with 256 mb.

Dell Support will probably tell them that there is a problem with XP and
to reinstall it.
Click to expand...

The Gladman will never understand what you've written - he appears to be
a war monger out to slam Dell for doing anything.
 
Dell Support will probably tell them that there is a problem with XP and
to reinstall it.
Click to expand...

Yes, more of that "award winning support" doncha know... ;-) It surely
couldn't be anything THEY did so it must be that evil Bill Gates' XPeePee OS
that's slow as molasses...
 
Unfortunately, not every person expects to have to put more RAM in a brand
new system in order to get reasonable performance. They believe those Dell
ads that say don't worry about mega this and giga that trust us and we'll
take care of you! Except the fine print on the bottom of the screen starts
with "Bend over sucker, now time for the bad news." 8-))))
 
PC-Gladiator@Mail- said:
Unfortunately, not every person expects to have to put more RAM in a brand
new system in order to get reasonable performance. They believe those Dell
ads that say don't worry about mega this and giga that trust us and we'll
take care of you! Except the fine print on the bottom of the screen starts
with "Bend over sucker, now time for the bad news." 8-))))
Click to expand...

And if you call a Dell rep and tell them what you want to do with the
computer they won't tell you to get a stripped down 2400 - so their ad
is correct.
 
Yes they are.
Unless you install the speedstep patch for Windows XP - Doh.
It would have shown up when you checked the CPU speed in XP...
 
Thomas M. Goethe said:
And then add anti-virus, firewall, anti-spam and whatever else you need
to secure your system and watch it slow even more. There are times when they
wrap a bunch of updates into one patch and that sometimes seems to help, but
patch on top of patch is really a problem.
Click to expand...
When you install clean now, and update, you will first install the latest
service pack and that shoud incorporate most updates and patches in a much
more elegant and streamline fashion, and not be required to install patches
other than the really latest and most fresh.
I only chose to install the most critical updates and patches that i think
apply to my situation, not every one that is offered by the windows update
service.
Some security patches refer to vulnerabilities that require the attacker to
either be seated at my desk (but not have my user/pass) or plugged into my
LAN, or affect systems running IIS, or MS SQL server, etc. When those
situations don't apply, installing the patch is not wise, as it just might
break something other than fixing.
But my point was meant to be- installing fresh and then the latest service
pack is somewhat better than installing originally when product was out and
cumulatatively applying every patch that comesalong the way in sequnce.
 
Erez Volach said:
When you install clean now, and update, you will first install the latest
service pack and that shoud incorporate most updates and patches in a much
more elegant and streamline fashion, and not be required to install patches
other than the really latest and most fresh.
Click to expand...

Hopefully! I am about to do one and I do recall that MS has a rollup
update out that handles several patches. I had thought about waiting for
Service Pack 2, but am having some issues that I think are related to some
bad software I tried. It could also be related to the bad IR port I found
with Dell diagnostics before doing the reinstall. If that is the case, I
will probably wait.
I only chose to install the most critical updates and patches that i think
apply to my situation, not every one that is offered by the windows update
service.
Some security patches refer to vulnerabilities that require the attacker to
either be seated at my desk (but not have my user/pass) or plugged into my
LAN, or affect systems running IIS, or MS SQL server, etc. When those
situations don't apply, installing the patch is not wise, as it just might
break something other than fixing.
Click to expand...

I'm torn on skipping some of the critical updates. I use my computer in
a number of environments and a number of connections, so I am likely to say
a prayer and do all of the critical updates. I skip all of the optional ones
unless I am pretty sure I have a real need for it.
But my point was meant to be- installing fresh and then the latest service
pack is somewhat better than installing originally when product was out and
cumulatatively applying every patch that comesalong the way in sequnce.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense, but I still suspect that we would be better
off without needing so many patches. Software, being as complex as it is, is
always going to need patches, unfortunately.
 
tony said:
but if that is the sole purpose of life, it leads to an empty existance.
Just because you "take a helicopter to work" does not make one better
than one who takes a chevy to work.....

THe more you have the more you lose when the end comes......
Click to expand...

Yep, Denial is a tuff pill to swallow....
 
Jim Macklin said:
In 1950 the World Book had one comma in the amendment. By
1965 they had switched to two. The Britannica made a switch
a few years ago. For some reason, new editions of history
texts changed the punctuation. Congress did not send any
amendments to the States and there has been no
ratifications. But the Constitution has been changed by
what/who?
Click to expand...

I would suggest you get yourself a girlfriend.
 
I'd really like that, but my wife of 35 years objects.



in message
| | > In 1950 the World Book had one comma in the amendment.
By
| > 1965 they had switched to two. The Britannica made a
switch
| > a few years ago. For some reason, new editions of
history
| > texts changed the punctuation. Congress did not send
any
| > amendments to the States and there has been no
| > ratifications. But the Constitution has been changed by
| > what/who?
|
| I would suggest you get yourself a girlfriend.
|
|
 
I just wish that Bill Gates supported the Bill of Rights,
particularly the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

You mean where it says "well-regulated militia"? I didn't know Bill G
was for gun control but if he is, my estimation of him is raised
considerably
 
It says " A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In 1982 The ACLU used this version in the written testimony
to the Senate, (ACLU version) "A well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not
be infringed."

This is a complete sentence and can stand alone, "The right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


| On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:12:06 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
|
| >I just wish that Bill Gates supported the Bill of Rights,
| >particularly the Second Amendment.
|
| You mean where it says "well-regulated militia"? I didn't
know Bill G
| was for gun control but if he is, my estimation of him is
raised
| considerably
| --
| Get on the NRA Blacklist: http://www.NRAblacklist.com
 
I'm still wondering WTF that has to do with computers.

-
Jim Macklin stood up at show-n-tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
It says " A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In 1982 The ACLU used this version in the written testimony
to the Senate, (ACLU version) "A well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not
be infringed."

This is a complete sentence and can stand alone, "The right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
<snip>
 
Ah, you are expecting people to understand the difference between
independent and subordinate clauses. They don't teach that anymore.
 
Back
Top