Alain Dekker wrote:
Its true that 9 years is a long time these days, but we should be more
demanding of our Operating Systems. Instead, everyone just rolls over and
says, "OK, I'll buy a new computer". Almost every update that Microsoft put
onto our computers, particularly .NET-related stuff, just eats into
hard-disk capacities and adds extra layers of unecesary gumpff to slow down
our PCs.

Same is true of rubbish put into the HKLMSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrent
VersionRun folder and Services and Startup folder by random software
producers, like Google and Adobe.

Is it really that much to ask that a great machine bought today is a good
machine in 10 years' time and a decent machine in 20? It wouldn't be if the
OS was lean and mean.


If all you wanted was a reliable machine to run a group of programs
competently for many years get a Unix system. What is killing the
performance of computers is the constant requirements for more graphics,
etc. I have programs that are over 20 years old that still do the job
they were designed for quickly on older hardware. If I gave in to the
mentality that they required all kinds of windows and drop downs the
programs would probably quit being as reliable or easy to use and
require a huge increase of computer power to run.


There is a lot you can do yourself, though, by cleaning up those areas
mentioned above.

Alain

"smlunatick" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, richs555 wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:21 pm, John John - MVP wrote:

Thank you both for your good advice. sounds like it's time to
upgrade. this "old faithful" desktop has been great but 9 yrs is like
63 in dog years. hope i live that long.

9 years is an "eternity" in computer years. You maxed out the
hardware and really maxed out the years.