New computer but win 7 or 8

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:24:40 +0100, mick wrote:

Gene E. Bloch :
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:04:39 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

...winston :
I've rarely used the Start Menu. Once the ability to pin to the
Taskbar, Jump Lists, and/or add the Quick Launch bar and in conjunction
with the simple method of searching (another Taskbar shortcut that open
'Search without the need to first open Explorer) the need to use the
Start Menu for routine tasks became unnecessary. Lol...and no my
desktop is not full of shortcuts (it has 5 total icons - iTunes,
Internet Explorer, SeaMonkey, my WordPress blog, and Computer)

That's five more than. :-)

You'd love my desktop. With the help of Fences I had nearly 150 icons
present on my desktop.

A couple of weeks ago, I decided that might possibly be overkill[1], so
I converted all 14 of the fences into folders.

My boot time is now only two or two and a half minutes instead of twice
that.

[1] Sponsored by the Department of Understatement Department.

You'd love my boot time. 18 seconds.

AAMOI how did the words "my desktop" get snipped from "That's five more
than my desktop"?

It takes me at least an hour to boot up every morning before I am ready
to go. 102 seconds for my computer to do the same feels like warp
speed to me LOL

I can't argue with that!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:34:34 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:29:23 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Gene E. Bloch :

My boot time is now only two or two and a half minutes instead of twice
that.

My personal view is that the attention many people pay to how long it
takes to boot is unwarranted. Assuming that the computer's speed is
otherwise satisfactory, it is not generally worth worrying about. Most
people start their computers once a day or even less frequently. In
the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.

I don't operate that way.

And when I need to reboot to do something, e.g., complete an
installation or make a setting stick, 2.5 minutes is better than 5,
although still not great.

That said, I don't really care enough to spend so much time solving the
remaining 2.5 minutes that it will take 5.37 years to amortize.

BTW, the change I talked about above was free, in that the idea occurred
to me out of the blue and I wanted to reorganize the desktop anyway.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:29:23 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Gene E. Bloch :
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:04:39 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

...winston :
I've rarely used the Start Menu. Once the ability to pin to the
Taskbar, Jump Lists, and/or add the Quick Launch bar and in conjunction
with the simple method of searching (another Taskbar shortcut that open
'Search without the need to first open Explorer) the need to use the
Start Menu for routine tasks became unnecessary. Lol...and no my
desktop is not full of shortcuts (it has 5 total icons - iTunes,
Internet Explorer, SeaMonkey, my WordPress blog, and Computer)

That's five more than. :-)

You'd love my desktop. With the help of Fences I had nearly 150 icons
present on my desktop.

A couple of weeks ago, I decided that might possibly be overkill[1], so
I converted all 14 of the fences into folders.

My boot time is now only two or two and a half minutes instead of twice
that.

[1] Sponsored by the Department of Understatement Department.

You'd love my boot time. 18 seconds.

I forgot to say this about your boot time: Grrrrrr.

Nothing serious, just extreme jealousy :-)

AAMOI how did the words "my desktop" get snipped from "That's five more
than my desktop"?

About boot time: I really don't know how to measure it, meaning when to
start and stop my stopwatch, or whether instead, there's an app for
that. So I don't promise consistency - but with my 150 seconds compared
to your 18 seconds, there's a bit of room for some methodological
inconsistency :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:01:11 -0400, charlie wrote:

On 4/13/2013 7:03 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
I could compare a couple of cars in an objective
fashion.

I tried this some time ago with a "real" sound level meter.
It turned out that there was quite a bit of variation between cars of
the same make and model.

Thanks. Not totally surprising, and it might help figure out which side
of that divide my car is on compared to its siblings.

Hopefully, if my methods are consistent, including the tool I use, then
the indications should be useful even without a professional meter.
Unless the phone and its app aren't sensitive enough to give a reading
when I get around to trying it :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:35:50 -0500, Larry__Weiss wrote:

And, folks will compare it to the time it takes to start up their tablet
or cellphone.

That "instant gratification" pursuit.

Apples and oranges there. Not only are phones and tablets booting from
SSDs, but almost always when you "start up" your phone or tablet, it's
just dehibernating (and from an SSD!) -- if you ever have to "reset" the
device because something stopped working properly (a friend's iPhone
needs this from time to time because Safari gets into a wonky state
occasionally), you'll see how long it truly takes to boot up (for that
iPhone it's about 30 seconds to 1 minute, faster than a PC but again,
it's booting from SSD, and it sure as hell isn't instant). The "reset"
procedure is the eqivalent of actually choosing "Restart" from the "Shut
down" menu on a Windows PC.

Even letting the battery go dead usually won't result in a true reboot
when it's recharged. Phones and tablets sense low battery and gracefully
hibernate to their SSD, usually, then refuse to dehibernate again until
the battery's charged back up above some threshold.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:25:05 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.

Did you manage to kill the 'hot zone' in the upper left corner and the other
W8 zone along the right edge of the screen that pops out the multiple icons?
Also, were you able to kill the capability to switch UI's when pressing the
Windows key by itself?

Until I can completely hide the new UI, I'm still recommending Win7 to the
people who ask me, so it would be nice to address these last few items.

--

Char Jackson

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:07:42 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:13:05 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

I agree with you to a point. I had Win8 for a while but then started
over for reasons other then the OS and went back to Win7. I just
could not see any advantage to win8 for Desktop use. The plus's, what
few there were, were in very small performance improvements and some
nice (but not critically needed) improvements in some of the native
apps. The Cons included the horrible look to Win8, it was like going
back in time to Win3 with zero finesse in the "looks" aspect.


What you call "the horrible look" isn't there on my machine. Please
reread my message quoted above, and let me repeat "I use Windows 8,
almost exclusively with the traditional desktop interface, and with
Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use my computer, you
would have a hard time realizing that it's not Windows 7. "

In addition to the things I asked about in a previous post, is there a way
(a theme, perhaps?) that takes the Win8 "square-windows Win3-look" and makes
the windows look more like Win 7?

--

Char Jackson

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:09:52 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:10:16 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Ken Blake :
I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.

Interesting... exactly how *would* I discover that it's not W7?


As always, hold down the Windows key, and press Pause|Break. Or just
look around enough and you'll see a few small differences. But there
aren't many and they are small.

The Windows key, by itself, is enough to switch UI's. I'd like to disable
that single key press and make it require a double key press so as not to
trigger it inadvertently.

--

Char Jackson

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:19:25 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:42:50 -0700, Tecknomage
wrote:


The thing to remember about Win8 is that it is primarily optimized for
*touch-screen* hardware. Desktop PC with touch-screen monitor or
tablet PC. It has a smart-phone like GUI.


As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing to remember is that
it has *two* interfaces. The one you are talking about (the
"smart-phone like GUI") is only the default one, and one that doesn't
have to ever be used.

Consider this an open invitation to explain how the new UI "doesn't
have to ever be used". I've got it down to a minimum, but so far I can't
avoid it entirely, although I would like to.

--

Char Jackson

Ken Blake wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:10:02 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:


I consider long boot times as indicative of a lot of crap I don't need
being loaded and taking up precious RAM that could better be used
for something else.


Bear in mind that if you load a program and don't use it, the RAM it
took up is very quickly paged out. So what you say isn't necessarily
correct at all.

If it's not used, it's a waste of time to load it, and it shouldn't
be regardless of what the system does with idle processes.

If I start an app or applet at boot time, it means it's necessary and
will most likely be in use immediately like an antimalware utility or
firewall. I consider "quick launch" stubs a waste of RAM. So, it
takes a few seconds longer to load an app. Big deal. Also, application
background auto-updaters are removed from the boot startup. (I do have
the system updater running, but in "Notify" mode. It's important.)

I like fast, lean, efficient systems. I even "turn off" much of the eye
candy, so even that crap doesn't get loaded. Unfortunately,
Microsoft's policy is the exact opposite. By default, everything is
loaded including the kitchen sink. Functionality is secondary. No
wonder, Windows has always been such a resource hog.


Stef

Stef wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:10:02 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:


I consider long boot times as indicative of a lot of crap I don't need
being loaded and taking up precious RAM that could better be used
for something else.


Bear in mind that if you load a program and don't use it, the RAM it
took up is very quickly paged out. So what you say isn't necessarily
correct at all.

If it's not used, it's a waste of time to load it, and it shouldn't
be regardless of what the system does with idle processes.

If I start an app or applet at boot time, it means it's necessary and
will most likely be in use immediately like an antimalware utility or
firewall. I consider "quick launch" stubs a waste of RAM. So, it
takes a few seconds longer to load an app. Big deal. Also, application
background auto-updaters are removed from the boot startup. (I do have
the system updater running, but in "Notify" mode. It's important.)

I like fast, lean, efficient systems. I even "turn off" much of the eye
candy, so even that crap doesn't get loaded. Unfortunately,
Microsoft's policy is the exact opposite. By default, everything is
loaded including the kitchen sink. Functionality is secondary. No
wonder, Windows has always been such a resource hog.


Stef

For the most part that's true. With Windows 8 a few changes (MSFT calls
them features) come into play. Win8 includes a Fast Boot feature to
significantly reduce shutdown to startup signon time. The feature can be
turned off, if not it uses the hibernate file to speed up the process
(which is actually quite significant).

Though, as you've noted, operating lean and efficient usually trumps bloat.

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 4/14/2013 8:01 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:25:05 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I use Windows 8, almost exclusively with the traditional desktop
interface, and with Start 8 installed. If you were to look at and use
my computer, you would have a hard time realizing that it's not
Windows 7.

Did you manage to kill the 'hot zone' in the upper left corner and the other
W8 zone along the right edge of the screen that pops out the multiple icons?
Also, were you able to kill the capability to switch UI's when pressing the
Windows key by itself?

Until I can completely hide the new UI, I'm still recommending Win7 to the
people who ask me, so it would be nice to address these last few items.

I seem to recall when using Start8 that in the setup options there is
the option to kill the hot zones. I can't verify that since I no longer
use Win8 and have reverted back to Win7.

On 12.04.2013 04:13, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I agree with you to a point. I had Win8 for a while but then started
over for reasons other then the OS and went back to Win7. I just
could not see any advantage to win8 for Desktop use. The plus's, what
few there were, were in very small performance improvements and some
nice (but not critically needed) improvements in some of the native
apps. The Cons included the horrible look to Win8, it was like going
back in time to Win3 with zero finesse in the "looks" aspect. If I
was going to be the unpaid support for someone and I was running Win7
I would want them to be running win7 also, esp on a desktop.

You should not forget that Windows 8 has got a lot of invisible
improvements under the hood. It includes a much better handling of
current hardware and has cleaned up quite a lot of all the mess that
accumulated over the years. The FAT times are over...

With a "classic shell", using almost exclusively the desktop and with a
with few tweaks (reduce the frame thickness, reclaim the quick links),
you will not find a lot of difference.
OK the graphics are a bit less "piano-lacked", but honestly who cares?

I really enjoy on the other side the shorter boot times, the longer time
on battery and the new rescue functionalities, the overdue improvements
in the copy functionalities is also very welcome.

And -from time to time- I even go for the modern view e.g. to have a
look at the newspaper sites, which are refreshingly clean, compared to
their ad-cluttered IE or Chrome counterpart. Guess that this will not
last very long...




--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

....winston wrote:

Stef wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:10:02 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:


I consider long boot times as indicative of a lot of crap I don't need
being loaded and taking up precious RAM that could better be used
for something else.


Bear in mind that if you load a program and don't use it, the RAM it
took up is very quickly paged out. So what you say isn't necessarily
correct at all.

If it's not used, it's a waste of time to load it, and it shouldn't
be regardless of what the system does with idle processes.

If I start an app or applet at boot time, it means it's necessary and
will most likely be in use immediately like an antimalware utility or
firewall. I consider "quick launch" stubs a waste of RAM. So, it
takes a few seconds longer to load an app. Big deal. Also, application
background auto-updaters are removed from the boot startup. (I do have
the system updater running, but in "Notify" mode. It's important.)

I like fast, lean, efficient systems. I even "turn off" much of the eye
candy, so even that crap doesn't get loaded. Unfortunately,
Microsoft's policy is the exact opposite. By default, everything is
loaded including the kitchen sink. Functionality is secondary. No
wonder, Windows has always been such a resource hog.


Stef

For the most part that's true. With Windows 8 a few changes (MSFT calls
them features) come into play. Win8 includes a Fast Boot feature to
significantly reduce shutdown to startup signon time. The feature can be
turned off, if not it uses the hibernate file to speed up the process
(which is actually quite significant).

As I understand it, Fast Boot is no more than a super sleep mode. The
system still remains powered--not totally turned off as when
hibernating--but uses much less power than the traditional sleep mode.
However, if you leave a tablet or notebook in this state long enough,
the battery will run down. Fast Boot is Microsoft marketing hype.

Stef

Stef wrote:
...winston wrote:

Stef wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:10:02 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:


I consider long boot times as indicative of a lot of crap I don't need
being loaded and taking up precious RAM that could better be used
for something else.

Bear in mind that if you load a program and don't use it, the RAM it
took up is very quickly paged out. So what you say isn't necessarily
correct at all.
If it's not used, it's a waste of time to load it, and it shouldn't
be regardless of what the system does with idle processes.

If I start an app or applet at boot time, it means it's necessary and
will most likely be in use immediately like an antimalware utility or
firewall. I consider "quick launch" stubs a waste of RAM. So, it
takes a few seconds longer to load an app. Big deal. Also, application
background auto-updaters are removed from the boot startup. (I do have
the system updater running, but in "Notify" mode. It's important.)

I like fast, lean, efficient systems. I even "turn off" much of the eye
candy, so even that crap doesn't get loaded. Unfortunately,
Microsoft's policy is the exact opposite. By default, everything is
loaded including the kitchen sink. Functionality is secondary. No
wonder, Windows has always been such a resource hog.


Stef

For the most part that's true. With Windows 8 a few changes (MSFT calls
them features) come into play. Win8 includes a Fast Boot feature to
significantly reduce shutdown to startup signon time. The feature can be
turned off, if not it uses the hibernate file to speed up the process
(which is actually quite significant).

As I understand it, Fast Boot is no more than a super sleep mode. The
system still remains powered--not totally turned off as when
hibernating--but uses much less power than the traditional sleep mode.
However, if you leave a tablet or notebook in this state long enough,
the battery will run down. Fast Boot is Microsoft marketing hype.

Stef

This is a subset of all the options on your Windows 8 setup:

1) Select "Hibernate" from the menu.
Computer shuts down. Computer does not need to maintain a source
of power. You can unplug it if you want.

Windows 8 stores Kernel + Applications in the Hibernation file.
Windows 8 sets the hardware state bit (BIOS level), to hibernate,
so the BIOS immediately returns to the same boot disk choice on
the next startup (i.e. BIOS immediately starts restoring, rather
than listening to your pathetic attempts to change OSes).

2) Select "Shutdown" from the menu.
Computer shuts down. Computer does not need to maintain a source
of power. You can unplug it if you want.

Windows 8 stores Kernel in the Hibernation file.

Windows 8 sets the hardware state bit (BIOS level), to hibernate,
so the BIOS immediately returns to the same boot disk choice on
the next startup. [In my opinion, this is a design mistake, and
should not have been done that way.]

This option is a "Fast Boot". No applications will be running,
when you first see the desktop.

3) If you modify your OS, such that Fast Boot (2) is disabled,
then when you select "Shutdown", nothing is recorded. This
is termed a "Full Shutdown". On next boot, the BIOS goes
through all the normal boot selection options. Windows 8
kernel boots, by reading a gazillion small files from C:,
and so (3) is slower than (2).

The behavior in (2), is new to Windows 8. Other OSes, like WinXP,
use (1) and (3). WinXP doesn't have an option to just hibernate
the kernel (but you can fake it, by quitting all applications,
and then hibernating as in (1) ).

And all of the above, have nothing to do with Suspend To RAM,
which is an option for even faster restoration, based on
the session being stored in the RAM, and maintained by
+5VSB power source. Options in that case include the
classical "Suspend To RAM" S3, or the newer "Hybrid S3",
where for emergencies, the hibernation file also has the
session recorded in it. In the Hybrid approach, if you
accidentally turn the power off, you can still recover.
It's just slower. Best case, Hybrid S3 picks up from
the session stored in RAM, so most of the time, you
get fast startup.

I'm not even sure which OSes support the Hybrid S3 approach
(which is effectively a mixture of both S3 and S4 approaches).
Says here, it started with Vista.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_mode#Hybrid_sleep

Also, another source of confusion, there are *three* big
files in the root of C:, on Windows 8. But the smallest
of the three, isn't what you think it is. And since there
is no official documentation for this at Microsoft,
I can't say much more about it. Plenty of people have
*guessed* at the purpose of the files, but nobody at
Microsoft has verified it.

Paul