abarbarian Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 is windows 8.1 really slow for all users Well it is very slow to sell. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The only Windows 8 machine I've worked with had an AMD A8 quad core mobile APU and 8 GB of RAM. I was quite impressed with the speed and performance once I got rid of Metro with the Classic Shell add-in. Boot time was pretty good, and it was snappy. The machine was new. No time to slow down yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 is windows 8.1 really slow for all users Well it is very slow to sell. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 is windows 8.1 really slow for all users Well it is very slow to sell. hey , don't snark. W8.1 has outsold msVista. .. ,,, ,,,, ,,,,, okay snark away 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebrke Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 hey , don't snark. W8.1 has outsold msVista My impression is that everything but Microsoft Bob (wasn't that the name of that insane thing back in the 90s?) outsold Windows Vista. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 My impression is that everything but Microsoft Bob (wasn't that the name of that insane thing back in the 90s?) outsold Windows Vista. 'Bob' wasn't an OS, it was a 'skin'.My guess would be WinME is the least seller of the msWin OS's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I doubt Windows ME outsold Vista. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Windows ME is still for sale! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Microsoft-Windows-Me-Millenium-Edition-/321327435130?pt=US_Operating_Systems_Software&hash=item4ad09b8d7a Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 Well with Windows 8.2 and Windows 9 possibly coming this year I for one will not be jumping on the Windows 8.1 ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I'm pretty sure Vista outsold Windows ME. ME was an evolution of Windows 98, not really a new release. And there were a lot fewer PCs out there back then. ME was strictly a home user edition and only sold for about a year. Those were the days - 512 MB RAM was massive, 56K dial-up, floppy disks, CD-ROMs, discrete audio and video, AGP, IDE... Edited February 28, 2014 by raymac46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 hey , don't snark. W8.1 has outsold msVista . .. ,,, ,,,, ,,,,, okay snark away Well, since they both (Vista and Windows 8.1) only have garnered about 3-4% each of Windows users, that's not saying much. Windows XP still garners nearly 30% all by itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I'm pretty sure Vista outsold Windows ME. ME was an evolution of Windows 98, not really a new release. And there were a lot fewer PCs out there back then. ME was strictly a home user edition and only sold for about a year. Those were the days - 512 MB RAM was massive, 56K dial-up, floppy disks, CD-ROMs, discrete audio and video, AGP, IDE... Most computers in the ME days maxed out at 64mb of RAM. And HDD's were measured in MBs rather than GBs. Today's PCs have orders of magnitude more power than those of the late 90s. but Windows today is just as slow as it was then. :'( Edited February 28, 2014 by lewmur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Most computers in the ME days maxed out at 64mb of RAM. And HDD's were measured in MBs rather than GBs. Today's PCs have orders of magnitude more power than those of the late 90s. but Windows today is just as slow as it was then. :'( by 1999 harddrives were sold by the GBs and most pc's RAM maxed out well above 64mb (not so long ago was looking through ads in magazines from 98-00). We have W2K pc's still in operation at work and I can tell you that XP , W7 and W8 are way faster than W2K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 When drives first went larger, the sizes were not supported within the OSes and the drives had to be partitioned with smaller partitions with tools from the manufacturers to sizes that were supported. It wasn't until Windows 2000 that the tools were available within Windows to do something better with partitioning. In the 90s drives were typically below 1GB if you remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) by 1999 harddrives were sold by the GBs and most pc's RAM maxed out well above 64mb (not so long ago was looking through ads in magazines from 98-00). We have W2K pc's still in operation at work and I can tell you that XP , W7 and W8 are way faster than W2K. Things changed quickly but 1998 is still the "late 90's" and Win98 machines were as I described. And I can remember the hassle it was to get people to change from w2k to XP because w2k ran so much better. Just try running XP SP3 with only 512mb of RAM but that was more than enough for w2k. If you have machines that you feel are "way faster" the your w2k one, take a look at the hardware specs on the "faster" machines. I bet you dollars to doughnuts they are not even close. Edited February 28, 2014 by lewmur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveydoom Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Just try running XP SP3 with only 512mb of RAM I remember working on a PC about 7 years ago that was running XP (Service Pack 2 I believe) with only 64 mb of RAM . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) When drives first went larger, the sizes were not supported within the OSes and the drives had to be partitioned with smaller partitions with tools from the manufacturers to sizes that were supported. It wasn't until Windows 2000 that the tools were available within Windows to do something better with partitioning. In the 90s drives were typically below 1GB if you remember. I thought you people were old enough to remember Y2k. Anyway, I was on the 'front lines' so to speak (really need a better term for that) during Y2K on both hardware and software and worked at MSFT during the period. By late '98 companies were buying new pcs by the droves and in '99 it was just a massive wave of buying new pcs, all of which were significantly faster than mid-90s pc (and this was when WinME was being sold).A major problem wasn't just the disk sizes, it was also the CPU speeds and amount of RAM. Lots of programs were not able to handle the new resources. One of the favorite tricks we used was when person called up with a certain error message and we would go "how do you like your new pc?" and they go "how did you know?" Edited February 28, 2014 by crp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I thought you people were old enough to remember Y2k. Anyway, I was on the 'front lines' so to speak (really need a better term for that) during Y2K on both hardware and software and worked out at MSFT during the period. ... I built my first computer in 1978, so I've "been on the front lines" a lot longer than that. I was in the business even before B. Gates made his infamous remark that "no one will ever need more than 1mb or memory". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 My Win ME machine was a Dell Dimension 4100 - Pentium III 1 GHz. I spec'd it with 128 MB of RAM and soon added a second 128 MB module. The HDD was 40GB as I recall. Discrete audio, video and Ethernet cards. When I upgraded to XP I bought a couple of 256 MB SDRAM modules and maxed her out to 512MB. That machine kept me going until 2008 when a Pentium D 840 Dell Optiplex replaced it. These Dimension 4100s were great Linux Machines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 And man is it ever easy to get that crapware these days. I had what I thought was a useful little app called Battery Care on my laptop. The latest "update" comes with a pile of Conduit Search crap. Battery Care is now gonzo. Some days I wonder is it's worth running Windows at all. If you don't pay for Windows software, 90% of the time crapware comes with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Yeah, it's a mess! I run NoScript on Firefox and it helps to prevent a lot of that crapware. Sadly many people don't want the inconvenience of running an extension like NoScript. To me it's a must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlim Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 raymac46, when you download things for Windows, be very careful where you get them from. Here is BatteryCare from MajorGeeks http://www.majorgeek...atterycare.html click one of the links under downloads that says Download@MajorGeeks and it will be clean - guaranteed! If you find something that sounds interesting, start here http://www.majorgeeks.com/ scroll down until you see the search box in the left pane under the Files categories and type it in. Avoid CNet for any downloads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Definitely Liz! Getting things from known safe locations like MajorGeeks, BleepingComputer, and the developer's sites is definitely very important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlim Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Even Sourceforge started bundling junkware with Windows downloads, so do not download Windows programs from there. http://www.ghacks.net/2013/07/17/sourceforges-new-installer-bundles-program-downloads-with-adware/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Even Sourceforge started bundling junkware with Windows downloads, so do not download Windows programs from there. http://www.ghacks.ne...ds-with-adware/ Excuse me? I dl from SourceForge just about every week and in fact dl'ed from there last night. Maybe some projects are including bundled ware but I've yet to come across one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Just have to not download the .exe files apparently. If you download the zip files it doesn't have the Sourceforge Installer and thereby no crapware. from the ghacks article: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Even the Major Geeks download still had a recommendation to add the Search Protect crapware. I won't install anything that comes with that sort of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 If the install allows you to UNclick to install that crapware, then although annoying, it is generally safe to install the software. Even CCleaner generally will ask if you want to install other software; not crapware, but still...toolbars or security one off software, etc. are still unwanted software. They come pre-clicked, and you have to unclick the box during the install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Understood. But a McAfee scanner app is a long way from Conduit Search Protect. Of course you have the option to decline, but when a piece of garbage like Conduit is "recommended" during an install of something useful you have to wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlim Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I downloaded the BatteryCare program from MajorGeeks. I looked at the license screen and Open Candy is part of the license! I have to assume that the developer bundled this with the program. So because of that, I say avoid BatteryCare. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.