As lots of us will keep XP pro until the end of time
you may find this interesting.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/03/10/wd_targets_windows_xp_4k/

Rita

Rita wrote:

> As lots of us will keep XP pro until the end of time
> you may find this interesting.
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/03/10/wd_targets_windows_xp_4k/

It's the same with Windows 2003 Server, but an easy workaround to get
the best performance. In fact aligning partitions correctly has been
giving performance improvements for quite a while in certain setups
plus of course SSDs have the same design (wear on writes being the
issue for SSDs than speed).

I don't know when the drives will actually stop pretending they're
using 512 byte sectors even though internally they're using 4KB but if
anyone is still using XP at that time then they do need to consider
upgrading!   Although given that Vista & Windows 7 are so much better
than XP I wouldn't wait that long

- Simon

"Simon Page" <simon@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:BAE76855-7DEA-4C29-A526-98C1BA436009@news.elevatesoft.com...
> upgrading!   Although given that Vista & Windows 7 are so much better
> than XP I wouldn't wait that long
>

Puke Vista shitsa better than XP sorry Simon I think thats a first.
Win 7 maybe but Vista lol end of convo.
Rita

Rita wrote:

> Puke Vista shitsa better than XP sorry Simon I think thats a first.
> Win 7 maybe but Vista lol end of convo.

Well I see there's no point in a long debate on the internals of Vista
and Windows 7 (which technically is very similar) versus XP

Each to their own, but Vista got a bad reputation mostly for failing to
run old software and poor 64bit apps, neither of which is the operating
systems fault. Time has allowed vendors to catch up and so Windows 7
causes less problems.

I do like the way though that MS has marketed Windows 7 (v6.1) as so
different to Vista (v6.0), but the server editions Windows Server 2008
and Windows Server 2008 r2 sound just a small revision apart

- Simon

Simon


>Each to their own, but Vista got a bad reputation mostly for failing to
>run old software and poor 64bit apps, neither of which is the operating
>systems fault.

True its Microsoft's. They told the OS what to do. I have both XP and Vista. Vista is OK on a T9300 with 3GB RAM and I think I've only had 1 BSOD in the time I've had it.

BUT, copying files over the network is now painfully slow, UAC has been turned off, virtualisation can be a nightmare. I could go on. The only advance Vista made was eye-candy and on one notebook that's switched off so it will run at a crawl.

>Time has allowed vendors to catch up and so Windows 7
>causes less problems.

Translation - people have to buy bigger hardware.

I'm not a luddite (much) but poor programming practices and the introduction of rubbish (.NET anyone) into PCs has resulted in an ever upward spiral of hardware needs for no real benefit.

Roy Lambert

Roy Lambert wrote:

> and the introduction of rubbish (.NET anyone)

Even a long term Delphi/C++/Assembler developer such as myself finds
some really good things in .NET (eg: WCF) - it's not all bad

Simon

Simon


I thought I'd have a look on the web for WCF. I did, found several links and know/understand less than I did when I started. Maybe I'm just getting old but the gibberish they spout these days reminds me of the jargon used by poor consultants to pretend they know what they are talking about and prevent anyone else even having a chance. Or as an alternative maybe they just studied with Sir Humphrey.

Roy Lambert

Roy,

<< I thought I'd have a look on the web for WCF. I did, found several links
and know/understand less than I did when I started. Maybe I'm just getting
old but the gibberish they spout these days reminds me of the jargon used by
poor consultants to pretend they know what they are talking about and
prevent anyone else even having a chance. Or as an alternative maybe they
just studied with Sir Humphrey. >>

Most of the jargon is not Microsoft's fault, exactly.  The hodge-podge of
tools and technologies is pretty much all down to the fact that we are
trying to take something designed as a document/presentation format (HTML)
and turn it into a coding/execution platform for presentation services.
That's why you need things like AJAX, JSON, and other technologies.  What we
all need is something like what Unix has had for years - a way to separate
out the presentation from the application logic and server layers, but
without being forced to code each layer using a different language.  What we
have now is the result of not having a well-thought-out design to start
with.  It's also why there still isn't a standard for low-level graphics on
the client-side yet, and why we have things like Flash and Silverlight
trying to fill that void.  They're essentially trying to recreate what Win32
has had for 15 years, and Win16 had for 6 years before that, and what Unix
has had for 25-30 years or more, but in a web browser.  Round and round we
go.....

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Tim

>Most of the jargon is not Microsoft's fault, exactly.

I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone in particular, more the industry in general. It may be that some of the phraseology is needed (a bit like some legal phraseology trying to be ultra precise) or it may be that people are trying to show off how clever they are. One thing I do believe is that there are many more out there who are capable of making a simple thing seem complicated than making a complicated thing understandable (and sometime simple).

I still remember one job offer I received, and why I received it. I was able to explain the MRP process to the MD & FD of the company, the other candidates had spouted a load of gibberish, which when analysed must have meant the same (after all MRP is MRP) but couldn't explain it.

The same seems to be happening in the computer world.

Just one old fogeys take.

Roy Lambert

"Roy Lambert" <roy.lambert@skynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:E03450A8-9E83-4368-909F-64F7ED1767DD@news.elevatesoft.com...
>
> I still remember one job offer I received, and why I received it. I was
> able to explain the MRP process to the MD & FD of the company, the other
> candidates had spouted a load of gibberish, which when analysed must have
> meant the same (after all MRP is MRP) but couldn't explain it.
>

Typical scenario in this country talk the talk or speak the speak.
Legions of Eton + Harrow boys that dont really know shit but
study the product so well and they speak so elegant the sales
made before they even get there.

> The same seems to be happening in the computer world.
>

You bet it is go over and over every thing u can, sound like u
actualy know. When they are looking at your demo some
old guy will ask a question based on something not even relevant
like a sale I did once.
The guy was about 70 not very computer savvy, asked can it handle
this Java we are interested in. Lucky for me his grandson jumped
and said grandad thats for our website. This is for the desktop.
Rita was biting back the laughter made the sale tho.

> Just one old fogeys take.
>

This old fogey thinks employ used car salesmen send them to
elocution lessons and burn the product into their brains.
Then someone will ask the MRP process

Rita