Apologies if this is an inappropriate place to post this. I'm sure there used to be a computer section in Susans' but can't find it now.
I'm all for change. But I have a problem with change for its own sake.
In computing, there are so many options out there, most are utterly terrible. Many seem to be incredibly popular, yet are still utterly terrible. Apple for example.
Over the years, I've had many suggestions that I should dump Micro$oft for alternatives. OK I tried Linux and it destroyed the BIOS on my last computer.
I like to stick with what I know, works. If it needs to be changed, then I do so, but otherwise, I need a good reason to change.
I have downloaded Google Chrome, along with the latest version of Google Earth, which I did need.
Get Google Chrome.
Compared to IE, it's like comparing an old bike to a car that doesn't have any dials or knobs, but will always get you there.
Can't add any more that that.
No OS can destroy your bios !
Chrome is a pretty nice browser though. We have it on all the boxes here (even the macs). Unfortunately in order to keep my Facebook login separate from my wife's on the mac's we split the browsers. She gets Chrome and I'm stuck with Safari. So I'm using safari if I'm on susan's. And of course any iPad browsing and posting is Safari.
I use chrome and I quite like it, but my Norton protection hates it. Every time it does a scan it removes all of my links. More a problem with Norton I think.
I've been using Linux (Red Hat, SUSE, and now Ubuntu) for many years and I've never encountered a distro that requires altering the BIOS or really that fiddles with it in any way. I did get a corrupt boot sector on my hard drive once while doing a fresh install, but a low-level reformat fixed it (easy to do with the utility provided on the install disk) and I was able to install properly on the second attempt. I've had more serious issues occur while installing Windows XP, to be honest.
That said, Linux is not the appropriate choice for everyone, just as Windows or Mac OS is not appropriate for everyone. You need to find what works best for you.
I haven't tried Google Chrome, but I'm quite happy with Firefox.
I've been using Firefox for the past few years, if possible, and I'm liking it. School's computers don't have it so that's basically the only time when I'm stuck with IE. ::)
And for some reason, Mom's computer's Firefox has problems with Youtube (most likely with Flash Player) so I gotta use IE to get there to have some music. :D
Awesome you found Chrome... I use that and Firefox for different things... I have all the browsers since I do web design. Explorer is awful and only around cuz it's proprietary and newbies start with it and get stuck there... too bad. Hope that changes one day.
I'd be lost without Firefox.
Quote from: Cindy James on December 19, 2011, 07:24:54 AM
I use chrome and I quite like it, but my Norton protection hates it. Every time it does a scan it removes all of my links. More a problem with Norton I think.
Yeah, Norton is just a virus. It's always telling you that your computer is at risk even though it isn't. AVG Anti-Virus for the win! plus it's free :)
On topic though, Google Chrome is by far the best and fastest browser in my opinion.
Quote from: BlonT on December 19, 2011, 06:44:34 AM
No OS can destroy your bios !
seconding this,there are some windows viruses which can attack the BIOS but even a botched linux installation will not screw up BIOS,the worst itd do is screw up the hard drive partitions and/or master boot record but theyre fixable problems.
in the present,linux has never been been better for 'newbies' to it,especialy with distros like linux mint which sacrifice a small size for making sure everything works from the off [with all codecs,good programs and so on],its proper bloatware though so needs a fairly decent computer to run it well.
the latest fedora linux [based on redhat] is superb and runs extremely well but it does-or did have an issue with the official ATI drivers.
backtrack linux is a personal favourite of mine but it is tailored towards people who are into penetration testing and are not afraid of the command line.
ubuntu is usualy a failsafe linux especialy when downloaded through WUBI,cant really go wrong with that installer.
have also got gentoo and freeBSD on mine but find dont go on them much.
woud recommend using a virtual machine such as virtualbox if want to try out linux or a *BSD,as it woud create a complete safety net around the installation and guarantee no damage on the outside of it.
as for browser,recommended favourites of mine are icecat [a fully free/GNU version of firefox,linux only],arora [windows and linux] and links-a command line only browser which offers some seriously oldskool browsing,but is invaluable if have got a rubbish internet connection as it will load a forum-when firefox for example woud not.
The version was called PCLinux OS which I bought from the linuxshop.co.uk. I didn't name it before because I couldn't find the original discs. I have recent tried to access the Linux shop, but have been warned by my browser that their security certificate isn't valid.
I can say, I installed it. Found it crashed my computer. Removed it and found I couldn't access the CD drive to reinstall Windows. Asking in the forum for this OS, my messages were repeatedly deleted. I eventually bought another computer.
Since then I have spoken to a number of different people and been advised that Linux will need to rewrite the BIOS because it works in a different way. That when it was removed, it failed to return my BIOS to its original state. I ahve also been advised there is a command line code I can enter but sadly I can't remember what it is and lost the paper on which I wrote it down. But no big deal. Down to experience.
I accept that that version of Linux is well known to the entire planet to be buggy, sadly, at the time, it was being widely recommended. (To put it mildly. It was said to be the Linux to finally replace Windows.). I accept that my computer is rather old, but at the time, it wasn't. I accept I could have done this or that, or gone to this or that, or bought this or that, but I didn't.
I installed a version of Linux. It destroyed my machine. The Forums were less helpful that an French waiter in an emergency and I will stick with Uncle Bill for now. (I'm just not ready to worship at the feet of Apple. I have found most Linux users to be rather overly keen and slightly fanatical, (in a Ho Humm, sort of way :icon_no: ).).
In a few years, it might be interesting to look at the sociology of computer OS's. M$ is the standard, of course, but the competitors, Linux and Apple, but seem to have developed their own brands of personal insanity, which is really quite amusing to those of us who just want something to do as it says on the tin, but blissfully unaware to those affected.
Just another reason to love you all. :)
Still running 'uncle Bill's' Windows ME... it does everything I need and lots I'd never even be bothered about.
Now how can be version 7 or now 8 yet THAT much better???
Working on some XP lap-tops I get the willies... they are sooo f***ing darn slow, compared to my ancient one.
Is this what's called progress? It seems that way...
Axélle
And still using Chrome. Still loving it.
One problem I did expect was perhaps some spyware and such, given the security tools seem to be considerable less, compared to IE.
But no, none at all. In fact, the worst thing to happen was that survey which someone asked us all to do, recently, wouldn't work on Chrome but did on IE.
Having used PCLinuxOS before I can also confrim, it can't hurt your BIOS, I mean your BIOS depending on computer is either a ROM that is erasable with UV light, or it is an EEPROM, that generally requires a jumper to be set to flash the BIOS. While in some PCs it is possible to get a program from the manufacturer to be able to upgrade the BIOS to another version, this in practice is exceedingly rare, the vast majority of computers never change any of their BIOS software from when they are purchased.
Basically, what I am saying is it is highly unlikely that any piece of software has ruined a BIOS. Basically if your computer turned on at all your BIOS was fine. If you could enter text anywhere your BIOS was fine. In fact, not booting off the CD drive just sounds like your boot order settings were off at most (i.e. The hard drive was set higher than the CD drive, meaning that it tries there first for a bootable disc, always finding one, it wouldn't try for the CD).
In any case, I use Debian Linux, and almost always the Browser Seamonkey (Iceape in debian speak) which is also like firefox from mozilla, but it is a full internet suite rather than just a browser (it composes HTML, has chat, email, etc). Seamonkey is just a great browser, way less memory use than firefox and thunderbird, and it does more than just those two programs.
Google chrome is okay, but I just hate the interface, That and Google is sort of omni present these days, they are kinda starting to scare me with that.
I so agree with you Axélle-Michélle. Like most people, I'm sure, I recall, when younger, being told, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's one of those pieces of advice that really only makes sense with arthritis.
My current computer had Vista when I bought it, but I got rid of that and loaded XP. My wife has Windows7 and it has redefined slow.
Thank you so much for the suggestions Hikari. I did carefully, set the BOOT order in the BIOS settings.
But I can see you're a faithful Linus user. ;D
Quote from: Axélle-Michélle on February 09, 2012, 07:18:50 AM
Still running 'uncle Bill's' Windows ME... it does everything I need and lots I'd never even be bothered about.
Now how can be version 7 or now 8 yet THAT much better???
Working on some XP lap-tops I get the willies... they are sooo f***ing darn slow, compared to my ancient one.
Is this what's called progress? It seems that way...
Axélle
While Windows ME is horrible from a number of technical standpoints (it leaks memory, and the security...) the fact of the matter is, it uses far less of your CPU and memory than XP, and 7 uses a fair bit more of both than XP. So yes, on the same hardware, each version does indeed get slower than the next. It is because they want you to believe that you need to buy a new computer every year. The Truth is though, a Commodore 64 can still do what it did in 1988 in 2012.
Quote from: Hikari on February 09, 2012, 07:41:27 AM
While Windows ME is horrible from a number of technical standpoints (it leaks memory, and the security...)
[clipped]
Can one stop the memory 'leak' - like put a 'plug' in it ...
And security... hum.
I think XP got already so convoluted that security might be even more challenged, more of on issue.
I recall the saying during some de-bugging/patching sessions: "With every patch the bugs get more subtle and more difficult to patch... i.e. every bug-fix only creates new bugs only more difficult to patch.
I think nothing has changed - neither the 'smoke ware' banded about by the 'wet ware' to keep on buying the next version in the hope the old bugs would be fixed...
Axélle
What seems startling obvious, yet few seem to be protesting about it, is the about of storage space needed for, even simple programs.
Many of us will recall, form the 80s a program called Word Perfect, which could do more than Word can even today, Amazing graphics, huge number of preinstalled languages, each with dictionary and translator, so on), yet upset a number of people at the time when we realised it needed 100 Mb of HD space!
But it is really about money. Which is, presumably why, Uncle Bill is the richest man in the world. I just wish things would work!
I think Uncle Bill has revolutionised marketing strategy even better than Mr Ford. By making software to do what you don't want it to do and need a new machine to do it on. Brilliant. And Mr Apple, I will make my computer prettier so buy me. Brilliant again.
Well, it isn't about money if you don't want it to be. I use about 95% free software, and while lots of groups and councils make decisions about that software, by and large it isn't about the money which is a breath of fresh air really. Though a fair deal of energy gets wasted on things like how a package manager should run, or why use BSD over Linux or vice versa, and trust me, those debates are very boring.
Though, I will say this, while Microsoft is in a firmly dominant position, if I were buying non free software it would definitely be Mac OS based (I already had a Hackintosh in the past). While Apple has a far more evil privacy policy, and makes updates kill your computer if they don't like what you are doing, and charge an arm and a leg for generic hardware..... I feel they make far better software, Mac OSX manages to be stable, look good, and be intuitive for newer users, and that is just amazing. But, I am not about to switch to Safari just yet, but luckily Seamonkey still runs on a Mac.
Honey, I'm more concerned about the constant required hardware updates & changes, having to throw good equipment into the rubbish because SW update dictates it.
There is no "free hard ware" for all I know... yes?
SW update always pushing for HW updates, that's the issue - IMHO
Axélle
I somehow totally missed Microsoft's DOS and Windows? I usually can repair it for others but please don't force me to use it, my autism and windows really hate each other: Windows is loud, noisy, busy, distracting, etc.
I started on an Amiga, then some open source unixes, I used to love Emacs, and finally ended up with MacOSX: Quiet, calming, not getting in the way, gentle, soft, etc. My only point of frustration: The way video buffers are handled on the new intel systems is worse then it ever was on the old powerpc systems *sigh*
And then this year I'm noticing that I'm using my iPad more and more? Somehow it just works without frustrating my sensory difficulties and the Mac has become the fall back whenever the iPad can't handle it or something requires a bit more privacy ;->
I'm using Safari on the iPad and Chrome (dev channel (http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel)) on the mac.
Quote from: Axélle-Michélle on February 11, 2012, 02:40:52 AM
Honey, I'm more concerned about the constant required hardware updates & changes, having to throw good equipment into the rubbish because SW update dictates it.
There is no "free hard ware" for all I know... yes?
SW update always pushing for HW updates, that's the issue - IMHO
Axélle
That basically is it and that's the real money spinner.
If it were any other industry, there would be laws against it.
I was well up on computer technology in the 80s, having been grounded in electronics, again, from an interest point of view.
The simple reason I got out of computers was because of the numbers of otherwise intelligent and certainly knowledgeable people who seemed incapable of understand the preposity of the constant and totally unnecessary hardware updates.
My first computer ran at a huge 1 MHz. My current computer is quad core and runs at 2.4 GHz. My current computer is reaching the end of its useful life! :laugh:
For the programmer the issue is a bit different. If some action (like search?) takes more then 1 minute then you will have to use it sparsely. When the same action takes only a fraction of a second [on new hardware], then this changes everything. Then stuff like e.g. "realtime search while you're typing the query" or "realtime updated folder view" become possible and that requires totally different user interfaces, totally different designs, etc.
So yes, we could still have computers with only monochrome command line text interfaces but I personally am very happy with my iPad ;-)
EDIT: edited for clarity, added text between []
With the greatest respect Artemis, that doesn't make a lot of sense. No-one is suggesting we have monochrome command line interfaces.
But as a programmer and I'm sure that like most programmers, you will have been studying your subject for a number of years, so will be fully aware of the changes that have taken place. We are all aware of the difference between the graphics of the 80s, where the best was 640x286 with 16 colours and today. That isn't the issue.
It's that demands from hardware are being continually extended, without any real benefit?
But it's academic, because, much like taxes and company bosses paying themselves a load, there isn't a lot we can do about it. And Uncle Bill is still the richest man in the world.
Software is always more valuable than hardware. The hardware you might buy once, but the expendables eat constant money. They all but give the printers away given how much you are going to spend on ink or toner. You buy one stereo, one DVD player, but how many CDs/DVDs?
And I've been running through both since my first Trash 80, but greater hardware and better software have made a lot of stuff possible now that wasn't before. The reason that long-time users don't often see it is because their needs/wants/demands are set so they are not out shopping around for new applications and programs. But editing software/and photo software with the increased speed of the hardware are just two areas where things were expanded to at least some benefit.
I don't doubt that Tekla, but the suspicion by many is that, while there have been enormous improvements, many of the increased hardware demands are intended to make machines obsolete.
Quote from: spacial on February 12, 2012, 05:51:37 AMIt's that demands from hardware are being continually extended, without any real benefit?
Well, I'm sure that you're right at least to some degree with regard to Microsoft. Note that the end-user isn't really Microsoft's costumer, MS makes most of their money from two types of costumers: OEMs and large enterprises. So Windows, Office and MSIE are written mostly with the needs and wants of these costumers in mind and this is clearly noticeable in the software, the end-user needs and wants are often marginalized by the priorities of the first two. And the OEM main priority is to sell NEW hardware? Especially because the PC market is mostly a low-value/high-volume commodity market maintaining the value of the old hardware is considered BAD for business.
In the long run however, advancement of technology does matter, it makes software possible that could not be work before. In Mac OS X Lion Apple added "(near) realtime autosave" which actually gives the user a lot of benefit, but this feature would have been impossible on slower hardware. The same applies to "smart folders", which are more or less "saved search queries, (near) realtime updated", which are only posible because a more RAM, faster CPUs and faster storage devices. Stuff like SSD replacing HDDs will also change the way software works because what would be logical and optimal on the HDD is stupid and wasteful on SSD? The same can be said of the move from single core systems towards multicore and maybe even the blending of the CPU with the GPU.
Note that while these advances do generates a lot of benefit, those benefits usually end up
somewhere else: doing something
new that wasn't posible before? There advancements only very rarely add any benefit to the things we where already doing before on much slower systems. So it's not really about improving whatever we where already doing... it's more about being able to do what was imposible before.
So I think we'er both right, each in our own way ;->