If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
In message , 98 Guy writes:
[] I realize that the vast majority of people are handicapped in that they don't have the intelligence or skill or experience or clue about building their own PC, and hence they are a slave to what-ever is A _little_ arrogant: true in probably the majority of cases, but also the limitation of hardware availability. Not everyone has the money - or knowledge to know which is going to remain a "good" choice - to lay in stockpiles of components (motherboards, etc.) for which older OS drivers (even XP, let alone 98) are available. available to them at the retail level - which usually means they have no choice about which version of Windows will be forced on them when they buy a new PC. Certainly agree with you the if I went to most of my local outlets, I doubt I could find a Windows 7 machine now. I also realize that the desktop PC itself is a dying segment of the "personal computer" product space - with that space being taken over by hand-held devices (phones, tablets, etc) and dwindling number of laptops and netbooks. Indeed. And home-build of laptops/netbooks isn't really possible for the average punter. This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything 2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. Win-98 can "see" and use at most 1192 mb of ram, and it can't boot if the system has more than 1.5 gb of physical ram. But that's not the point. It can be for some ... For the vast majority of desktop-computer use-case situations, a win-98 system with 512 mb of ram can accomplish quite a bit (lots of open windows and running programs). That's because unlike NT-based windows, win-98 doesn't need a lot of ram to run lots of completely bloated and unnecessary processes and services. Well, say, transcoding HR video in something approaching real-time will make it squeak a bit. As to whether this constitutes "the vast majority", there is a lot of truth in what you say - but also, what you do _is_ tailored at least to some extent by what you know you _can_ do - though it hurts to admit it. (Certainly, most of what I do - email, usenet, and genealogy - could be done perfectly well under Windows 3.1, or even DOS, though I like task-switching to be available. But I probably _would_ do more with, say, video, if I had more powerful hardware [with bigger discs], and a larger internet monthly limit.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC salesslump
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
I realize that the vast majority of people are handicapped in that they don't have the intelligence or skill or experience or clue about building their own PC, and hence they are a slave to what- ever is A _little_ arrogant: true in probably the majority of cases, but also the limitation of hardware availability. A limitation at the retail level - yes. Although there are glaring exceptions. I posted this here in this newsgroup last August: ----------- Subject: Asrock reviving production of win-98 compatible motherboard (775i65G R3.0) It appears that Asrock is reviving the production of this 5-year-old motherboard: http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.as...ecificatio ns This is a micro-atx form-factor board, with Intel socket-775 CPU support. It has the Intel 865/ICHR-5 chipset, AGP slot for video, and DDR-1 memory. Has on-board video and SATA controller. If you can find DDR ram these days, you'll pay 2 to 3 times the price per gb vs DDR2/DDR3. And finding any socket-775 CPU's these days isin't easy. But if you can find the ram and the CPU, and if you want to run win-98 on a respectible motherboard, then if you can find this board - I suggest you buy it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157338 ================== The newegg link still works - they list the board at $60. So if you want to buy a "new" motherboard at retail that comes with full win-98 drivers, you can. But that's not your only option if you want to run win-98 on "modern" hardware. Any system based on socket-478 motherboard is garanteed to run win-98 and will have a full set of drivers available for it (if you look for them). For the vast majority of desktop-computer use-case situations, a win-98 system with 512 mb of ram can accomplish quite a bit (lots of open windows and running programs). Well, say, transcoding HR video in something approaching real-time will make it squeak a bit. As to whether this constitutes "the vast majority", there is a lot of truth in what you say - And as I say, your example is not a typical use-case situation (although the open-source VideoLan player can perform transcoding, and it does run under win-98 with KernelEx). but also, what you do _is_ tailored at least to some extent by what you know you _can_ do - though it hurts to admit it. The last major change to "what I do regularly with my win-98 computer" was to become a heavy Skype user - and yes, at least the slightly older versions of skype run just fine under win-98 with Kex. What have I encountered recently that I wanted to do - but couldn't - on my win-98 system? I downloaded some music CD's that had been ripped from SACD source disks and saved as iso images. The only player that seems to be able to play them is Foobar 2000 - with the addition of foo_input_sacd.dll. I could not get foobar 2000 to work with that DLL on my win-98 system with Kex. But honestly - there really isin't a lot of stuff that I really want to do, or certainly NEED to do, on a win-98 system that I can't do. I certainly won't claim that win-98 is an appropriate visual-studio-6 software development platform, but again that's not what I use win-98 for. And most certainly I can still admit that even the ancient Firefox 2.0.0.20 is a perfectly usable browser today - given the fact that I have the most recent versions of Flash player and version 6 of Java JRE installed (again with the help of Kex). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:51 -0000, "Stanley Daniel de Liver"
wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:36:14 -0000, wrote: [snipped] Personally, I can do everything with Win98 that I can do with XP and up. All my (mostly older) software works just fine and is used to be productive. Where Win98 is failing today, is with the internet, and only with the internet. The new websites (with all their bloat), wont run well on older browsers, and newer browsers wont run on Win98. But I think that's all planned, to force us to upgrade to all this newer crap. [snipped] New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything 2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress. But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA. I know the newest hardware wont have the drivers, but 98 dont need the power these new systems offer. I repeat this often, and will say so again. "Everytime faster computer hardware is developed, MS sucks the speed backwards with their excessively large and bloated OSs". In other words, in terms of actual speed, Win98 runs just as fast on older, less powerful hardware than the newer OSs run on the faster hardware. So, what is happening is that the actual usable speed of computers never really gets faster, because the newest OSs, suck up all the extra power. I'm running win98se on a 1000mhz P3 CPU, with 512 megs Ram. I know I could upgrade to a faster MB, and may do so, but it cant be the newest system. Yes, this is a semi-homemade system. My previous computer was all homemade, but this is a modified IBM system. My former system was kind of slow. It was 512 mhz or something like that. But this one is plenty fast for me. Oddly enough, I know someone who has a Dell computer with a Quad core P4 MB. It has XP installed. That thing is slower than molasses in January. I can out type the thing in speed, using notepad. My Win98 system 1000mhz P3 is MUCH faster. I'm satisfied with my speed, so I see no reason to get faster hardware, but I might build a faster system if I find a faster MB compatible with 98 (drivers). That would just be for the heck of it, since I dont really need the extra speed. But I wouldn't trade this computer for 10 of those Quad core Dells with XP. These new systems may be "called" progress, but are they really? After all, what is really needed by the average user, compared to what they shove in our faces is not balanced. Except for the gamers, most of us dont need all this power they now have. Add to that the fact these new systems are power hungry on the electric bill. That Dell for example, could be used to heat a small house. It has 3 or 4 fans. I know this because their CPU fan died. That CPU was getting hot enough to fry and egg, and then shutdown the system. I tested it by putting a window fan next to it, and a cardboard shroud to divert the air to the CPU. Then it stayed running, so I had the owner get a new fan, and I replaced it for them. Progress is when needs are balanced with practicallity. Progress for one person is cutting down on their electric bill. For another it's the fastest computer. I dont care to pay higher electric bills, overwork the AC in the summer to spit the heat from the computer outdoors. And making things complicated and bloated is not progress either. Computers were supposed to make our lives easier. I've always questioned that, because back in the 90's I spend hours and hours learning computers and screwing with them, and programming them, etc.... Most of what I saved was a pile of paper on my desk and some ink pens. But at the same time, I enjoyed the computers back then, learned to be artistic with paint programs and do other things that I did not do before computers. Not to mention the internet became useful. But all of that came at a cost too. Buying the hardware, the software, the added electricity, etc. And computers can create a huge mess in ones life if they fail, and the user has no backups of personal data. Computers are here to stay, and they can be fun, but when someone says they made life easier, I have to say that's not always true. They have made some tasks easier, and given us access to librairies of info on the internet that we never had before, But one needs to think of all the costs and time spent setting up, learning, and using the computer. Are we really ahead? It's just like these air powered nail guns that the builders use these days. I worked in construction for years and I can drive a nail quickly and easily with a plain old hammer. Then one day someone handed me a nailgun. They were supposed to be progress. OK, they did put in a nail a little faster than I could do by hand. However, there is another side to this. It takes time to carry around a heavy air compressor, set it up, drag out hoses, load the gun, and then wait for the compressor to get enough pressure, which often meant waiting every 5 minutes for it to build up enough air, if the compressor is a little undersized. Then there is the added electricity needed to run it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything 2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress. Microsoft has a chart he http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx ....that covers memory limits from XP on. Basically: - Win7x64 can use up to 192gb (limited by how much $ was spent on Windows) - Server 2008 R2 can use up to 2tb (no x86 version) - Win8x64 can use up to 512gb - Server 2012 can use up to 4tb (no x86 version) None of those do *me* any good; my only x64 workstation seems to be limited to 1gb (it's a BIOS problem; it reports the installed RAM as 768mb (incorrect!) and XP reports "704 MB" in System Properties... sigh). But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA. I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I *had* to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would not* use), it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly. -- I'll just trot on down to the end of the line and wait for my head to explode. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
wrote: Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote: New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything 2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress. Are they really progress? Win98 never needed all that memory. I can esily run 10 different programs at once and have 25 browser windows open at the same time. That's when things start running slow, but that is really an overload, and I need to close some stuff. I have 512 megs of RAM. Win98 does not need more than that to run well. But these new OSs suck all the RAM power before a program is even opened. I still cant see any advantage to these newer OSs, except lots of useless bloat. Well, Ok, to be honest and fair, the newer OSs did fix the USB support that 98 lacks. And the newer OSs allow for huge file sizes, which 98 did not. However I have never had any file even close the the limit (I forget what the limit is). Microsoft has a chart he http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx ...that covers memory limits from XP on. Basically: - Win7x64 can use up to 192gb (limited by how much $ was spent on Windows) - Server 2008 R2 can use up to 2tb (no x86 version) - Win8x64 can use up to 512gb - Server 2012 can use up to 4tb (no x86 version) None of those do *me* any good; my only x64 workstation seems to be limited to 1gb (it's a BIOS problem; it reports the installed RAM as 768mb (incorrect!) and XP reports "704 MB" in System Properties... sigh). But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA. I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I *had* to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would not* use), it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly. Having Win2000 as my dual boot, I will say that it's not all that hard to use, but was the beginning of the annoying NT system. It began that nasty NTFS drive format, which I refuse to use. It began that stupid folder called "Documents and Settings", which contains "Administrators", "All Users", and "Default User". (This is one very irritating thing for me, because I never know which one contains what, and most are repeats......). After all, this computer is only used by me, I'm the ONLY user, all of thse should be in ONE folder. Then there came XP with all the stupid questions. Everyting I want to do, has a "do you really want to ______". I get ****ed at that ****. I didnt hit the button to do _____ just for the hell of it... And then comes the bootup and shutdown times. Both 2000 and XP seem to take forever compared to 98. Hell, on my laptop with XP, I might just turn it on for one minute, because I left myself a note, such as someone's phone number. I read the note and shut off, then I'm forced to hit TWO shutdown buttons (as if one isn't enough), and then I watch it say "savings settings". WHAT SETTINGS? Not one ****ing thing was changed, I read a phone number, nothing else.... Thats what I like most about 98. I have it set to boot to dos. 20 seconds later I open my text file that contains my notes, and shut off the computer. If I want to enter Win98, I "WW" which is my batch file to start windows (actually it just runs WIN.COM). You cant do this in W2000 or XP. You got to go thru the entire bootup process, waste several minutes waiting for it to boot, and then go thru the shutdown hassle. This is not progress! It should not take 5 minutes to access a tiny text file, and shut down. Win2000 was irritating, XP seriously annoys me, I dont even want to imagine how I'd feel about Win7 or 8.... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
homeowner wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__" wrote: Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote: New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything 2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress. Are they really progress? Win98 never needed all that memory. I can esily run 10 different programs at once and have 25 browser windows open at the same time. That's when things start running slow, but that is really an overload, and I need to close some stuff. I have 512 megs of RAM. Win98 does not need more than that to run well. Depends on what you're doing. I can easily imagine a situation where that much just isn't enough. But these new OSs suck all the RAM power before a program is even opened. I still cant see any advantage to these newer OSs, except lots of useless bloat. Well, Ok, to be honest and fair, the newer OSs did fix the USB support that 98 lacks. And the newer OSs allow for huge file sizes, which 98 did not. However I have never had any file even close the the limit (I forget what the limit is). 2GB. About the only thing that gets that big right now is databases, movies, and DVD images. But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA. I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I *had* to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would not* use), it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly. Having Win2000 as my dual boot, I will say that it's not all that hard to use, but was the beginning of the annoying NT system. Well, if you want to be accurate, NT dates back to the early 90's, contemporary with Win3x. It began that nasty NTFS drive format, which I refuse to use. Has its good points. If I was using a computer with *just* NT installed, I'd use it... but the only thing I have that is *only* NT is my Win7 tablet. (Vista+ won't install on FAT drives, so in my case it's a moot point.) It began that stupid folder called "Documents and Settings", which contains "Administrators", "All Users", and "Default User". (This is one very irritating thing for me, because I never know which one contains what, and most are repeats......). After all, this computer is only used by me, I'm the ONLY user, all of thse should be in ONE folder. Can always run as the Administrator, and rename the account as you wish. Just sayin'. Then there came XP with all the stupid questions. Everyting I want to do, has a "do you really want to ______". I get ****ed at that ****. I didnt hit the button to do _____ just for the hell of it... ....but many people *do* hit things by accident. And then comes the bootup and shutdown times. Both 2000 and XP seem to take forever compared to 98. Hell, on my laptop with XP, I might just turn it on for one minute, because I left myself a note, such as someone's phone number. I read the note and shut off, then I'm forced to hit TWO shutdown buttons (as if one isn't enough), and then I watch it say "savings settings". WHAT SETTINGS? Not one ****ing thing was changed, I read a phone number, nothing else.... But XP doesn't know that. It doesn't have a way to verify that nothing was changed from startup to shutdown. Bad decision by MS, maybe, but them's the way it is. Thats what I like most about 98. I have it set to boot to dos. 20 seconds later I open my text file that contains my notes, and shut off the computer. If I want to enter Win98, I "WW" which is my batch file to start windows (actually it just runs WIN.COM). You saved yourself 1 keytroke. Bravo. (Why not just name it 'w'?) You cant do this in W2000 or XP. You got to go thru the entire bootup process, waste several minutes waiting for it to boot, and then go thru the shutdown hassle. This is not progress! It should not take 5 minutes to access a tiny text file, and shut down. Win2000 was irritating, XP seriously annoys me, I dont even want to imagine how I'd feel about Win7 or 8.... I've read that 8 has really improved startup times; supposedly at least on par with 9x. -- So when the **** did you get a master's degree, you ninja? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:51:55 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
wrote: homeowner wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__" wrote: Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote: New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything 2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress. Are they really progress? Win98 never needed all that memory. I can esily run 10 different programs at once and have 25 browser windows open at the same time. That's when things start running slow, but that is really an overload, and I need to close some stuff. I have 512 megs of RAM. Win98 does not need more than that to run well. Depends on what you're doing. I can easily imagine a situation where that much just isn't enough. Some pretty detailed graphic editing and sound file editing. But these new OSs suck all the RAM power before a program is even opened. I still cant see any advantage to these newer OSs, except lots of useless bloat. Well, Ok, to be honest and fair, the newer OSs did fix the USB support that 98 lacks. And the newer OSs allow for huge file sizes, which 98 did not. However I have never had any file even close the the limit (I forget what the limit is). 2GB. About the only thing that gets that big right now is databases, movies, and DVD images. Ok, I dont do any of that. But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA. I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I *had* to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would not* use), it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly. Having Win2000 as my dual boot, I will say that it's not all that hard to use, but was the beginning of the annoying NT system. Well, if you want to be accurate, NT dates back to the early 90's, contemporary with Win3x. I remember NT being talked about back when I used Win3.x. It seemed pretty rarely used back then, sort of like linux, it was only for the "geeks". I always wondered how much of that early NT was worked into Win2000 and up..... It began that nasty NTFS drive format, which I refuse to use. Has its good points. If I was using a computer with *just* NT installed, I'd use it... but the only thing I have that is *only* NT is my Win7 tablet. (Vista+ won't install on FAT drives, so in my case it's a moot point.) I wont use it on my main computer, not even on my Win2000 partition. I want to be able to access everything from Dos. My laptop came with NTFS and XP installed that way. I wanted to change the format, but there is no XP install CD for it, and I was told I cant use PartitionMagic and change the format without reinstalling. Since nothing important is kept on that computer, all I'll lose is the OS if it fails, so no biggie. It began that stupid folder called "Documents and Settings", which contains "Administrators", "All Users", and "Default User". (This is one very irritating thing for me, because I never know which one contains what, and most are repeats......). After all, this computer is only used by me, I'm the ONLY user, all of thse should be in ONE folder. Can always run as the Administrator, and rename the account as you wish. Just sayin'. Are you saying that I can get rid of the THREE categories and just have one called Administrator? HOW? Having three is so annoying, because stuff is places in any of them for waht seems to have no rhyme or reason. I dont need 3 of them since only "I" use the computer. Even in 98, I like to keep my "work" (documents) WITH the program, not in "my documents". Then there came XP with all the stupid questions. Everyting I want to do, has a "do you really want to ______". I get ****ed at that ****. I didnt hit the button to do _____ just for the hell of it... ...but many people *do* hit things by accident. I dont mind being asked when I delete something, I do accidentally hit that sometimes, but there are many other times it asks. And then comes the bootup and shutdown times. Both 2000 and XP seem to take forever compared to 98. Hell, on my laptop with XP, I might just turn it on for one minute, because I left myself a note, such as someone's phone number. I read the note and shut off, then I'm forced to hit TWO shutdown buttons (as if one isn't enough), and then I watch it say "savings settings". WHAT SETTINGS? Not one ****ing thing was changed, I read a phone number, nothing else.... But XP doesn't know that. It doesn't have a way to verify that nothing was changed from startup to shutdown. Bad decision by MS, maybe, but them's the way it is. It SHOULD KNOW. It should be apparent that no changes were made to the system files. That should be apparent. Poor design by MS. Thats what I like most about 98. I have it set to boot to dos. 20 seconds later I open my text file that contains my notes, and shut off the computer. If I want to enter Win98, I "WW" which is my batch file to start windows (actually it just runs WIN.COM). You saved yourself 1 keytroke. Bravo. (Why not just name it 'w'?) Whatever You cant do this in W2000 or XP. You got to go thru the entire bootup process, waste several minutes waiting for it to boot, and then go thru the shutdown hassle. This is not progress! It should not take 5 minutes to access a tiny text file, and shut down. Win2000 was irritating, XP seriously annoys me, I dont even want to imagine how I'd feel about Win7 or 8.... I've read that 8 has really improved startup times; supposedly at least on par with 9x. Thats good..... It only took MS nearly 12 years to fix that! When 9x already did it...... But, hey, MS is more interested in making money by adding useless bloat than fixing bugs. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC salesslump
Auric__ wrote:
2GB. About the only thing that gets that big right now is databases, movies, and DVD images. Actually it's 4 GB, but many applications get into trouble at 2 GB because of thoughtless use of a signed variable for size. And I regularly reach that limit when converting radio plays into MP3. A serial concatenated into one file breaks the 2 GB barrier at a little above 3 h in the intermediate WAV format. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC salesslump
Axel Berger wrote:
Actually it's 4 GB, but many applications get into trouble at 2 GB because of thoughtless use of a signed variable for size. If you take any large multimedia file (larger than 4 gb) and save it as a multi-segmented RAR file archive, VLC media player will open and play the archive if you present it with the first file of the archive. And I regularly reach that limit when converting radio plays into MP3. A serial concatenated into one file breaks the 2 GB barrier at a little above 3 h in the intermediate WAV format. No reason to sample something off the radio in such a high-rez (CD) format such that you only get 3 hours worth of material in a 2 gb file. And a radio play that's more than 3 hours long??? If you're combining multiple episodes into a single file - why would you even want to do that anyways? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC salesslump
98 Guy wrote:
No reason And a radio play that's more than 3 hours long??? why would you even want to do that anyways? You seem to have an opion about everything regadless of kowledge. A first raw format before editiong should always be as lossless and high resolution as possible to minimize artefacts and rounding errors. Besides many standard tools expect just that format. Seven hours have been broadcast end to end in a single go by broadcasting stations, twelve hours split on two consecutive days, four and five hour serials are frequent and unremarkable. And why not one file? It declutters the drives and makes stuff much easier to find. It is not as if I spontaneously decided "let's listen to episode three of Paul Temple's Genf mystery tonight". I either play it beginning to conclusion or not at all, don't you? It's not as if file size were the slightest problem in the final compressed format after the last edit. Axel |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
diamond luxury auto sales 2 | JeroldGIg | General | 0 | September 7th 08 11:11 PM |
file association working not as expected | fixertool | General | 3 | December 27th 07 01:39 AM |
Boost Up Computer | schacko | Hardware | 1 | June 16th 07 08:57 AM |
how do i boost my lap tops mem | Rich | General | 1 | January 22nd 06 12:32 PM |
Longer then expected program launch | AndyB | General | 1 | April 19th 05 03:53 AM |