Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know that for my purposes, I've installed XP at least 15 times,
and it has always seemed to been a drastic improvement over windows
9x. And as for linux, it is clearly a superior OS in terms of
stability, but servers aside, it's useless to me. Many applications
are not available, it is far more difficult to learn, and far less
valuable to me. One of these days, I'll get around to learning it,
but for the time being, I'm sticking to Windows. From my
perspective, it is far more useful and valuable (career wise) for
my purposes.
And by the way, my windows machine also functions as an email
server, a web server, and an FTP server. It only gets shut down
once a week or so, and I also use it for 3D design (3D Studio Max),
photoediting (photoshop 7) and graphic design (macromedia
fireworks), web design and development, and occaissionally for
application development using VB6. And right now I've got 9
application windows running. All things considered, I can't imagine
my computer performing better with any other currenly available OS.
Ryan
Use what works best for you. But for me, the 512mb limit, slower
memory access, and more frequent crashes make windows ME
insufficient for my needs.
--The RAM limit per application for ME is 128 MB. Both XP and 2000
essentially have no limit. How much money do you want to spend on
RAM? Unless you need to process HUGE amounts of data at blazing
speed, it isn't money well spent---and even then, only if the rest
of the system is up to snuff.
The CPU is the most important contributor to speed, and
MHz---contrary to popular belief---isn't the only contributor to
speed. IBM did the computing world a dis-service when it went with
Intel's 8088 (actually only an 8-bit kludged CPU, despite claims of
being 16-bit) for the PC; PCs would have been much faster and its
softwear much farther advanced if they had chosen Motorola's
MC-68000 (a true 16-bit device) as Apple did for the Mac. The 8088
was cheaper than the 68000, of course---and IBM owned 25% of Intel
at the time.
Part of blame for lack of speed & high executable memory
requirements has to be laid on the 'modern' so-called
Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Languages: they don't produce
efficient executable programs. They're failures at the 'ease of
maintenance' that they were designed for as well. Their name is
also mis-leading, because all programming languages are in fact
object oriented.
Linux is faster than Windows and also has essentially no RAM limit
per application or per computer. It's also the future and my next
operating system---when ME no longer does what I want it to.
Of course, it's nice to hear that your're happy with XP, and thanks
for sharing your thoughts.
Regards,
William
I've never used windows ME, but from what I understand, it's built
off of hte same platform as windows 98 and 95... MSDOS. The biggest
problems with windows 9x (and therefore windows ME) is the "blue
screen of death"; the fatal exception error. Basically what it is,
is a memory leak. MS DOS was designed to use no more than 64 kb of
memory. For windows 9x to use any more memory than 64 kb, it has to
jump through some hoops, and that causes problems. Not only does it
require the computer perform more operations to access that memory,
it also creates more opportunities for memory leaks, and fatal
exception errors.
I've had windows XP for almost a year now, and my computer has only
crashed about 5 times, and it runs 24/7. Not too shabby. I do
restart it once a week or so, but considering how much torture I
put it through (3D Rendering, programming, photoshop, music, DVD's,
etc.) I've been VERY impressed with windows XP.
Just my 2 cents.
Ryan
http://photo.ryans-stuff.com
I am perplexed as to how someone, in an effort to educate others,The best way to acquire a new computer is to find a competent,
reliable & honest local computer shop. They can be quite
competitive price-wise and you should wind up with a top quality
machine. Most computers can be 'up-graded' as well, and that's the
place to go to inquire about having it done. (Buying a new machine
is often a smarter move than up-grading.) However, you'll need to
check its reputation thoroughly to ensure you don't get burned.
Building or repairing one isn't rocket science, but there is some
special knowledge required. The most important thing is to know
how to avoid damaging components through static electricity. There
are books on the subject available at such places as Waldenbooks.
Check you local library too!
Choosing the hardware components is the most difficult part of the
process, and a web site called 'Tom's Hardware Guide'
http://www17.tomshardware.com/
is a good place to do your homework.
It's also important that you choose an operating system and
applications software wisely. The best rule of thumb is to stay
away from any software that isn't at least one year old. I have no
knowledge of operating systems other than Windows, so I'll limit my
two cents worth of advice in this category by stating that I
recommend Windows ME. Windows XP is reported as having many, many
problems, and Windows 2000 is for computer networking.
Do I build / repair my own? No---because I've found a competent,
reliable, and honest local computer shop. If it were to close, I
would begin doing so.
William
P.S. Remeber that if things go wrong for you, "I don't know you
and have never seen you before".
can make as many factual errors as you managed to make. I am
reading through your posts in this thread and I am having a hard
time finding one truth. Normally, I would try and correct
mistakes, in an effort to contribute, but I wouldn't know where to
begin in this case. I just hope that no one takes your advice
seriously.
--I am perplexed as to how someone, in an effort to educate others,
can make as many factual errors as you managed to make. I am
reading through your posts in this thread and I am having a hard
time finding one truth. Normally, I would try and correct
mistakes, in an effort to contribute, but I wouldn't know where to
begin in this case. I just hope that no one takes your advice
seriously.
G. Bizet...FCAS member...:> ))
Seeing the world through your lens smile :> )) Gale
Would you expect the average user to be able to tailor his system to the vagaries of ME? I consider myself to be a little better than average in my ability to set up a computer. I had a ton of trouble with ME.That's why I
recommended ME, with the tacit understanding that I was speaking to
the average user.
William
--William
I am perplexed as to how someone, in an effort to educate others,The best way to acquire a new computer is to find a competent,
reliable & honest local computer shop. They can be quite
competitive price-wise and you should wind up with a top quality
machine. Most computers can be 'up-graded' as well, and that's the
place to go to inquire about having it done. (Buying a new machine
is often a smarter move than up-grading.) However, you'll need to
check its reputation thoroughly to ensure you don't get burned.
Building or repairing one isn't rocket science, but there is some
special knowledge required. The most important thing is to know
how to avoid damaging components through static electricity. There
are books on the subject available at such places as Waldenbooks.
Check you local library too!
Choosing the hardware components is the most difficult part of the
process, and a web site called 'Tom's Hardware Guide'
http://www17.tomshardware.com/
is a good place to do your homework.
It's also important that you choose an operating system and
applications software wisely. The best rule of thumb is to stay
away from any software that isn't at least one year old. I have no
knowledge of operating systems other than Windows, so I'll limit my
two cents worth of advice in this category by stating that I
recommend Windows ME. Windows XP is reported as having many, many
problems, and Windows 2000 is for computer networking.
Do I build / repair my own? No---because I've found a competent,
reliable, and honest local computer shop. If it were to close, I
would begin doing so.
William
P.S. Remeber that if things go wrong for you, "I don't know you
and have never seen you before".
can make as many factual errors as you managed to make. I am
reading through your posts in this thread and I am having a hard
time finding one truth. Normally, I would try and correct
mistakes, in an effort to contribute, but I wouldn't know where to
begin in this case. I just hope that no one takes your advice
seriously.
WilliamFirst, if you buy a new home-use 'brand-name' computer, it'll have
XP installed, so the ME / XP question is moot.
Likewise, if you buy a brand name network system, server, or
station, it'll have 2000 installed and the ME / 2000 question is
moot. If for some reason I were to build or have a network system
built, I'd have to make a choice between 2000 and Linux and that
would require further investigation of both systems.
If you have someone build a computer for you, he or she may not
give you the option of going with ME, and the question is moot in
that case.
If you laready have an ME system, it's working properly for you,
and ME is an option for your new computer, then remaining with ME
makes sense---it's a proven system and there won't be any learning
curve. XP's user interface differs somewhat form ME as far as
layout, options, and user prompts.
Last, if you stick with ME but it no longer does what you need it
to do, you can always change to XP at that time.
For those of you who are using XP and are happy with it, that's great!
William
William
--I am perplexed as to how someone, in an effort to educate others,
can make as many factual errors as you managed to make. I am
reading through your posts in this thread and I am having a hard
time finding one truth. Normally, I would try and correct
mistakes, in an effort to contribute, but I wouldn't know where to
begin in this case. I just hope that no one takes your advice
seriously.
G. Bizet...FCAS member...:> ))
Seeing the world through your lens smile :> )) Gale
Yes, I frequently process 12 MB files, and have on occasion processed 98 MB files. (Thankfully, not very often.)"images. Retouching often requires several layers, oddball rotation
values and filters being run. In addition, most folks have
Photoshop set up to retain 25 levels of history. Each layer and
history level are stored in RAM for quick access.
I.e., 218 un-necessary MB. Norton & Zone Alarm consume little memory & CPU time when they're simply astive and not actually running. In addition to those, I always have WinAmp playing MP3s---including while using PhotoShop. I often have other applications running as well. This is on my 384 MB system. If I need to get serious, I have another computer with 512 MB---and a lot more speed."to mention the various services that Windows runs in the
background, RAM usage adds up pretty quick. I used one of Phil's
EOS-10D sample images and made 6 layers, 8 history levels and a
duplicate image (pretty typical). Running this image in Photoshop,
Norton Antivirus, Mozilla browser and Zone Alarm firewall and I've
got 218Mb of RAM available out of a total of 768 in my system.
I THINK that what Gabriel is trying to say is that the problems in
your advice are so profound that one is at a loss to even begin to
attempt to address the issues at a constructive level. With this I
would have to agree.
My experience with ME was short lived and bitter. All of the
technical staff in my office agreed that ME was so problematic that
we never installed it in any of the 40+ staff computers (although
we have license agreement with MS that would have allowed us to
upgrade all machines for free.) I have found XP to be the most
stable and powerful OS from MS to date.
Respectfully
Patrick
“The CPU is the most important contributor to speed, and
MHz---contrary to popular belief---isn't the only contributor to
speed”
This may or may not be the case and it is totally dependent on the
type of application you wish to run.
1) 3D games are video card dependant
2) 3D modeling is video card dependant
3) 3D rendering is CPU dependant
4) Photoshop is CPU dependant
All that being said, ALL of these applications will run slowly if
you run out of available memory.
There you have it. These are the reasons I made the statements I
made. Perhaps it is more obvious why I was hoping to avoid citing
every thing you wrote which I felt needed to be corrected. You are
welcome to disagree with me but I ask you to leave out the personal
attacks next time. Thanks.
-gabe
I haven't made any personal attacks regarding your character. I have attacked your uninformed statements. Big difference. I not surprised you can't see the difference though.your opinions. Where are the FACTS, Gabe?
Don't like being attacked personally? What do you call what you
did to me?
Time for you to look in a mirror. Gabe.
William
William, since we are in a retouching forum, why don't you find out from other Photoshop users what they think of "virtual memory"? The fact that it is orders of magnitude slower than RAM does not bode well for your case.Someone else provided the memory use figure.
Wm.
I haven't made any personal attacks regarding your character. Iyour opinions. Where are the FACTS, Gabe?
Don't like being attacked personally? What do you call what you
did to me?
Time for you to look in a mirror. Gabe.
William
have attacked your uninformed statements. Big difference. I not
surprised you can't see the difference though.
-gabe
