Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

PeaceByJesus

Member
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    $0.00 

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PeaceByJesus

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/
  1. Thanks for the clarification. I can try to look more into USMT to copy user settings. I found this which might be of help: http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Back-Up-and-Recovery/Muve-User-s-Stuff-Tool.shtml
  2. I also had Vista, and as i recall i could copy program folders such as Firefox from the user folder, so i guess the issue is what needs to be copied. What would W/7 Easy Transfer (Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools) accomplish in this regard to what the OP wants to do?
  3. Why would not software that uses Shadow Copy, like Drive Image XML work? Under XP i would just copy the whole users folder by disconnecting the HD and plugging it into another PC using a $3.00 USB adapter (and the PCs own power supply, if possible). I think i also have used a Linux live CD like Puppy to do it. You could just copy it onto a USB stick now. Are you saying that would not work with W/7?
  4. I am one of those few (i presume) users who find the transparent, glassy look of Windows 7 makes things harder to see, at least on this new Sony laptop (2.20 ghz cpu, 4gb ram. W/7 64 bit) I know you can turn off the the Transparency” option (right click desktop>m Personalization>Windows Color and Appearance>uncheck the “Enable Transparency”) and have deselected Desktop composition and Use visual styles.. (Windows key and pause/break>Advanced>Performance>Visual effects) which helps, but not as much as using classic styles, (Personalization>Windows Classic, then hit Win
  5. Hi all. I have been attempting to configure my first wireless network, btwn 2 pc, one running Xp and the other Vista, which are both in front of me. I have a Netgear WGT624 wireless router, and and a Westell 6100 modem. I have the modem hooked to the router, which then goes to the XP box, and have an Internet connection now. Initially i was able to establish a connection on the Vista box, using a USB network adapter, but i could not get a secured connection, likely because i did not know you had to do the http://192.168.0.1 setup at Netgear, which is where i am now. My questions are what wi
  6. That's one way to get a WP page. (but your link must need a space before the closing parenthesis)
  7. Outside of the fact that W/7 is still in beta, I thought this article is quite substantive, and helps explain many things. "But first, the straight skinny on Vista: Compared with Windows XP, Vista delivered database transaction times that were a full 92 percent slower on our dual-core test bed. However, when the focus shifted to our quad-core system, the performance gap with XP narrowed to just 19 percent. Likewise, the workflow portion of the test went from a 98 percent delta on two cores to a more modest (yet still gaping) 66 percent delta on four." "...when viewed under the same processor-u
  8. http://windowssecrets.com/2008/11/20/03-Do...rojan/?n=story3 I did see a refernce to it here on the forums, but thought this alert might be in order.
  9. No, i do not want to go back to 9X! - i was only making a comparison in a specific aspect. As for Linux distros, i have tried most every one (PCLinuxOS being the best in my opinion), and it has lots of potential, but they do not offer the functionality i can get with Windows, esp. as the missing codecs needed for full multimedia processing evidently are not legal in the US (i know you can buy packages). Plus the required learning curve, such as is required in getting universal RW access on all my Windows NTFS drives. But that is a discussion for another thread, and as a poster pointed out, t
  10. My quest was not much to how to run heavy duty software faster, but to know why the newest OS is so noticeably slower in basic tasks (like navigating) than W/9x is on PC's with far less cpu speed and memory, etc. It seems my new hardware was as advanced in correlation to the demands of a new OS. I think we will see an a emphasis upon speed in Windows 7. But i thank God i can even do what i do now, and this is a workhorse.
  11. Thanks for all the advice, which has helped. Just received this interesting article from Windows secrets, which i am sure is controversial. .
  12. Well, due to the amount of rearranging i would have to do, i made a partition on the 2nd partition of 2nd drive (XP is on the 1st). Vista would not let me make one more than approx 1.5 gb, though i have 22 gb free, so i used the EASEUS Partition Manager free, which did what i wanted. Now the page file is there.
  13. Right. No games on this PC. The query is why the delay on things like opening folders and navigating. From the time it it begins to boot from the selected OS till you see the desktop is approx. 45 sec., and 75 sec. till all start ups and services and apps are loaded so the busy circle stops and the cpu settles down to it's normal 1-3% activity. But long after that, with no other extra activity, opening w. explorer or sys. properties (Win.key and Pause/Break) takes 6-8 sec. (Even W. 9x will basically just pop those right up.) Is that normal on yours? The next try takes only about 2 sec. but
  14. But will Windows even use the page file if it has enough free ram (just how much really is enough is another question)? But the PC will run at the lowest speed module correct? Thanks
  15. Thanks. I thought i read that it would help somewhat due to fragmentation. Time to use Vista's nifty Disk management to squeeze out maybe a 3-4gb partition on the 2nd 7200rpm sata drive (back up first). Some recommend leaving a very small pagefile on the C drive in case of a memory dump, if the 2nd drive is not available.
×
×
  • Create New...