|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
My point is that you're overlooking a significant advantage that Vista 64
offers, or any 64 bit OS for that matter. Fwiw, there are versions of Unix
that are 128 bit. If the hardware was affordable or at a value point for an
application I'd use, that's what I'd have.
I'm not on any mission to persuade you that what you're doing is wrong. I
just wanted to stress that your missing the point when you ignore what a
doubling of the address space offers.
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: RL Scott [mailto:rlscott1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:59 PM
To: CW; 'Omega-List'
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Vista - A complete RIP OFF
Colin,
All that matters is if you are happy with the OS you are using. XP does all
I need just fine so why switch unless it gives me a significant advantage.
The first thing I do to a new computer is back it up - the Vista OS took
32.95 GB for backup and when I loaded that same PC with the XP Pro OS the
backup took 0.99 GB. Something just does not seem right here with
efficiency of code - so like Jimmy, I'll just take a wait and see attitude.
~Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "CW" <cwest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Omega-List'" <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ribau@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Vista - A complete RIP OFF
>I usually don't weigh in on OS threads as its often pointless, but the
> experiences I've read from a few people lead me to suspect they've missed
> a
> very significant advantage of Vista 64 SP1. Its address space! After
> you've
> modified the UI to your liking, loaded up with RAM and run 64 bit
> compiles,
> applications really fly. Even 32bit apps run amazingly faster under load.
> Its so far ahead of XP, you wouldn't contemplate returning to it.
>
> Colin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Snowden [mailto:jhsnowden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:18 PM
> To: Omega-List; ribau@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re[2]: Vista - A complete RIP OFF
>
> OK YOU ASKED FOR IT... No just kidding. I have one machine much like
> yours
> and running the same version of MC and it works great from day one. The
> other machine is 12 gig ECC buffered memory, dual quad Intel processors,
> RAID configured drives and absolutely nothing else running. It came with
> XP
> Pro, I didn't have time to build one, but somehow I thought I needed VISTA
> to boost memory from 4 GB to 12 or more. MC went crazy after the close
> Friday and after I backed the computer up. Found out Vista backup is an
> image and only one. It overwrites the old backup. I was cooked.
> Formatted, XP Pro'ed it and it runs better than ever today plus it can use
> the extra memory. All you have to do with either is run a second or more
> instance of MC.
> Yahoo. I do like some things about Vista but mostly it is bloatware.
> I'll wait for the next Microsoft OS to upgrade again.
>
> Jimmy
>
>
> I've been running Vista Home Premium with MC since July 2007, now running
> v3.1.1353.400, and have never had a problem. In fact, no problems at all
> with Vista. It does require beefy hardware, I'm running 3.0GHz Intel Core2
> Duo (E6850 on Asus P5K) with 4Gb DDR2.
>
> I turned off the eye candy because it was irritating, not because it was
> causing problems, and I turned off UAC just because it's so stupid. One
> thing that improves performance and boot time is ReadyBoost, use a fast
> 4Gb
> thumb drive with 4Gb machine memory.
>
> Using IQFeed v4.2.1.4
>
> I would like to add that I routinely run Excel, Quicken, FireFox, and
> PhotoShop on the same machine during market hours.
>
> Don't throw things at me, but I love Vista.
>
>>>Oh I guess I could ask if anyone using Multicharts or any other
>>>program has run into a winsock communication error. Esignal data
>>>program is working fine but I can't get data into MC. Worked fine
>>>until Friday when I backed up. Now I find backup is an image file on
>>>my external drive. Stinking Vista. I really don't have enough hair to
>>>deal with Vista as I rip what little is left out. LOL.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
9:21 AM
|