Do you mean Gnome2.x or are you the person who likes Gnome3.x?
GUI designers (doesn't matter whether they're KDE, Gnome, Microsoft or Canonical) need to learn that users *HATE* step-changes ...
I know it can be *disabled*. But if you don't, no matter how much real memory you have, it insists on using a swap file.
which is the point I was trying (badly, it seems) to make. No matter how much RAM you give the machine, XP insists it needs a swap file. You can disable the swap file, manually, but otherwise it will always be there - and used.
I didn't want to say, but following a little incident on Saturday, I will.
MiL has a spreadsheet I set up with a couple of VBA routines. She trusted the boys at PCWorld to transfer her stuff when she bought a new PC a few weeks ago. Goes to run spreadsheet, and gets an error. I call round, and after a bit of digging discover she's now running *64* bit windows, and therefore *64* bit Office 2010.
Guess what ?
MSCAL.OCX and MSCOMCT2.OCX have now disappeared. Forever. MS are not providing a 64-bit equivalent.
It was quite a nice moment though, as finally MiL admitted she understood why we still use XP at work ... because upgrading to 5,000 desktops just to have that happen on Monday morning is *not* an option.
And with good reason. If you have a DLL (for example) that can't be loaded in its preferred place, it has to be relocated when loaded into memory. Then, instead of paging off the original file for the read-only pages, it'll page from a nice relocated copy in the pagefile.
(yes, they call it a pagefile....in some systems, a swap file is quite a different animal)
alt windows 7 general ng. They have a history of knowledge there.
Dave
Applications often have their own temporary / scratch folders that are not controlled by the windows ones. You can usually track down which using one of the sysinternals tools like the old file mon, or the processmon. That will let you see which app "owns" any given open file.
Also keep in mind that the performance of NTFS itself decreases as a volume fills up, and it becomes more noticeable as it gets over about
3/4 full.
No sure that Open Office doesn't read those files.
Worth a whirl.
why else would they be using windows 7?
I know. Sucks, huh?
And why were they using XP And why will they be using windows 8/9/10?
If only Apple had allowed the clones to build Macs back in the 80s
That's the one. I installed 11.04 on a 5yr old laptop and it gave me gnome, which was fine, whereas a newer desktop got unity (something to do with different hardware capabilities?). Then I tried 11.10 on the laptop and got Unity by default, Ugh!
MBQ
hugh wrote: [snip]
They licensed Apple ][ clones in the 80's (remember the black ones?) but they held out until the mid 90's before they officially sold Mac ROMs to clone makers.
No, Dynamac clones were licensed by Apple back in 1988/9. These used official Apple ROMS sourced from Apple (not copied or recovered from trashed motherboards as other clone makers did). Some more info here:
What changed in the early/mid 90s was Apple licencing the ROM code to third parties.
Easy to use and did the job!
Easy to use and does the job!
yes we would still be stuck with an OS that didn't even do virtual memory. Windows did that for years before macOS.
And Apple are control freaks, there wouldn't be anywhere near the software applications there are now if Apple had control.
Some may not like M$ but I doubt if the alternatives would have been better.
Before my time Apple-wise (even then I only happened to work at a a place that also sold Apple)
That's why I used the word history. Good luck to the original poster.
Dave
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.