Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Have you ever had an impression that your computer has been running slower and slower?
When I bought my computer exactly two years ago the performance of this machine during first few months was absolutely brilliant and no problems at all. But after a few months this fast and reliable machine started becoming slower and slower and more and more unwanted applications started working when I was switching on my laptop without my personal attention.
At that time I did not understand how the computers are working and how little I can control what is going on inside the operating system. This is not only problem of PC and Windows users, Apple products have the same issue from my Mac experience.
I am sure that I am not the only one who suffers from this problem and would like to hear your voice on this discussion. What are your ways of dealing with this issue? Every voice most welcome for our common benefits
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Marek on
-
Coming back to the main problem of this question what to do when you computer is getting slower and slower and users just accept it and do not know how to easily stop this problem.
We don't know that our computers are getting "digitally dirty" and don't know how to "wipe" the dust and "throw your digital rubbish" out of your machine. We do not talk only about the physical dust
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Rather than user error, could such slow performance be down to poor design of the operating system? Have some operating systems become fat? (a search on YouTube for boot times yields video evidence of just how much slower some things have become over the last 20 years)
We wouldn't tolerate this slow-down in a new car and yet many people just accept this as a fact of life with their chosen operating system (frequently, DOS-Windows). I'm reminded of the old joke where Bill Gates rashly compared Microsoft with General Motors.
At a recent computer expo, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon
General Motors came back with a great riposte which is still relevant (here)
There exists choice in computer operating systems and fortunately, they're not all the same.
-
Permalink Reply by DrWhams on
-
Not at all. Modern operating systems are doing *way* more than the OSes of 10 years ago, supporting a much wider range of hardware, networking protocols, zero-configuration devices, multimedia support, high resolution displays, not to mention a vast range of software. Users want to be able to watch BluRay disks on their PCs, play high end games, but also connect to their work networks in order to work from home (which entails another level of complexity).
Yes, you can have a pared down linux distribution, which may be fine for email and web browsing, but by the time you've added extra support to get it close to what many users expect to do on on a windows machine. The size of a clean Mac OS X installation is about the same as a Windows 7 install. On my little-used mac there's about the same number of processes running in the background all the time as on my used-all-day windows machine (about 100, which is half the amount of one of our linux machines).
So I'm intrigued how you attribute this to poor design.
-
-
Hi Paul
Let's not finish this conversation about the slower and slower machines in discussion "Why Mac are better than Windows". No offense to Mac users and their special feeling about their "wonderful machines" as this problem everybody has - Mac, Windows and Linux. It would be nice to give as many as possible readers to understand that "clean" computers always run faster and happier.
-
-
I mentioned the auto industry analogy. But its more than that: the tolerance of poor design and poor engineering is greater in computing than in any other field of engineering. Take broadcast engineering as another example. Imagine if our televisions or the broadcast signal were as flaky as PC operating systems. We wouldn't tolerate it for a moment.
Some software is excellent and other software is shoved out the door in many cases without adequate testing. It's not the engineer's fault: its the company that employs them and commercial pressure. Largely thanks to a couple of decades of Microsoft, most people's expectations are fairly low (for example, many people believe "computer" viruses are like the weather).
The latest version of DOS-Windows claims faster boot time than the current crop of Windows boxes.
But tablets offer a much better response yet again, which is another reason the PC era is starting to draw to a close.
-
-
I work for a company that produces broadcast systems used in many of the major film studios and news networks around the world, and they run on, err, Windows...
-
-
And typists and bookkeepers in the employ of broadcasters may well also use "Windows" boxes.
But if "Windows" dominated broadcasting transmissions, as you imply, surely television and radio service would be no more reliable than the average PC? Would we not experience slow-downs, as Marek mentions?! Or is it possible the broadcast signal relies on equipment built to an even higher standard than a Packard-Bell running "Windows"?
-
-
The average PC is laden with the crap that accumulates over a period of time, with software that has been installed and forgotten about, old printer drivers, games, etc. Something like a PC in a broadcast system will have very tight change controls, will have only mission-critical applications running on it, and on those occasions you would expect very high reliability. Last year I discovered a machine in our server room that had long been forgotten about which had been running non-stop for 6 years (and that was Windows too, incidentally). There are no aspects of 'poor design' in Windows that preclude it from being used in such an environment. No more so than any other modern OS.
As with everything else in life (particularly with cars), a system that is carefully maintained will be reliable and have a long life.
-
-
Paul you make an excellent point about the need for maintenance. Would you agree that some systems need more attention than others? And that repair guys and technicians (and the anti-virus industry etc) all advocate and promote "Windows"?
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
It looks as if BT installed Gotoassist corporate when trying to resolve a niggle a couple of months ago.
Is there any danger in leaving it on ( I don't like the idea of someone remotely driving my computer ) or would it be useful to leave it ?
-
-
So far I did not hear any bad stories coming from people which were served by their Internet Provider. This software has very temporary nature and it is not very problematic for you unless it starts up with your system at the same time.
Doing remote control over the internet is not favorite method for the clients but so far nobody invented any better and faster method dealing with minor client computer users. This is matter of trust which is not very easy if you have never seen with your eyes the person on the other site of your phone line.
This kind of service and ethical procedure could be a very good topic for the next HOL discussion.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
