 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, it's true. Some while ago, I uninstalled Thunderbird on my work PC
and tried to install a newer version. The newer version didn't work. So
I removed it and reinstalled the old version. Which didn't work either.
So for many months now, I have been unable to read this newsgroup from work.
Ah, but now I finally have a new PC. It was touch-and-go for a long time
there, but eventually I got one.
Yesterday I was using an AMD K6-II 500 MHz system with Windoze NT 4.0
SP6a and 128 MB RAM. (And an SiS Trio3D/2X graphics card, in case you care.)
Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
Our very own Cute Sales Girl was awarded a shiny new Intel Core 2 Duo
laptop, thus making her desktop PC free. So I brought it over to my own
desk, spent 20 minutes wiring it up, and then... discovered that it no
longer boots. (Makes long beeping noises instead.)
So that got sent away to be fixed. However, our lab director's old PC is
now fixed, so that came back and I set about using that. Until I
discovered that it reboots at random moments. (As in, I couldn't keep it
running long enough for it to boot up completely.) Further analysis
showed a memory fault.
So that got sent away to be fixed [again]. However, the first PC is now
back having been fixed. Imagine my misery when I discovered that it
reboots as soon as it tries to read from the CD drive during startup. (I
was trying to boot KNOPPIX.) Oddly, it only did that twice; now it works
perfectly.
So *finally* I have a working PC. (My old one lets you log in 80% of the
time. The other 20% of the time, it yields a Blue Screen Of Death half
way through the login process. It is *intensely* frustrating when you're
trying to log in to have to reboot half a dozen times!)
So... yays!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...and the ancient Thunderbird threading bug resurfaces. *sigh*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes, it's true. Some while ago, I uninstalled Thunderbird on my work PC
> and tried to install a newer version. The newer version didn't work. So
> I removed it and reinstalled the old version. Which didn't work either.
> So for many months now, I have been unable to read this newsgroup from
> work.
>
> Ah, but now I finally have a new PC. It was touch-and-go for a long time
> there, but eventually I got one.
>
Hey, long time no see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Yes, it's true. Some while ago, I uninstalled Thunderbird on my work PC
> and tried to install a newer version. The newer version didn't work. So
> I removed it and reinstalled the old version. Which didn't work either.
> So for many months now, I have been unable to read this newsgroup from work.
>
I installed Thunderbird and soon thought something was messed up.
Thunderbird has to be gone now since the registry was replaced with one saved
prior its installation.
The only way I've been able to run for years is by saving user and system.dat
win.ini and system.ini too
(win 98 SE)
other OSs, I have no idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:51:12 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
>running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:51:12 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
>> running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
>
> You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
>
who cares - he's only the lonely IT guy
besides, he *did* get a faster machine
But I do feel for you Andrew... Who decides what these machines have anyway
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
Yeah, well, it's not a new PC. It's one somebody else already had.
Beggers can't be choosers, and all that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:51:12 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
>> running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
>
> You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
(I now have 1280 MB RAM.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:29:04 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
I boot an XP system with only minimal software running (virus protection, Novell
client, Windows services) and am using 160MB instantly. I'm at 346MB with Firefox,
Free Agent and a calendar opened.
If I open a few office documents and my development environment, I'll be even further
over 256MB. There would definitely be lag from drive swapping (thrashing) while
switching applications or running
a memory intensive application.
I'm surprised you don't see a difference. Do you only ever run one simple application
at a time?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:29:04 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
>
> I'm surprised you don't see a difference. Do you only ever run one simple
application at a time?
Yes. Because it's far too slow to open multiple programs at once.
I was hoping that adding 5x more RAM would make the machine faster and
more responsive. But no, it still takes 20 minutes to boot up, and it's
still horribly slow to start any applications (or even shut them down).
It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages to
update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to update
once per hour (??!!?!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
