[Rollin' Rog]

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/1...nate-in-vista/
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...g.aspx?pr=blog

[Mumbodog]

Is sleep the same as Hibernate?

no

Sleep keeps the session in memory, resume is faster than hibernate, but cannot resume after a power failure.

Hibernate uses the hard drive. It can be resumed after a power failure. Resume is slower.

[aka Brett]

sleep is what standby was in xp....memory stays loaded but hd etc shuts down.
In xp we referred to hibernate and sleep as the same thing

Vista and 7..the word standby is gone..which is now sleep. Hibernate is still hibernate

[azariah007]

Thanks for your reply's. I'm still unsure as to what the problem is with my shutdown menu as it still doesn't have the hibernate option and I haven't seen any mod tab in the start menu properties that allow me to change what options are available. Hope some one knows the answer to the problem. Thanks all.

[aka Brett]

is the chipset driver installed?...this is usually the main cause of hibernation missing or grayed out

[azariah007]

the chipset being the motherboard driver ah no drivers for my mother board stopped at xp and drivers for some other features of my motherboard officially stopped at 98 although I have gotten these drivers through windows update I can't find equivalence in the windows 7 update page. Puzzled???? My system specks next to my name check these out I think my motherboard and processor are first and second lines!

[aka Brett]

For whats its worth W7 final gave me no problems at all. 64..I had one yellow mark..dell had the driver.,,,windows update may have had it anyway.
32 ..had a couple marks but windows update took care of it.
pretty sweet for a laptop.

Have you tried the w7 advisor?........chances are you will be just fine with the shelf version of 7

[azariah007]

Yeah I have and it gave my pc and my dad's flying colours and we are both running fairly old machines. On a side note again would you say that Windows 7 would be light weight enough with some of the "bulky" visual effects turned down? Just out of interest because from the RC I can't see any reason for Windows 7 not to be used on them. Why keep XP?

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by azariah007

Yeah I have and it gave my pc and my dad's flying colours and we are both running fairly old machines. On a side note again would you say that Windows 7 would be light weight enough with some of the "bulky" visual effects turned down? Just out of interest because from the RC I can't see any reason for Windows 7 not to be used on them. Why keep XP?

Turning off aero makes one lose peek and preview from the taskbar..which is half of what 7 is about...some older machines may not run it anyway...but you still get all the other benefits.
Xp works great on a machine with older hardware.
I have a dell desk top about 7 years old with a celeron ...384 ram..it floats xp just fine...as a matter of fact much better that the last 2 releases of ubuntu.
Just because a machine will run 7 on paper does not mean it will do a fast job of it...I have not tried it on older machines...but it will need more gas than xp...as a general rule a new os need more horse power than its prior os...however 7 is the exception.
7 does boot faster with my same hardware than vista...opens windows apps faster...but when I put it to work and have many apps going at once it doesnt beat when I had vista on....it may be a mental thing am not sure but i might even have to give the score to vista when the machine loaded with many open apps...when my ram usage goes to about 57 percent...vista is as good or perhaps better...it certainly isnt worse.
Vista and firefox got along great for me...faster than with xp. Yahoo likes 7 a little better by a small amount...google earth and my 7 are very happy.
XP faired well with my hardware 2 gigs ram and dual cores...but firefox wasnt as fast nor google earth as with vista or 7.
outlook express was like a rocket in xp.....i cant compare fairly to vista or 7 because it uses windows mail.
Windows media player wins in 7 compared to the other versions.
If i had XP and older hardware I would be inclined to stick with it...xp is a very solid os...just not as nice as vista or 7...vista and 7 are more secure though.XP can be a genuine workhorse if the startups are trimmed down and a couple services disabled....will run great....but there is a limit to how much it can do..it will reach a point when it decides it will not open anymore,even if you have alot of ram....it rarely happens to the common person,but if you are editing code and doing alot of googleing because you are having to look up details at the same time,have an ftp client going.few notepads a pdf or 2 yahoo messanger going on the side..you will reach a point where xp will not open anything else...you click and nothing happens, no messages or errors...what you have open will be running fine...you will have to close some windows{3 or so before you can open more}but hey you really need all of them because you are having trouble and trying to find that bad line of php code...so there you are working on the back end of your host..have several of your files open,along with a few surfing windows...etc..you about have it beat..but xp wont let you go any further,

Hello vista........problem solved..it will let you do more..its like a semi compared to a pickup..the pickup will dart around better but the semi brings the potatoes to the market.

People complained about the fuel mileage with vista....so here comes 7...snappier while running light.

Vista kept the hard drive busy alot..that equals slow performance...the trick was to leave the machine on walk away and let it go to sleep...it would then do its hard drive activity and get it over with. The common scenario for vista was as follows..a person powers up and starts to use the machine..mean while vista is hitting the hdd to fill the ram up..this made for a terrible first few minutes of operation leaving a bad impression...the correct way was to power up and walk away for a while..unless you needed the machine right then...then after using it just put it to sleep or hibernate....the longer vista went without getting shutdown the better it ran...i hated to do a reboot due to an app install or windows update..it was very common for me to go 10 days at a time with out a power down.
It run great...as the apps i used stayed in ram...heck sleep was the primary shutdown on the menu...people never really caught on with how to use vista though....It was always compared to xp...there is always an adjustment time for the public to a new os..when it first comes out the hardware usually isnt up to par......when people upgraded from 98 they whined...same with 2000 and same for xp...they just didnt have the power..and blamed to os...later as hardware got faster the complaints went away.....Vista needed much more power than its priors and it sucked on the early machines,,they had no business being sold...Now we have 7 that needs less power..therefore curing the whining stage from the beginning making seven a hit from the start..its nice.. and is snappier during light and medium loads....but will it haul all the potatoes?in less than a month I have had desktop window manager restart about 4 times..one of these was right after dropping 7 pictures on the desktop..2 were while using the magnifier..another one while adding a device in bluetooth.
I can honestly say it was very rare for me to have explorer restart for me with xp...i can count the times on one hand after years of usage.
explorer in vista yes..when bluetooth software was fighting the vista bluetooth as i didnt run the cd first.
Vista and 7 haver nicer search features.....but xp has more options and will honestly find more files...i give alot of weight to that,,,after all if the os cant find it are you supposed to find them manually?...vista and 7 arent perfect..but they sure are sweet. Apple come out with a very nice os..it was gaining market..ubuntu also gaining market..Mircrosoft dominated for a long time and with comfort as well. If apple had lowered their prices during the first year vista was out..they could have hurt microsoft...more people would have seen them,more would have liked them,people would have bought them after seeing them if the prices had been competitive.I wouldnt mind having a mac...however windows has the taskbar..i dont like the dock the macs use for serious multitasking.I have my w7 superbar setup vista style rather than grouping and added back the quick launch as a tweak..i can see each running task as before...preview it and peek it,,the best of all worlds. macs will keep the trademark dock...while cool..its an inconvenience to me.
Well i have rambled on enough,,time to post this before my token expires LOL.....and get back to enjoying the plush conveniences of 7....I think I will click on the media center and watch some Mcgyver ...free ofcoarse

[azariah007]

very well done summery as good as a book! I agree with you on pretty much all points their very good analysis. The only thing I disagree with is the mac pricing they just came pretty much on par with the windows machines check it out!

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...URE-IMAC-INDEX

Change the i5 out for an i7 and you have a cheaper MAC than an equivalent Windows 7 machine but with an enormous screen, bigger than any screen I've ever come across for the pc and much better quality of course. But we digress.


Oops that's the link for the us store here's the au sight

http://store.apple.com/au/browse/hom...co=MTAyNTM5OTY

[azariah007]

Hm I might have to revise my last statement it gets close not quite as even as I thought but if your willing to spend that extra $500AU if you were looking at a PC with a graphics card of a fairly hi calibre which if your playing games of any descent sort you need. It's still ok and once you look at the upgrade costs for OS's your better of with a MAC what can I say I'm a person of two minds! I would still virtualize windows along side mac os x so I could run the programs I already own but then if that's all I was doing I would only need windows XP which when every one's got at least 1 in my case 3 licenses for it ha :-))

I'm going to close this forum now I'll put a link to another question specifically for the windows/mac debate because I need help deciding now that the prices are dropping again!

OVER AND OUT!

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by azariah007

very well done summery as good as a book! I agree with you on pretty much all points their very good analysis. The only thing I disagree with is the mac pricing they just came pretty much on par with the windows machines check it out!

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...URE-IMAC-INDEX

Change the i5 out for an i7 and you have a cheaper MAC than an equivalent Windows 7 machine but with an enormous screen, bigger than any screen I've ever come across for the pc and much better quality of course. But we digress.


Oops that's the link for the us store here's the au sight

http://store.apple.com/au/browse/hom...co=MTAyNTM5OTY

I am in the U.S. lol
Thats still alot of money for a computer to most here..people here tend to go 500 to 800 bucks for a large portion of the market.
The macs arent at very many places when you shop as well. The advertising here is about spyware on windows but the mac is safe..they should have been showing how nice it was....a virus on a pc is liked a stubbed toe..once the pain is gone you kinda forget about it.....but everybody likes cool and nice stuff..we purchase because we daydream..Apple should have run the ads to show how nice it was and have some 30 day specials on occasion to get you behind a mac for 800 bucks...friends would see them and buy later at full price..mac didnt get the exposure they needed.....most here have never any seen one let alone took one for a spin....The apple guys are kinda in their own group so to say,so crossover exposure is limited.A mac owner will know a few other mac owners.The gamers who have a good share of units go with windows so they can use their games,so the hardcore gamers wont switch for that reason....the middle aged non gamers and older people for the most part have never seen a mac.

[azariah007]

hate to say this but your so right I don't know a whole lot about the US but even your expensive houses don't get near what we pay here in AUS for a standard house (we have friends whose children are in the US) yeah over hear we have/had I'm not sure of one but we have to what you would call department stores MYER and David Jones which I think you have in the US (correct me if I'm wrong), Dick Smith Superstores, and JB Hi-Fi no idea what JB stands for but any way these all have MAC's in some form usually at minimum two iMacs a Mac Book Air and a Mac Book and usually all of our shopping centers have at least one of these stores so exposure over hear is pretty hi hence my attitude and most people now know thanks to Vista that $800AU is not a enough for a decent pc minimum 1200-1500 to get anything reasonable unless you have the knowledge to build your own. And even after this "recession" Australia hasn't had anything enough to call it that. Every one's still fairly cashed up!

It's amazing how much difference an ocean makes between two countries that are aw fairly similar. I know if I go to far in similarities I'll get shot down.

Yeah here's the link to the knew post

http://forums.techguy.org/apple-maco...ml#post7008471

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by azariah007

hate to say this but your so right I don't know a whole lot about the US but even your expensive houses don't get near what we pay here in AUS for a standard house (we have friends whose children are in the US) yeah over hear we have/had I'm not sure of one but we have to what you would call department stores MYER and David Jones which I think you have in the US (correct me if I'm wrong), Dick Smith Superstores, and JB Hi-Fi no idea what JB stands for but any way these all have MAC's in some form usually at minimum two iMacs a Mac Book Air and a Mac Book and usually all of our shopping centers have at least one of these stores so exposure over hear is pretty hi hence my attitude and most people now know thanks to Vista that $800AU is not a enough for a decent pc minimum 1200-1500 to get anything reasonable unless you have the knowledge to build your own. And even after this "recession" Australia hasn't had anything enough to call it that. Every one's still fairly cashed up!

It's amazing how much difference an ocean makes between two countries that are aw fairly similar. I know if I go to far in similarities I'll get shot down.

Yeah here's the link to the knew post

http://forums.techguy.org/apple-maco...ml#post7008471

The main department stores here dont have them and the pc places usually have good deals on different models from week to week..people here favor the names HP and dell...bang for the buck though is with Acer,Gateway and Compaq.E machines can be bought for a bargain as well..many buyers here dont even know what ram is..let alone how much they need...the winner is usually the lowest priced unit.

Here is what 500 to 750 will buy here,while the imac is 1200..double in price
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?id=pcat17080&type=page&qp=crootcategoryid%23%23-1%23%23-1~~q70726f63657373696e6774696d653a3e313930302d30312d3031~~cabcat0500000%23% 230%23%2311a~~cabcat0501000%23%230%23%2329~~nf408||24353030202d20243734392e 3939&list=y&nrp=15&sc=abComputerSP&ks=960&usc=abcat0500000&sp=-displaydate+skuid&list=y&iht=n&st=processingtime%3A%3E1900-01-01

[aka Brett]

Here are some laptop prices..laptops are getting common here...while a 15 inch mac will run you 1700......expect me to post in the other thread later lol
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstempl...c=abcat0500000