|
I wish Asus would have offered the pro/ultimate/whatever version on their gaming series at the time. Do not know if thats still the case.
CPallini wrote: You cannot argue with agile people so just take the extreme approach and shoot him.
:Smile:
|
|
|
|
|
Group policy on Home edition? It wasn't there for Win 7/8 too...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
It was there on my 7 that I upgraded from.
CPallini wrote: You cannot argue with agile people so just take the extreme approach and shoot him.
:Smile:
|
|
|
|
|
A Home edition? It must have been a manual install...
Starter, Home (Basic and Professional) came without it originally...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
No idea, i dont remember installing it, but who knows.
CPallini wrote: You cannot argue with agile people so just take the extreme approach and shoot him.
:Smile:
|
|
|
|
|
Then it should be there now. How are you trying to start it?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm banging my head against the whole linkage to a Microsoft account on 10. I had a time setting up a local machine account for my 4-year-old, MS really wants you to register with them. If I want to use the MS net-nazi tool (and I did) I couldn't find a way to do it without him having a linked MS one, which also necessitates an e-mail address - exposing the bairn to yet more potential nasties. All I want to do is restrict no. 1 son's login on my machine so he doesn't see anything inappropriate.
I've found a 3rd party solution - but MS's strategy seems nuts to me, all so they can register more details.
|
|
|
|
|
The potential offset is that if you've set it up on his account, and he uses another pc, then the restrictions should follow him around.
|
|
|
|
|
Queue to the left, but pee to the right! (8)
(This is not original to me: it was a "Teatime Teaser" on Countdown last week and I overheard it. But it was so good I couldn't resist it!)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope - unless there is a hole in the tube, of course... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but no...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
A guess - tailback
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but that's wrong.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I know
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I have it running on a 486 with 64 MB of RAM. OK, doesn't do USB, PnP and all that, but it runs. And, if memory serves me correct, only uses about 100 MB of disk space.
I just wonder where the hell we are gong with IT.
My company i7 with 3GB and win7 is now, probably due to a mixture of windows updates and McAfee, incapable of playing a vid on you tube (with both IE or Chrome) while running a VirtualBoxVM that uses half the PCs resources.
That's just pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
They put men on the moon in the sixties using 48 KB
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
I've run Win10 on some pretty crappy systems and it's been great.
Munchies_Matt wrote: McAfee
Ah. There we go.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I am pretty convinced it is a piece of sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
As an embedded guy I'm fairly certain anything that uses more than 640K is classed in your book as excessive, overblown tripe full of needless bells and whistles that interfere with the process of actually getting the job done.
You're a tough crowd.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. Shame really, if it wasn't for the a**hole writing viruses we wouldn't need this kind of crap in the system.
|
|
|
|
|
And how's your 486 handling that video? Or VM? Or McAfee?
You may be able to run NT with 64MB of RAM and 100MB of disk space, but you're giving that i7 much more demanding jobs.
PS - give that poor i7 more RAM if you want it to perform adequately.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, it isn't going to run great video, and its an ISA bus system anyway, but the fact is it runs on a 486 with a small foot print.
dandy72 wrote: - give that poor i7 more RAM if you want it to perform adequately.
Yeah? HOw much more do you reckon it needs to work properly?
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Yeah? HOw much more do you reckon it needs to work properly?
Depends what you use it for. You're running VMs, so right there demand will grow pretty quickly. You'll probably want to give the VM itself at least 4GB, unless you want it to start paging as soon as it starts doing anything serious. Same with the host, so you're talking 8GB at a minimum.
When I started using VMs for my day-to-day work, it didn't take long before I moved from 8 to 16, then 32, and now 64. YMMV of course, but generally as soon as you have at least one VM, 8 should be your absolute minimum. Otherwise, if the host isn't going to be paging to disk, the guest will, and both will suffer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
