Problem with Quick Links?

Boyd

Boyd

Administrator
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
9,923
3,072
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
When I click on the "Quick Links" dropdown, the menu appears way below the title bar and I have to "chase it around" to click on a link. I am able to do this with Safari on the Mac, but with FireFox on Windows I can't even "catch" the menu long enough to click on a link.

I think this happened before after a software upgrade. No big deal, but thought I should point it out...
 
Teegate

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
26,048
8,835
Yea, that did it before. Ben made some adjustments and fixed it. I suspect he needs to again.

Guy
 
Ben Ruset

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,619
1,878
Monmouth County
www.benruset.com
Yeah, I forgot what I did to fix that the last time. To be honest, it's really, really, really low on my priority of things to fix. :)

There's a "mark forums read" link on the bottom of the forum home page. That's what I use.
 
Teegate

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
26,048
8,835
Works good in Safari and Firefox on the Mac. Thanks Ben! That has been annoying.

Guy
 
james ungehajer

james ungehajer

Piney
Oct 25, 2006
1,757
1
74
Boyd said:
Working fine under Firefox on Vista 64 bit - thanks Ben!
Click to expand...

Boyd

I am running Windows XP service pack 3, 32 bit, i was wary some of upgrading to Vista, people i know that have Vista say that it is slower than XP, i know that you are a Mac man, but Microsoft now has a beta of a new operating systen called Windows 7 which they state is quicker than Vista.

Can you or anyone else very knowlegeable with computers give me an opinion on Windows 7 ?

Thanks Jim
 
Boyd

Boyd

Administrator
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
9,923
3,072
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Heh, I have just gotten Vista to the point of behaving the way I want. Can't imagine any reason to go through that again with another Microsoft product.

I got a new Dell desktop machine recently with Vista 64 bit home premium pre-loaded. It's a pretty fast machine (core 2 duo 2.8ghz) with 6gb of RAM. That seems to be the kind of spec you need to have Vista perform well. I just wanted a faster machine which I could dedicate to my mapmaking without the need to re-boot my MacBook Pro into Windows constantly.

Vista is actually a huge improvement over XP for the kinds of things I'm doing. Certainly much more attractive visually, and it just "feels" more responsive than XP does on my core 2 duo 2.4ghz with 4gb of memory. It has been rock solid stable, something which actually surprised me. No crashes yet in the past month of use (it's been on 24/7 without a reboot for the past two weeks in fact). XP was really buggy with a couple high-end software packages I use. It would not properly update the program window when running in the background for example. Lots of application crashes which I almost never see on Vista. It's just a much more stable and attractive environment from what I've seen.

Initially I had to mess around a bit to get all my software working, but after that everything has been a breeze. That's the good part. The bad is that it is in-your-face annoying with overly restrictive security measures the default. I have turned most of these off - and it whines about that too - but it took awhile just to figure out how to do that.

Now I don't use this machine as an all-around computer though, just to run a handful of mapping programs which are PC-only. In the end it's sad to see that Microsoft still just doesn't "get" it. Apple is so far ahead in terms of the whole user experience. I don't think they will ever figure this out in Redmond so I am understandably skeptical of Windows 7.

But my general feeling is that if you don't have a reasonably high spec PC then you should just keep whatever operating system you currently have. Upgrading sounds problematic in general, and it will be more pleasant to just wait until you can buy a new machine that has a new operating system pre-loaded and configured for their specific hardware.
 
MarkBNJ

MarkBNJ

Piney
Jun 17, 2007
1,875
73
Long Valley, NJ
www.markbetz.net
I'm not a huge Vista fan, but it's ok. As a developer I know that they had to address some key issues with XP, and that change was very likely to be breaking in at least some respects (which it has been). I find Vista very usable and stable, albeit with some frustrating glitches remaining. I'm looking forward to Windows 7 as MS's new architectures are always better after a release or two.
 
Teegate

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
26,048
8,835
MarkBNJ said:
I'm not a huge Vista fan, but it's ok. As a developer I know that they had to address some key issues with XP, and that change was very likely to be breaking in at least some respects (which it has been). I find Vista very usable and stable, albeit with some frustrating glitches remaining. I'm looking forward to Windows 7 as MS's new architectures are always better after a release or two.
Click to expand...

My daughter hates it because the games she has won't play on it. They play on my Mac in XP. Any suggestions?

Guy
 
james ungehajer

james ungehajer

Piney
Oct 25, 2006
1,757
1
74
TeeGate said:
My daughter hates it because the games she has won't play on it. They play on my Mac in XP. Any suggestions?

Guy
Click to expand...

Guy

Just a suggestion, i just upgraded my graphics card from a BFG 6200 OC to an Asus 250 GTS it now plays all my games including Crysis at 1600 by 1020, one game that i have is MLB2K9, it would hardly play on my old Graphics Card with a frame rate of 7 FPS, frame rates with the new card even on Crysis is 30 frames per second, i was thinking of buying a new motherboard to be able to SLI, two cards which have to be the same configuration would increase Graphics performance an additional 28 %.

Amazingly my daughter has a new Hewlitt Packard with Vista Home Premium, the MLB 2k9 game on her computer is slower that my computer, she has 3Gb of Ram compared to my 2 GB, it hardly plays, with Vista compared to XP to play games you need more RAM, a faster processor, and of course one of today's new Graphics Cards.

I bought the Asus video card from Newegg for $139.99 with a $25.00 mail in rebate to Asus, and of course free shipping, i say upgrade definitely to a better video card.

Crysis is a very demanding game on one's computer, as with any game, anything below 20 FPS is mostly hangups and other problems.

Jim
 
MarkBNJ

MarkBNJ

Piney
Jun 17, 2007
1,875
73
Long Valley, NJ
www.markbetz.net
TeeGate said:
My daughter hates it because the games she has won't play on it. They play on my Mac in XP. Any suggestions?

Guy
Click to expand...

Games are some of the most problematic pieces of software for Vista, because they often don't play well with the greater restrictions on access to resources in the system.

After installation the game will typically have placed a shortcut on the desktop. Right click the shortcut and click 'Properties,' and in the resulting dialog click the 'Compatibility' tab. Check 'Run this program in compatibility mode for:' and then select 'Windows XP Service Pack 2' from the drop-down list. I typically also select 'Disable visual themes,' 'Disable desktop composition,' and 'Run this program as administrator.' When you are finished click 'Ok' to accept the dialog.

I find this solves problems with about 75% or 80% of games. The other 20-25% either don't cause a problem or are beyond a solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top