Just a couple of articles this week, the newsletters have been pretty sparse lately.

This one is a repeat, but then again, you cannot imagine how many times people mix up these terms.

Ever wonder what the difference is between downloading, uploading and installing? I mean, they all sound like they could be the same thing, so what does each bring to the table of the computer world? Well, here's a rundown for you.

Downloading - This is moving a file that's on the Internet (or over a network) onto your computer. For most of us, downloading is just a matter of clicking a download link on a Web site and saving the file to a disk.

Uploading - This is actually the opposite of downloading. With uploading, you take a file from your computer and send it to a computer on the Internet (or a computer/server on a network). This is usually done with an FTP client, but some Web sites will allow you to send files to them via your Web browser.

Installing - This is often confused with downloading, but it's a different animal. When you install something, you basically "put" the program on your computer so you can use it. Normally, this is done via a setup program (or wizard) to make the installation easier. Once you're finished installing a program, you can usually run it from your Start menu, Programs area.

How to stop repetitive patch-update offers

Ever had Windows Update repeatedly offer you the same patch again and again, even after you've downloaded and installed it? Reader Rick Framme finds himself frustrated by this problem:

§ "Help! My Sony VAIO laptop gets repeated automatic updates for KB 924885: Windows Outlook E-mail Junk Filter. I keep installing it, and have even run IE 7 Windows Update to ensure the update registers, but I can't find that number in my Add/Remove Programs list, so it seems the install hasn't worked."

Actually, this can happen with any update or patch, Rick. The usual cause is when the initial installation fails, leaving behind digital debris that would normally get cleaned up after a successful install. The left-over files, flags, and fragments prevent Windows Update from successfully completing subsequent installation attempts, leading to an endless cycle of download/install retries.

It's actually not that hard to fix, but the explanation takes some space. Rather than eat up the rest of this issue on that one topic, please allow me to point you to Web sites with the information you seek. The Windows Update Resource Page has an enormous number of tips relating to specific update problems, but the information at the top of the page is rather dated. Instead, scroll two-thirds of the way down the page to the text section that appears after the list of links. Try steps I-V. I'll bet that will fix what's blocking your update.

If this doesn't work, try cleaning out any reference to the failed install in the C:\WUtemp folder. Then manually download and install the troublesome file. See How to download updates and drivers from the Windows Update Catalog. You can also try the Windows Update Troubleshooter, especially if you have a specific error message to look up.

Does Vista really need 4GB of RAM?

Reader Paul was alarmed at what he recently read in a computer magazine:

§ "What do you think of this Computerworld article? Is 4GB RAM what Vista really needs?"

There's some controversy about just how much RAM Vista needs. As has been the case with all versions of Windows back to at least Win98, Microsoft's "minimum" recommendations should really be called "life-support" standards — the least amount of PC hardware required to get the operating system barely alive and functioning.

For Vista, Microsoft says you need at least an 800MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and a graphics processor that's at least DirectX 9 compatible. Vista will indeed run on such a system, but you won't enjoy the experience. You'll also lose key features of Vista, such as the new interface.

Microsoft's "recommended" standard — including a 1GHz CPU, 1GB of RAM, a graphics card with at least 128 MB of video RAM, a WDDM driver, and 32 bits/pixel output — is a more realistic minimum for real-life use, where you'd actually be trying to be productive with Vista. A system like this should allow all the key components of Vista to load and run. But even then, a "recommended" hardware standard is not the same as an "optimal" setup.

Many pundits recommend at least 2GB of RAM, which was a sweet spot for XP. Vista is larger and more complex than XP, so it will not run as well on 2GB as XP does. Nevertheless, many users will find Vista's performance perfectly acceptable in this range.

That's where the 4GB recommendations come in. All the 32-bit versions of Vista can handle up to 4GB of RAM (the 64-bit versions can handle more). So, the reasoning goes, you might as well throw in as much RAM as Vista will allow. That way, you'll have access to all of the new operating system's features with no performance loss compared to XP.

So, does Vista really need 4GB? No. Vista will run in a limited way with as little as 512MB. It will run passingly with 1GB, and fairly well with 2GB. But, if you're looking to get as much out of Vista as it has to offer, then yes, you need 4GB of RAM.

Please feel free to forward this to anyone that you think might be interested in it. If they wish to subscribe, they can click on the link below.

If this was forwarded to you and you wish to subscribe, please click here: Subscribe
If you wish to be deleted from the mailing list, please click here: Unsubscribe