1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows XP or Windows 7 Starter on a netbook?

Discussion in 'Notebooks' started by walterbyrd, Jan 31, 2010.

  1. walterbyrd

    walterbyrd Flightless Bird

    Unless I'm missing something (and I sure could be), XP seems vastly
    superior for a typical netbook.

    - Drivers: XP is seems to be much better, for example my HP 3015 multi-
    function printer will not fully work with win7. I don't know if I
    would trust older apps with win7 either.

    - System requirements: Why worry about running more than 3 apps on
    win7 starter? It seems like most win7 netbooks will be straining to
    run even run one. XP requires 64mb or RAM, with 128mb recommended,
    win7 requires a minimum of 1GB of RAM. XP requires a 233mhz processor,
    win7 requires a minimum of 1ghz. I have also read that Win7 burns up
    batteries faster.

    - Support: Msft has promised to provide support for XP until August
    2014 - That's about 4.5 years from this writing. BTW: I still use
    win2k, I think it's the best OS msft ever developed. But msft dropped
    support for win2k many years ago.

    - Win7 does not seem to provide any "must have" features.

    Please correct me if I am wrong about any of that.
     
  2. BillW50

    BillW50 Flightless Bird

    In
    news:aa69aef7-514d-47c4-b1cf-5e7ad56bd181@h9g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
    walterbyrd typed on Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:28:57 -0800 (PST):
    > Unless I'm missing something (and I sure could be), XP seems vastly
    > superior for a typical netbook.
    >
    > - Drivers: XP is seems to be much better, for example my HP 3015
    > multi- function printer will not fully work with win7. I don't know
    > if I would trust older apps with win7 either.
    >
    > - System requirements: Why worry about running more than 3 apps on
    > win7 starter? It seems like most win7 netbooks will be straining to
    > run even run one. XP requires 64mb or RAM, with 128mb recommended,
    > win7 requires a minimum of 1GB of RAM. XP requires a 233mhz processor,
    > win7 requires a minimum of 1ghz. I have also read that Win7 burns up
    > batteries faster.
    >
    > - Support: Msft has promised to provide support for XP until August
    > 2014 - That's about 4.5 years from this writing. BTW: I still use
    > win2k, I think it's the best OS msft ever developed. But msft dropped
    > support for win2k many years ago.
    >
    > - Win7 does not seem to provide any "must have" features.
    >
    > Please correct me if I am wrong about any of that.


    Yeap, I agree. I agree so much that I now have 7 XP machines. That
    should keep me going for many years to come, eh? I also have Windows 7
    on one netbook and on one laptop. And I am going to remove Windows 7 on
    those two very soon. And I have two other Windows 7 Upgrade up on the
    shelf unopened. What a waste of money that was. <sigh>

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
  3. Barry Watzman

    Barry Watzman Flightless Bird

    I think it's a toss, and ultimately depends on personal preferences.

    BTW, I believe that the 3-app limitation was removed from the final
    version and isn't in the released product.

    And, also, while the original XP required only 64MB of RAM with 128MB
    recommended, no way that will work for SP2 or SP3. As a practical
    matter, you need 512MB (but, granted, that's still half of what you need
    for an equivalent Win7 system).


    walterbyrd wrote:
    > Unless I'm missing something (and I sure could be), XP seems vastly
    > superior for a typical netbook.
    >
    > - Drivers: XP is seems to be much better, for example my HP 3015 multi-
    > function printer will not fully work with win7. I don't know if I
    > would trust older apps with win7 either.
    >
    > - System requirements: Why worry about running more than 3 apps on
    > win7 starter? It seems like most win7 netbooks will be straining to
    > run even run one. XP requires 64mb or RAM, with 128mb recommended,
    > win7 requires a minimum of 1GB of RAM. XP requires a 233mhz processor,
    > win7 requires a minimum of 1ghz. I have also read that Win7 burns up
    > batteries faster.
    >
    > - Support: Msft has promised to provide support for XP until August
    > 2014 - That's about 4.5 years from this writing. BTW: I still use
    > win2k, I think it's the best OS msft ever developed. But msft dropped
    > support for win2k many years ago.
    >
    > - Win7 does not seem to provide any "must have" features.
    >
    > Please correct me if I am wrong about any of that.
     
  4. shofar

    shofar Flightless Bird

    In article <hk84nc$ep7$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:


    > > - Win7 does not seem to provide any "must have" features.
    > >
    > > Please correct me if I am wrong about any of that.


    From the point of view of a computer hw and sw tech, Win7 clearly
    appears to be a move toward cloud computing, where most of your software
    and storage is online. It is designed for minimal hardware - such as
    tables, hand-helds, etc.
    The fact that Win7 commercials give the impression that "it's so
    simple, even a child can use it" belies the future of computing.
    Apple has moved to iPhones and iPads - away from the traditional
    desktops and even laptops.
    For those of us who like the old ways - it might be time to buy or
    preferably build a few systems that will run the old operating systems
    with the old hardware - while it is still available.
    The main problems with cloud computing are absolutely no privacy,
    limited software choices and a forced move to smaller, portable
    hardware.
     
  5. the wharf rat

    the wharf rat Flightless Bird

    In article <4b6c7415$0$275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
    shofar <shofar@feasts.net> wrote:
    >
    > For those of us who like the old ways - it might be time to buy or
    >preferably build a few systems that will run the old operating systems
    >with the old hardware - while it is still available.


    Run Linux.

    > The main problems with cloud computing are absolutely no privacy,
    >limited software choices and a forced move to smaller, portable
    >hardware.


    Not to mention trusting your service provider(s) to be there
    when you need them. "Oh, the proposal? Ummm welll Microsoft Cloud
    is sort of down right now..."
     
  6. BillW50

    BillW50 Flightless Bird

    the wharf rat wrote:
    > In article <4b6c7415$0$275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
    > shofar <shofar@feasts.net> wrote:
    >> For those of us who like the old ways - it might be time to buy or
    >> preferably build a few systems that will run the old operating systems
    >> with the old hardware - while it is still available.

    >
    > Run Linux.


    Probably a bad idea if you like playing multimedia files. Or use stream
    recorders, PC games, and zillions of Windows only applications. Although
    Wine is said to help somewhat.

    It is pretty sad, that while I am using Linux on this machine. I have to
    have another machine running Windows just to fill in the parts that
    Linux just can't do for me.

    For example, right now Windows is capturing the stream of a radio
    program and running my GlucoseOne database. I am also playing around
    with Sims (PC game - most popular game of all time with over 100 million
    sold). Plus there are many tasks that Linux just can't do for me.

    The rule of thumb for decades has been, find the applications you want
    to run and then find the OS that will run them. NOT the other way
    around. As that would be the fool hearted way.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix
     
  7. the wharf rat

    the wharf rat Flightless Bird

    In article <hkmhch$n30$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
    >>
    >> Run Linux.

    >
    >Probably a bad idea if you like playing multimedia files.


    You mean "Probably a bad idea if you like playing multimedia files
    and can't be bothered to RTFM because you'd rather make a public scene
    about your inability to get an application more complicated than Hearts
    installed properly"


    >The rule of thumb for decades has been, find the applications you want
    >to run and then find the OS that will run them. NOT the other way


    My rule of thumb is "If it doesn't run on your platform, port it"
     
  8. BillW50

    BillW50 Flightless Bird

    In news:hkn6j5$hki$1@reader2.panix.com,
    the wharf rat typed on Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:08:05 +0000 (UTC):
    > In article <hkmhch$n30$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    > BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Run Linux.

    >>
    >> Probably a bad idea if you like playing multimedia files.

    >
    > You mean "Probably a bad idea if you like playing multimedia files
    > and can't be bothered to RTFM because you'd rather make a public scene
    > about your inability to get an application more complicated than
    > Hearts installed properly"


    Okay smart ass. I am looking at Ubuntu manual right now. And it states
    Ubuntu *CAN* play MP3, WMA, and AAC. But it cannot play DRM schemes.
    Which these are not. Xandros can play them. So what is the problem? The
    manual doesn't say what to do if it doesn't work.

    And for DVD it says I have to install the bad and ugly packages. Nice,
    eh? Nice names... as their names kind of tell you it ain't going to be
    good nor pretty to begin with.

    And the manual has nothing to say about using stream recorders at all.

    >> The rule of thumb for decades has been, find the applications you
    >> want to run and then find the OS that will run them. NOT the other
    >> way

    >
    > My rule of thumb is "If it doesn't run on your platform, port it"


    Oh are you a Java nerd? That is why Open Office takes so long to work.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
  9. the wharf rat

    the wharf rat Flightless Bird

    In article <hkn9cm$om9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
    >
    >And for DVD it says I have to install the bad and ugly packages. Nice,
    >eh? Nice names... as their names kind of tell you it ain't going to be
    >good nor pretty to begin with.
    >


    If you need someone to hold your end every step of the way then
    open source might not be an optimal environment for you. It's a bit like
    a manual transmission. More difficult and requires more attention, a bit
    old fashioned but lots more fun once you master it.

    >Oh are you a Java nerd?


    No, I'm an accountant.
     

Share This Page