• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Windows XP or Windows 7 Starter on a netbook?

W

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.
 
B

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
 
B

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.
 
S

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.
 
T

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..."
 
B

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
 
T

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"
 
B

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
 
T

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.
 
Top