Windows 7 On Old Hardware

[Guest Reimar]

I had some discussions with some of my customers about Windows 7 and it's requirements.

Main question were all times: "Did we need to change our hardware?" or: "Is an hardware upgrade needed?"

So, I played a bit around with older hardware for expamle:

1.: NEC Mate 17GA. It's an japanese NEC with 1.7 GHz Celeron Processor and came original with 512 MB Ram, 40 GB HDD and XP Pro installed. Computer is from year 2002.

I upgraded the memory to 1 GB and 160 GB HDD with 2 partition, each 80 GB, that's all.

Installed XP pro again, and was need to downlaod all drivers again, not one was working directly.

Installed Windows 7 7077 on the 2. Partition and all drivers were directly installed and working.

Boot time from XP: 3 min!!

Boot time from Windows 7: 1 min!!

2.: Sony Vaio Laptop year 2000, P4 3 GHZ and 512 MB Ram, 60 GB HDD.

No any upgrade I had leave the system in its origin state. It had XP pro installed and the booting time was 2.5 minutes!

Installed Windows 7 7077 as clean install and only system on HDD. Installation was need 49 minutes. All drivers were working directly and even the 512 MB Ram were enough. Ok, not for multitasking with more than 5 progs open at the time! The huge difference to XP Pro was: Boot time below 1 minute and the running with the same Office and Excel files, nearly 40% faster than XP!

The above testing and outcome is showing very clear that Windows 7 is even faster than XP ever was! But it also shows, that the min System Requierements are less than MS told as needed!

Overall the OS Windows 7 is working a lot more stable than Vista and XP. Even Software which were not able to run in Vista, like Windows Draw from 1991 or Ulead Image Pals from 1990, are working in Windows 7 very well.

I still have an NEC Peti Scan Scanner (a small mobile Scanner) which was able to work max in Win 2000 and I like to check that scanner can work in Windows 7 as well because the driver is assigned for Win 98 as latest OS! Need to find the driver again because the CD is "dead"! But if I get the driver, I'm quite confident I'll get that scanner back to work.

It's just a kind of fun for to do such testing! It also shows that the new MS OS seems to be a very relaible system.

Maybe those of the readers of this forum, who were thinking about to upgrade or not, get some more ideas.

Have fun.

[gazzasore]

I have the 64 bit version on mine 7077

Its running like a dream

AMD 64 4800

4 Gig Ram

Next update comes out on the 5th May I think

[Thanh-BKK]

Hehehe....

Ubuntu 9.04 "Jaunty" on an AMD 3500+, 1 GB RAM, 20 GB (!!) hard disk, full install as sole OS.... Boot (power button to end of HDD activity and fully loaded desktop: 24 seconds. Shutdown (from clicking "OK" to "power off"): a stunning 7 (SEVEN!) seconds.

Oh, install time (after booting from the Live CD that allows to test the OS without installing it): 12 minutes. All devices working, no drivers required.

Cost of OS: A few hours download on a 1M ADSL via Bit Torrent, one blank CD. It's legal to be installed on as many computers as you like and won't run 98% of the available viruses/trojans A fully "MS Office" compatible suite is included out-of-the-box, as are web browser, instant messenger (multi-protocol!), e-mail software, media player etc etc etc.

It's Linux

But here, Windows 7 seriously looks like "The Best Windows Ever", i have read quite a bunch of good reviews which all talk about how good it runs on non-high-end computers. However the most common problem is likely to remain...... XP is VERY quick, too, after first install.... but as soon as the (absolutely required!) anti-virus, anti-spyware and anti-whatnot softwares are installed it gets dog slow. Microsoft really should make their own anti-virus stuff and integrate in such a way that it would not slow down the OS........ but then, they probably would have a couple of holes in there which allow a hacker to take complete control over your computer.....

I'm waiting for Windows 7 to be available, if it's affordable i'll get it. No more pirated stuff, i've got free and legal Linux.

Best regards....

Thanh

[CHdiver]

Acer 3620, 1.5 Celeron, 1 gig Ram and Windows 7 runs faster then XP before. Its also faster then Vista on my Acer 4530 (1.9 AMD Athlon, 3 gig ram)

I am impressed with Windows 7

[bkkmick]

Sorry for the slight hijack.

Last night I tried to download Windows 7. I went through the email verification, got a product key then all the links state that windows 7 is no longer available for download. Is that it? Do I have to wait until the release date? Or do you guys know of another download link that still works?

Mick

[Guest Reimar]

Sorry for the slight hijack.

Last night I tried to download Windows 7. I went through the email verification, got a product key then all the links state that windows 7 is no longer available for download. Is that it? Do I have to wait until the release date? Or do you guys know of another download link that still works?

Mick

NO! No any official link to the Windows 7 download any more at the moment. But if you wait till the May 5. you maybe get an official again.

Anyway there a lot location where you can download the required files! Just search for it!

The key is still to get directly from Microsoft!

Cheers.

[bkkmick]

OK, Reimar. Thanks for that.

[thunder30101]

Linux ? maybe when you can find drivers,programs and support. Ive tried many flavors over the years including the latest distros of ubuntu/kubuntu, but I use my computer alot for many varied things and just dont see any compelling reason for it , maybe thats why all these years later it is still dead in the water as an operating system, And i always wonder why my apple friends brag about startup-shutdown times ? Whats the purpose of this great feature ?

[katana]

I installed Win 7 on an old 1.4 Celeron. However, the motherboard, from 1999, could not handle a graphics card with more than 32 MB memory, and this low spec graphics card made Win 7 very slow on some things and essentially unusable on this sytem.

Edited April 23, 2009 by katana

[Guest Reimar]

I installed Win 7 on an old 1.4 Celeron. However, the motherboard, from 1999, could not handle a graphics card with more than 32 MB memory, and this low spec graphics card made Win 7 very slow on some things and essentially unusable on this sytem.

The NEC 17 I installed Win 7 to has just 8 MB shared for graphics and with Aero switched off it just works fine!

[katana]

That wasn't my experience. When I tried to use some of the bundled software in Win 7, eg the media player and other programs, I ran into constant problems due to the low spec graphics card (and this was with aero turned off). As much as I wanted it to work on that old computer, Win XP was faster and more usable.

[Thanh-BKK]

And i always wonder why my apple friends brag about startup-shutdown times ? Whats the purpose of this great feature ?

Here's the answer... from own experience:

So it's late evening or night, your girl/boy is in bed already and calls you in..... you shut down the computer... and JUST THEN you remember "darn, i still had to put that file on my thumb drive" or some such small task.

So you boot again.

1) Linux or Windows 7: Startup, do your task, shutdown, go join your girl/boy in bed.

2) XP: Startup, tell your girl/boy about your day at the office, do your task, shutdown, explain her/him how the universe functions, join her/him in bed.

3) Vista: Startup, go to 7-Eleven for a Pepsi, return to watch TV for a while, write a novel, do your task, shutdown, proof-read your novel, find out that you will be late for work if you don't hurry up.

I can't say anything about Macs as i don't have one

Of course it does depend on the hardware, too... but for some strange reason my somewhat outdated machine (Ubuntu) still starts/shuts way faster than even the latest and fastest computers with some sort of Windows on them (except for Windows 7 which i haven't tested, and except for Windows 95 which FLIES). So doing such little tasks, which i forget almost every evening, don't upset my boyfriend too much

Best regards.....

Thanh

[Guest Reimar]

Ok, I don't use that machine for Multimedia! But use with my old Software Windows Draw (1991) and Image Pals (1990), Office 2003 and Open Office and Internet as well with Firefox and Chrome and that all works fine and faster as with XP! And all is using the drivers from Microsoft!

For this I really must admit that Win 7 Does his job more than just good!

I had that computer in the warehouse for some times because it was useless with later OS than Win2000 and it was just a test what would be happens with Windows 7!

It's now in an stage to be able to do normal Office works!

But: hardware and hardware, even with the same spec, isn't the same!

Cheers.

[thunder30101]

2) XP: Startup, tell your girl/boy about your day at the office, do your task, shutdown, explain her/him how the universe functions, join her/him in bed.

3) Vista: Startup, go to 7-Eleven for a Pepsi, return to watch TV for a while, write a novel, do your task, shutdown, proof-read your novel, find out that you will be late for work if you don't hurry up.

sorry but that really doesnt add much credibility to your argument for linux. yes linux is great for underpowered outdated machines that substitute for calculators.

[Thanh-BKK]

Nope.

I didn't use that to add credibility to Linux. Windows 7 seems to do roughly the same, which is what this thread is about. But i am in a position to speak from experience, having had XP, Vista and Linux on the exact same computer and therefor being able to compare them directly. Linux wins this race with great advance on XP and lapping Vista - TWICE. And in terms of eye-candy, where XP got nothing and Vista pleases somewhat Ubuntu blows them both (and Mac OSX for that matter) out of the water - it's not a text-only install

Specs - judge for yourself if it is a substitute for a calculator:

Asus K8N4E-SE

AMD Sempron 2800+ (now, since a week, Athlon 64 3000+)

2 GB Kingston DDR-1/400

256 MB Nvidia 7200 GS (or some such), PCI-Express

1x 80 GB Western Digital, system-only (ext3 FS)

1x Western Digital 500 GB, data-only (still in NTFS, 4 partitions)

2x DVD burner Lite-On

All drives IDE, SATA is not used but available.

This box does a good job for me in every day use, still i am going to upgrade it at some stage as i got a better MoBo already (AM2 socket) which allows for dual/quad core CPU's. Just need a CPU (got an Athlon 64 3500+ but that's not worth the upgrade) and some more RAM (it takes DDR-2 but i got only 1GB of that and want 2GB).

Oh, and Linux does for me exactly what Windows did - just without the virus worries and a lot cheaper. Still i am definitely not anti-Windows, as i mentioned - if Microsoft keeps the price for Windows 7 somewhat affordable i'll get it, genuine. But i won't pay 25k for an operating system again, EVER. Not as long as i can legally download one with identical features and better looks for free.

Kind regards.....

Thanh

[Guest Reimar]

I wouldn't deny that Linux is fast! It is!

But to compare Linux with Windows? It's quite difficult!

I had work on Linux and on OS=X (also the former OS's from Apple) as well as on PC's with Windows since Windows exist.

Until a few month ago the best Windows I had use was Windows 3.11 as the most stable and uncomplicated OS from MS. Years ago there were an other OS: Geoworks which was better than Windows and any other OS on the market that time! Unfortunate that OS didn't make it and it's gone a long time!

But since I was stating to use Windows 7, since Build 6948, I had changed my mind and I tell now that those OS is the best I sever was use from MS till now! Also the downward compatibility which I checked with 19 years old software, is excellent!

An other huge advantage, which also beats any Linux, is the Plug'n Play for attached peripheral!

Not only to test old computer but I testing old add on card's pp. as well, some 20 years old or even older. And most of them just working. One example from this evening is an 21 years old Motorola Modem (external Serial) which just were working after automatic download and installation of the driver.

SCSI Scanner Epson 1200 Perfection connected to an driver less LSI SCSI controller (PCI) just works with the original Twain Driver from Epson! And a lot other hardware too!

Now, could that happens in Linux? A very big NO! All that hardware I had tested in different Linus versions from Ubuntu, Fodera, RedHat and so on. NOTHING was working anymore and that not in Linux only but in Vista and XP!

Beside of them, to really work with Linux, you need to learn the command language which is for many user's quite difficult if not impossible! Simple steps, like to connect to an Windows Network or Novell or Apple, is quite difficult. Special if you add hardware after the initial installation, you'll face problems, problems you didn't have with Windows. Even a Mac is much more easy regarding upgrade and add on, as long as the required driver exist!

For a simple computer user an Linux OS isn't recommended!

Cheers.

[Veazer]

...

1.: NEC Mate 17GA. It's an japanese NEC with 1.7 GHz Celeron Processor and came original with 512 MB Ram, 40 GB HDD and XP Pro installed. Computer is from year 2002.

I upgraded the memory to 1 GB and 160 GB HDD with 2 partition, each 80 GB, that's all.

Installed XP pro again, and was need to downlaod all drivers again, not one was working directly.

Installed Windows 7 7077 on the 2. Partition and all drivers were directly installed and working.

Boot time from XP: 3 min!!

Boot time from Windows 7: 1 min!!

2.: Sony Vaio Laptop year 2000, P4 3 GHZ and 512 MB Ram, 60 GB HDD.

No any upgrade I had leave the system in its origin state. It had XP pro installed and the booting time was 2.5 minutes!

Good info Reimar, but i'm curious why your XP boot times are so high, even considering the age of those machines? With a fresh install of XP, NOD32, .net 3.5 and all drivers my little Asus Eee manages to boot the the desktop in around 27 seconds. The intel Atom is not the strongest processor by any means, and the included HD is a 5400 rpm drive. It seems odd that your fastest system was still 500% slower.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi

@Reimar

I can partly agree with you - i have never used Windows 3.x, for me i started on Windows 95 (DOS before that...) and Windows 95 was, for me, quite ok. I was also happy with Windows 98, which i had in Germany on a computer that was "on" 24/7 because i was channel op in IRC, that machine, a 486 DX4/100, never experienced a problem - till that day when i caught (through IRC!) a virus which indeed wiped out the entire hard disk, filling it with "gobbledigoo" by renaming every single file to something like *$(&@*&^.... the only things i could recover from that drive were pictures, which for some reason kept their endings .jpg, .bmp etc.

I then started using anti-virus and that was when the problems started, the anti-virus slowing down Windows and causing all sorts of hiccups (that was Norton AV, version 99 or something).

I have since used W2K (stable but slooooow), XP of course (still use it daily at work) and Vista. And Ubuntu - since pretty exactly one year as my sole OS.

Now as to "older hardware", while i have limited experience with PCI cards (except for an internal modem, a Connexant that i already had in Germany which makes it about 10 years old and that worked all the way through, 98, 2K, XP, Vista but ALSO works, despite being a "win-modem", under Ubuntu!) only with ecternal things - printers, scanner, various USB devices. And was disappointed - my old scanner (Mustek, LPT-connected) worked fine under 98 and 2K, under XP only with 2K's driver (an XP driver was released but did not work) and under Vista - not at all! And a USB-W-LAN stick, which at the time was only a few months old, was not supported by Vista either and the manufacturer, Micronet, did not release a Vista driver for it. Printers usually survive any Windows upgrade and work fine with drivers included in Windows itself.

However my personal experience with Ubuntu's 8.04 version (i had also a heap of problems with older ones, i even have a topic concerning that on here) was that everything "just worked". I did not have to learn the command language (basically Unix) to get the system to work - booting from the CD and installing the OS was all it took, the only driver required afterwards was a Nvidia driver for the graphics card, but that also only to enable special graphics effect like transparency (similar, but way more configurable, to Vista's Aero) and other eye candy. Getting that driver was easy - after install of OS a popup came that there is a "restricted driver" (meaning proprietary, from Nvidia instead from Ubuntu's developers) available, one click, it downloaded and installed, one reboot and it was done. Maybe i am just lucky with my particular computer, there are many people who have all sorts of problems with this Ubuntu version but for me it worked (and still works) absolutely rock solid.

Oh, and regarding "old software", do you know a little utility called "RamPage"..? It was used under Win95 to free RAM by paging it's contents to the page file... and it had an icon sitting in the task bar which at all times showed how much RAM was free. Of course, after some time when my computers generally had enough RAM this was no longer needed to free RAM however it displaying how ,uch was available came in handy at all times. This little thing, no updated version but still the one from 1997 or so, soldiered on under 2K, XP and even Vista And so did my favourite image editor, iPhoto Plus, which i got in 1999 together with the mentioned scanner. 95, 98, 2K, XP, Vista. No problems. It is a standalone program by the way, a single executable which does run just as well from a thumb drive. And to keep using this under Linux (not supported by Wine...) i have a Windows 95 installation in a VM Genuine Windows 95 by the way, it is fun to use the old OS at times.

With kind regards.....

Thanh

[Guest Reimar]

...

1.: NEC Mate 17GA. It's an japanese NEC with 1.7 GHz Celeron Processor and came original with 512 MB Ram, 40 GB HDD and XP Pro installed. Computer is from year 2002.

I upgraded the memory to 1 GB and 160 GB HDD with 2 partition, each 80 GB, that's all.

Installed XP pro again, and was need to downlaod all drivers again, not one was working directly.

Installed Windows 7 7077 on the 2. Partition and all drivers were directly installed and working.

Boot time from XP: 3 min!!

Boot time from Windows 7: 1 min!!

2.: Sony Vaio Laptop year 2000, P4 3 GHZ and 512 MB Ram, 60 GB HDD.

No any upgrade I had leave the system in its origin state. It had XP pro installed and the booting time was 2.5 minutes!

Good info Reimar, but i'm curious why your XP boot times are so high, even considering the age of those machines? With a fresh install of XP, NOD32, .net 3.5 and all drivers my little Asus Eee manages to boot the the desktop in around 27 seconds. The intel Atom is not the strongest processor by any means, and the included HD is a 5400 rpm drive. It seems odd that your fastest system was still 500% slower.

My fastest system boots in 22 sec's (in Windows 7!)!

The systems in question here are 8-9 years old, with 1.7 Celeron and 1 GB Ram or P4 3.0 with 512 MB Ram! HDD's are 5400 rpam (NEC) and 4000 rpm (Sony), both ATA.

OS are Windows XP Pro, SP 2 for both and Windows 7 7077 Ultimate for both as well.

It ins't possible to compare that old machines with your Netbook for several reasons because the Hardware differences are to much.

Take the HDD as example: the NEC and Sony both using ATA 33 HDDS and your Asus use SATA 150 HDD! Which means the HDD in your Netbook is nearly 5 times faster than the ATA33 in the 2 old computers!

Than 8 MB graphics memory is even for XP on the lower level! How much your Netbook has?!

The comparsion done is on the same machines and that's excactly as I wrote before.

Cheers.

[LivinLOS]

Linux ? maybe when you can find drivers,programs and support. Ive tried many flavors over the years including the latest distros of ubuntu/kubuntu, but I use my computer alot for many varied things and just dont see any compelling reason for it , maybe thats why all these years later it is still dead in the water as an operating system, And i always wonder why my apple friends brag about startup-shutdown times ? Whats the purpose of this great feature ?

Well the OP was listing startup times as a metric so seems fairly relevant.

And I have the opposite.. Linux (ubuntu Ibex and today jackalope) picked up all my hardware on a default install, including offering OS drivers with the closed source nvidea ones optionally prompted. Whereas windows doesnt even find my LAN card drivers requiring a second machine to sneakernet a driver off the net via a thumbdrive etc etc etc.. Thats before I have to start hunting for all manner of missing stuff from device mangler.

[Guest Reimar]

Hi

@Reimar

I can partly agree with you - i have never used Windows 3.x, for me i started on Windows 95 (DOS before that...) and Windows 95 was, for me, quite ok. I was also happy with Windows 98, which i had in Germany on a computer that was "on" 24/7 because i was channel op in IRC, that machine, a 486 DX4/100, never experienced a problem - till that day when i caught (through IRC!) a virus which indeed wiped out the entire hard disk, filling it with "gobbledigoo" by renaming every single file to something like *$(&@*&^.... the only things i could recover from that drive were pictures, which for some reason kept their endings .jpg, .bmp etc.

I then started using anti-virus and that was when the problems started, the anti-virus slowing down Windows and causing all sorts of hiccups (that was Norton AV, version 99 or something).

I have since used W2K (stable but slooooow), XP of course (still use it daily at work) and Vista. And Ubuntu - since pretty exactly one year as my sole OS.

Now as to "older hardware", while i have limited experience with PCI cards (except for an internal modem, a Connexant that i already had in Germany which makes it about 10 years old and that worked all the way through, 98, 2K, XP, Vista but ALSO works, despite being a "win-modem", under Ubuntu!) only with ecternal things - printers, scanner, various USB devices. And was disappointed - my old scanner (Mustek, LPT-connected) worked fine under 98 and 2K, under XP only with 2K's driver (an XP driver was released but did not work) and under Vista - not at all! And a USB-W-LAN stick, which at the time was only a few months old, was not supported by Vista either and the manufacturer, Micronet, did not release a Vista driver for it. Printers usually survive any Windows upgrade and work fine with drivers included in Windows itself.

However my personal experience with Ubuntu's 8.04 version (i had also a heap of problems with older ones, i even have a topic concerning that on here) was that everything "just worked". I did not have to learn the command language (basically Unix) to get the system to work - booting from the CD and installing the OS was all it took, the only driver required afterwards was a Nvidia driver for the graphics card, but that also only to enable special graphics effect like transparency (similar, but way more configurable, to Vista's Aero) and other eye candy. Getting that driver was easy - after install of OS a popup came that there is a "restricted driver" (meaning proprietary, from Nvidia instead from Ubuntu's developers) available, one click, it downloaded and installed, one reboot and it was done. Maybe i am just lucky with my particular computer, there are many people who have all sorts of problems with this Ubuntu version but for me it worked (and still works) absolutely rock solid.

Oh, and regarding "old software", do you know a little utility called "RamPage"..? It was used under Win95 to free RAM by paging it's contents to the page file... and it had an icon sitting in the task bar which at all times showed how much RAM was free. Of course, after some time when my computers generally had enough RAM this was no longer needed to free RAM however it displaying how ,uch was available came in handy at all times. This little thing, no updated version but still the one from 1997 or so, soldiered on under 2K, XP and even Vista And so did my favourite image editor, iPhoto Plus, which i got in 1999 together with the mentioned scanner. 95, 98, 2K, XP, Vista. No problems. It is a standalone program by the way, a single executable which does run just as well from a thumb drive. And to keep using this under Linux (not supported by Wine...) i have a Windows 95 installation in a VM Genuine Windows 95 by the way, it is fun to use the old OS at times.

With kind regards.....

Thanh

Maybe you start to change the NIC and than connect to an Network to which you were NOT connected before! Would be a challenge!!

But as you wrote above:

"" Maybe i am just lucky with my particular computer, there are many people who have all sorts of problems with this Ubuntu version but for me it worked (and still works) absolutely rock solid.""

By the way, iPhoto is the sucsessor from Image Pals.

Stand-alone programs normally easy to use in a wide area of OS version because they didn't need resources from the OS. But it differs if you use normal programs, which are need the OS resources and here was Vista and even XP not very good. This has changed in Windows 7.

I even was installing Windows Draw and Image Pals without to set to compatibility mode of any other OS or former Version!

Or take the external Moto Modem which was worked lastly with Win2000 before but never with XP or Vista. But it works in Windows 7!

Cheers.

[LivinLOS]

Sorry but these are many miss truths factually

Not only to test old computer but I testing old add on card's pp. as well, some 20 years old or even older. And most of them just working. One example from this evening is an 21 years old Motorola Modem (external Serial) which just were working after automatic download and installation of the driver.

Plug and play on a serial port ??

Extreme hit and miss if memory serves (the only serial port I still have is a USB to serial adapter)

Now, could that happens in Linux? A very big NO! All that hardware I had tested in different Linus versions from Ubuntu, Fodera, RedHat and so on. NOTHING was working anymore and that not in Linux only but in Vista and XP!

I plug in my camera, it knows its a cam (cam icon) opens the picture folder, offers to open the picture management software.. All handled perfectly..

Plug in a USB scanner.. Same perfect reaction, scanner identified, installed, ready to use..

Plug in my cellphone.. Its identified correctly and not only sets up the file operations for media (music photos etc) but recognises its also a modem and made all kinds of setup profiles for networking via that cell (I didnt follow through and test as this is my desktop and dont need cell connection on my ADSL desk) when I compare this to windows and this same cellphone (sony ericson) for drivers it hellish.. You have to install some soft BEFORE you plug in the cell, then theres multiple reboots, then it installs modem drivers, other handlers, It has to have the CD (or large download) and I have never had it work out of the box, its REALLY nasty and difficult to correctly get the install operational.

Beside of them, to really work with Linux, you need to learn the command language which is for many user's quite difficult if not impossible! Simple steps, like to connect to an Windows Network or Novell or Apple, is quite difficult.

When did you last use Linux ?? Because thats a total fabrication, you dont need the terminal window for basic network setup. I click the network button, and there are my other (windows) machines and a 'windows network' icon.. I click the machine and its there.. No command line used. In fact the terminal really isnt a big requirement with the newer releases. Often its the fastest most efficient way to do something, and promotes a better structural understanding of what your doing, but for 'general noob computer use' its not a constant requirement.

Vista networking and its continual loss of network IP and the multiple steps I need to do to reset the network adapter and get a fresh DHCP.. Please !?!?! Vista networking and the user experience is truly awful, probably my least liked part of the vista / XP changes.

[Guest Reimar]

Linux ? maybe when you can find drivers,programs and support. Ive tried many flavors over the years including the latest distros of ubuntu/kubuntu, but I use my computer alot for many varied things and just dont see any compelling reason for it , maybe thats why all these years later it is still dead in the water as an operating system, And i always wonder why my apple friends brag about startup-shutdown times ? Whats the purpose of this great feature ?

Well the OP was listing startup times as a metric so seems fairly relevant.

And I have the opposite.. Linux (ubuntu Ibex and today jackalope) picked up all my hardware on a default install, including offering OS drivers with the closed source nvidea ones optionally prompted. Whereas windows doesnt even find my LAN card drivers requiring a second machine to sneakernet a driver off the net via a thumbdrive etc etc etc.. Thats before I have to start hunting for all manner of missing stuff from device mangler.

Some time ago (a few month) I had try to install Ubuntu on that NEC Mate 17 without real success!

The mainproblem was the driver for that hardware. The only one which was working from beginning was the Sound Driver. The VGA and NIC driver wasn't but I was getting the VGA with an semi compatible driver to work quite well. But the NIC was never able to work in Ubuntu and I had to install an extra Intel NIC card to get the Internet to work.

The next Game was the network. I use a high secure configured Network because of a lot confidential data pp. and I wasn't able to connect to my Data Server without to change the configuration to an (for me) unsave stage.

So the whole Ubuntu was an flop for ME! I will never work with an system which compromises the safty of my system. Period.

Cheers.

[LivinLOS]

However my personal experience with Ubuntu's 8.04 version (i had also a heap of problems with older ones, i even have a topic concerning that on here) was that everything "just worked". I did not have to learn the command language (basically Unix) to get the system to work - booting from the CD and installing the OS was all it took, the only driver required afterwards was a Nvidia driver for the graphics card, but that also only to enable special graphics effect like transparency (similar, but way more configurable, to Vista's Aero) and other eye candy. Getting that driver was easy - after install of OS a popup came that there is a "restricted driver" (meaning proprietary, from Nvidia instead from Ubuntu's developers) available, one click, it downloaded and installed, one reboot and it was done. Maybe i am just lucky with my particular computer, there are many people who have all sorts of problems with this Ubuntu version but for me it worked (and still works) absolutely rock solid.

Count me as a 100% identical experience.. From live CD test, to wubi, to proper install.. The experience was exactly as you described, one driver, offered automatically and system fully operational.

I did get carried away messing with different ways to use the desktop, AWN, beryl, compwiz, etc etc etc.. But in the end plain jane with desktop effects on is actually the most productive for me. Think they need to move beyond the brown hues for a bit more slick now tho.

[Guest Reimar]

LivinLOS:

Maybe you can realise that I wrote about Hardware I have/own and NOT about hardware YOU have/own?!

Don't tell that you know better than me what is working on MY computer with MY hardware! You can't!

Maybe it's not acceptable for you but those old machines still having 2 Serial ports and the Laptop 1 Serial port!

And if you'r using DHCP on an internal network, which I didn't, special even for security reasons, you should never wonder if the IP's are changing. The IP of your modem changes (done by the ISP) and so the IP of your computer, depend on the firmware of the modem, special with modems from ISP's!

And if you use an unsecure network there maybe isn't a need to use the terminal window in Linux for to setup the networking! But I use an secure network with several Data Server's (3) and 2 Mail Servers and that differs a lot!

By the way, better do not tell that I fabricate some like you wrote above because I didn't wrote that you're not able to setup an secure network, just as example answer to your accusation.

Regards

[Guest Reimar]

Please come back on topic. This isn't a Linux thread! It's about old hardware running with Windows 7.

Cheers.

[Richard-BKK]

DELETED

Edited April 24, 2009 by Reimar
Off Topic and deleted

[Thanh-BKK]

Hello again.

@Reimar

Do you think Windows 7 would run decently on an Acer laptop (2 years old), it's got an AMD Turion 64 CPU (i think 2600+ but could be lower, not sure) and 512 MB of RAM. ATI graphics. This is my boyfriend's machine, he doesn't want Linux because he uses some programs that have no Linux alternative (Camfrog, a number of games etc) but XP, which is now on the machine, is dog slow... it takes about 5 minutes to boot and just as long if not longer to shut down. I have tried to optimize it but it just won't go faster, even a fresh install is just as slow. Didn't try Vista because i think 512 MB or RAM would not be sufficient for Vista.

And regarding the NIC that i should change to have a challenge... well, as soon as i get a CPU and one more stick of DDR-2 RAM i will make an even bigger change - a whole mainboard Let's see how that's going to work (my NIC by the way is on-board, i can't even change it.... it's a Nvidia Nforce-4 chipset, the new board has, i believe, a VIA chipset on it, also with on-board NIC). From what i have read on a number of forums, under Ubuntu you can pretty much swap whatever you like - because, unlike Windows, Linux (Ubuntu at least) does not actually install specific drivers, they are all part of the kernel - and during boot it detects what hardware is there and uses drivers accordingly. Under Windows it can be (but doesn't have to!) an absolute nightmare to swap mainboards and keep Windows going.... for example if the board dies and you don't have a chance to uninstall the chipset drivers first. Vista has a better routine there where you can bot from the DVD and repair it from there, XP doesn't have that.

Oh, and i, too, have no issues connecting to a Windows network - that's how i share files with my boyfriend, wireless even through my router and his laptop's W-Lan. Yes, Samba is required but that's easier to setup than on Vista... it did take me quite some time to get my computer to "talk" with my boyfriend's (XP) laptop when i was still using Vista. Does this actually work well in Windows 7..?

Kind regards.....

Thanh (interested in Windows 7 but not for the main machine)

Edited April 24, 2009 by Reimar
removed Off Topic part.

[Guest Reimar]

Hello again.

@Reimar

Do you think Windows 7 would run decently on an Acer laptop (2 years old), it's got an AMD Turion 64 CPU (i think 2600+ but could be lower, not sure) and 512 MB of RAM. ATI graphics. This is my boyfriend's machine, he doesn't want Linux because he uses some programs that have no Linux alternative (Camfrog, a number of games etc) but XP, which is now on the machine, is dog slow... it takes about 5 minutes to boot and just as long if not longer to shut down. I have tried to optimize it but it just won't go faster, even a fresh install is just as slow. Didn't try Vista because i think 512 MB or RAM would not be sufficient for Vista.

And regarding the NIC that i should change to have a challenge... well, as soon as i get a CPU and one more stick of DDR-2 RAM i will make an even bigger change - a whole mainboard Let's see how that's going to work (my NIC by the way is on-board, i can't even change it.... it's a Nvidia Nforce-4 chipset, the new board has, i believe, a VIA chipset on it, also with on-board NIC). From what i have read on a number of forums, under Ubuntu you can pretty much swap whatever you like - because, unlike Windows, Linux (Ubuntu at least) does not actually install specific drivers, they are all part of the kernel - and during boot it detects what hardware is there and uses drivers accordingly. Under Windows it can be (but doesn't have to!) an absolute nightmare to swap mainboards and keep Windows going.... for example if the board dies and you don't have a chance to uninstall the chipset drivers first. Vista has a better routine there where you can bot from the DVD and repair it from there, XP doesn't have that.

Oh, and i, too, have no issues connecting to a Windows network - that's how i share files with my boyfriend, wireless even through my router and his laptop's W-Lan. Yes, Samba is required but that's easier to setup than on Vista... it did take me quite some time to get my computer to "talk" with my boyfriend's (XP) laptop when i was still using Vista. Does this actually work well in Windows 7..?

Kind regards.....

Thanh (interested in Windows 7 but not for the main machine)

I think it wouldn't be a problem. As I wrote, I had installed Win 7 on an old Vaio with 512 MB and it works well. Only keep in mind that Aero may wouldn't work because of the graphic engine and to less memory for it. If you get problem, just send me an PM with your contact number and I'll call you for to help.

Regarding the Network, maybe it's because of my own security which i will not let compromise in any way. But that the worst problems I had with Linux OS's.

Anyway, if there is more concern about that, please open an thread in the Linux forum.

Cheers

[Plus]

Shame this thread appeared when Win 7 was not available anymore.

About a month ago I installed PclinuxOs on two computers and reinstalled Win XP on one.

Fresh XP install flies, literally. Nothing like 22 sec boot but it's definitely faster than Linux on the same machine. It took me a while to install drivers off CDs (network card and ATI) on XP and get them working properly, nothing like that on Linux, BUT

I still have no idea how to get Linux to connect to the Internet on startup or connect ADSL in one click. As I type now, the dam_n NetApplet thing tells me my internet is down while torrents are completely unaware of that message and are downloading at 230kbps. When the connection actually drops there's no way to know it, and no automatic way to reconnect, and even when it is connecting there's no progress window so I check traffic report in my torrent program to check if I'm on the Inernet or not. In a few clicks I can start another network monitor program but it takes nearly a minute to initialise. It's just pathetic.

Copying downloaded files from external drive to USB stick takes forever, at least half an hour for 1GB. Now I copy them to Linux drive first, then move to USB - saves time but requires extra attention.

Tried to set this machine as Internet gateway for other home computers - no luck, it just throws me "no network cards found" error. Manually, via terminal, I was able to make this machine reply to ping from laptop windows, but it refuses to connect them to the Internet. The GUI setup program still tells me I have to network cards, stupid thing.

Linux doesn't show up in Windows network groups either despite me trying all Samba set up options I could find. Luckily windows machines are visible and I can copy files across network, but it's still pathetic.

The main idea was to get some Compiz eye candy and leave it downloading 24/7 without AV consuping CPu resources scanning all the incoming traffic. Compiz works, but torrent program loads up to 50% of CPU at all times all by itself, worse than Azureus+Avast in windows. I haven't given up on Linux yet, but I'm less than impressed.

The other Linux machine has a different setup and doesn't give me any of these troubles, but it was screwed in its own way - fonts looked just awful. Tried everything under the sun, then run LiveCD again - fonts were crisp and clear. Reinstalled linux, tunred Compiz on - it switched to 800x600 desktop and refused to budge. Reinstalled again, it's just 20 min, but 800x600 desktop still persists. In the end even liveCD was at this low resolution. What was worse is that it cropped content of all the windows - no top, no bottom, no scrollers.

fuc_k that - got the first CD that was nearby, OpenSuse, and installed it instead. Now I have the worst shade of green imaginable everywhere, and it takes five clicks to open any program from a start menu and another five clicks to go back up the tree to open something else. It is reasonably fast, but no visible advantage over well maintained, four year old XP on another partition (that XP has never been reinstalled and has hundreds of programs collected over the years, btw).

So, back to Win7 - would it be a legit version if I download it off torrents? It was offered for free, was it not? XP is hardly ever used on my home machine, I can wipe it out and install Win7 instead, just for fun. Specs are below recommended but, apparently, it's not such a big deal. When 7 was announced it was my low specs that put me off.

So, will I be able to update Win 7 if I get piratebay version now? What's the legal status here?