New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)
in [Laptops]
|
From: Roger Mills on 16 Mar 2010 18:34 In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Roger Mills <watt.tyler(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > I'm in the market for a new laptop computer. I need to have access to > the same software and data files at two different locations, and have > decided that a single laptop is preferable to maintaining two lots of > hardware and trying to keep them in synch. > etc. Many thanks for all the helpful replies so far. The general concensus seems to be that Vista is to be avoided like the plague, and that some features of newer laptops - desgined for Vista or Win 7 - may not work with XP. So buying a Win 7 or Vista machine and downgrading to XP may not be a smart thing to do. So it looks like needing to bite the bullet, and go with Windows 7. The 32-bit version appears to be the safer bet. Which leaves all my legacy software . . Someone suggested using the Professional versions of Win 7 (expensive!) with the option of running XP inside it. Others have suggesated using Sun VirtualBox, and running XP in that. That should apparently run ok in the Home Premium version of Win 7 without explicitly requiring the processor to have virtualisation capabiliities. Have I got that right? I assume that I would need a lot of RAM and diskspace to be able to run a virtual machine. Presumably something with 4GB of RAM (the most supported by the 32-bit version) and 500GB of disk should do? I'm looking at something like: http://www.dabs.com/products/acer-aspire-5532-athlon-x2-4gb-500gb-dvd-sm-15-6--windows-7-home-premium-6CP1.html#reviews Any comments? Incidentally, just for a laugh, I decided to download MS's Windows 7 Compatibility Advisor and run it on my current 7-year-old XP laptop to see what it made of my peripheral devices and installed applications. However, I can't get it to tell me anything! It loads and starts running - with its little green bar scrolling across the screen - and displays words to the effect of "I may be gone some time". Then, after about 2 minutes, it abruptly closes - and that's that! No report. I've tried to run it several times - always with the same result. Anyone know what's happening? -- Cheers, Roger _______ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked.
From: Bernard Peek on 16 Mar 2010 18:52 On 16/03/10 22:34, Roger Mills wrote: > Which leaves all my legacy software . . Someone suggested using the > Professional versions of Win 7 (expensive!) with the option of running XP > inside it. Others have suggesated using Sun VirtualBox, and running XP in > that. That should apparently run ok in the Home Premium version of Win 7 > without explicitly requiring the processor to have virtualisation > capabiliities. Have I got that right? I assume that I would need a lot of > RAM and diskspace to be able to run a virtual machine. Presumably something > with 4GB of RAM (the most supported by the 32-bit version) and 500GB of disk > should do? I'm looking at something like: > http://www.dabs.com/products/acer-aspire-5532-athlon-x2-4gb-500gb-dvd-sm-15-6--windows-7-home-premium-6CP1.html#reviews > Any comments? It doesn't specify but I would expect that machine to come with the 64-bit version of Windows. It will be an OEM license so you won't get the 32-bit version as well. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: Roger Mills on 16 Mar 2010 20:15 In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > On 16/03/10 22:34, Roger Mills wrote: > >> Which leaves all my legacy software . . Someone suggested using the >> Professional versions of Win 7 (expensive!) with the option of >> running XP inside it. Others have suggesated using Sun VirtualBox, >> and running XP in that. That should apparently run ok in the Home >> Premium version of Win 7 without explicitly requiring the processor >> to have virtualisation capabiliities. Have I got that right? I >> assume that I would need a lot of RAM and diskspace to be able to >> run a virtual machine. Presumably something with 4GB of RAM (the >> most supported by the 32-bit version) and 500GB of disk should do? >> I'm looking at something like: >> http://www.dabs.com/products/acer-aspire-5532-athlon-x2-4gb-500gb-dvd-sm-15-6--windows-7-home-premium-6CP1.html#reviews >> Any comments? > > It doesn't specify but I would expect that machine to come with the > 64-bit version of Windows. It will be an OEM license so you won't get > the 32-bit version as well. Mmm - you could be right! I had assumed it if it was the 64-bit version it would say so (most do) - but perhaps not. I shall contact Acer to find out. -- Cheers, Roger _______ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked.
From: Barry Watzman on 16 Mar 2010 21:06 If you feel that a given [old] OS meets your needs, fine, you can say that. I said it for a long time about Windows 98. However, there is a STRONG (not universal, but strong) consensus that: 1. Windows XP was far better than Windows 2K or 98 2. Windows 7 is better than XP And I suspect that the number of people who accept 2. will grow over time, as the number of people who accepted 1. grew. I no longer use Windows 98. I did so for a LONG time after XP came out (years), but I no longer do, except on very old hardware on which there is no choice. And although, for hardware and software compatibility reasons, I am currently [still] using XP, I myself accept 2. as valid. And at some point I will stop using Windows XP. Gib Bogle wrote: > > What was wrong with W2000 (from MS's point of view) was that everybody > already had it. That wasn't good for sales.
From: Jules Richardson on 17 Mar 2010 08:28
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:06:52 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote: > If you feel that a given [old] OS meets your needs, fine, you can say > that. I said it for a long time about Windows 98. > > However, there is a STRONG (not universal, but strong) consensus that: > > 1. Windows XP was far better than Windows 2K or 98 I'm not so sure - I use win2k in a VM when I *have* to have Windows for something; it seems to be able as stable as Windows ever gets. My experiences of XP gave me the impression that it's really just win2k with a bunch of bloat and eye-candy thrown into the pot* - in other words it doesn't really offer any addtional benefit, and just "looks more pretty". * not that win2k was exactly a pinnacle of efficiency compared to such as Linux, either... cheers Jules |