Laptop upgrade to Win 7

David B. · External Since: Aug 09, 2007 Posts: 45

I actually would love to visit your class, I bet it's a hoot. If you can
provide so much bad advise in one post I can only imagine what you can
accomplish in a whole day.

--

--
"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS RemoveThis @EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
news:%239K9He2UKHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Michael Dobony wrote:
>
>>What was wrong with Vista? How about phantom resets. How about phantom
>>lockups. How about taking longer to shut down than XP shuts down and
>>restarts on the same machine? How about not recognizing Windows-bundled
>>apps that Vista doesn't recognize as legitimate Windows apps? Need I go
>>on?
>>
>
> You clearly have very limited knowledge of OS and how they work on
> systems? Have you thought of coming to my class where I can educate you
> on the way you should install your OS?
>

Michael Dobony · External Since: Oct 21, 2009 Posts: 4

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:08:17 -0400, David B. wrote:

> By definition, moving from Vista to XP is a downgrade, not an upgrade.

Lets see, XP is stable, Vista does random resets and lockups. XP runs just
about anything written in the last 7 years. Vista can't even run its own
bundled programs. XP is 2x faster than Vista. Since upgrading to XP last
Christmas XP locked up only about 5 or 6 times. From August to Christmas
prior to upgrading to XP, Vista locked up that many times a week. Not very
nice when trying to take notes at school.

SC Tom · External Since: Jan 27, 2009 Posts: 89

"Michael Dobony" <survey DeleteThis @stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message
news:9zlb8p869dn3.xnae06n9pxqj$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:08:17 -0400, David B. wrote:
>
>> By definition, moving from Vista to XP is a downgrade, not an upgrade.
>
> Lets see, XP is stable, Vista does random resets and lockups. XP runs just
> about anything written in the last 7 years. Vista can't even run its own
> bundled programs. XP is 2x faster than Vista. Since upgrading to XP last
> Christmas XP locked up only about 5 or 6 times. From August to Christmas
> prior to upgrading to XP, Vista locked up that many times a week. Not very
> nice when trying to take notes at school.

Methinks you have more issues than the operating system. I haven't had XP
lock up that many times since I first installed it in 2001. And while I'm no
fan of Vista, I haven't had much trouble with it, just don't like the
slowness and the heavy feel of it. I just upgraded to 7 on my Vista
notebook. It's much faster and more responsive than Vista, but there are a
few things about it I'm not crazy about either.

SC Tom

M.I.5¾ · External Since: Jul 12, 2006 Posts: 239

"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS.DeleteThis@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
news:uDZ14fQUKHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> If you have any machines older than 3 years old, you are strongly advised
> not to even try doing anything to them because Windows 7 requires a
> minimum of 1 GB for 32 bit but you will need at least 4GB to do any
> meaningful work. I recommend 8GB to be really productive.
>

It would be quite impossible for the 32 bit version of Windows 7 to see any
more memory than around 3.2 Gb (give or take) for reasons that are
frequently discussed in this group.

M.I.5¾ · External Since: Jul 12, 2006 Posts: 239

"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS.DeleteThis@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
news:%239K9He2UKHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Michael Dobony wrote:
>
>>What was wrong with Vista? How about phantom resets. How about phantom
>>lockups. How about taking longer to shut down than XP shuts down and
>>restarts on the same machine? How about not recognizing Windows-bundled
>>apps that Vista doesn't recognize as legitimate Windows apps? Need I go
>>on?
>>
>
> You clearly have very limited knowledge of OS and how they work on
> systems? Have you thought of coming to my class where I can educate you
> on the way you should install your OS?
>

If the sum total of what you have posted in this thread is anything to go
by, your *class* (if indeed it exists) should be sheer entertainment from
beginning to end.

M.I.5¾ · External Since: Jul 12, 2006 Posts: 239

"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS.TakeThisOut@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
news:e$Wive2UKHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> Daave wrote:
>
>>Depends on who is doing the defining...
>>
>>
>>
> Can you just shut up if you have nothing else to contribute.
>

Since you have contributed nothing of value to this thread, I suggest that
you take your own advice and shut up also.

Leythos · External Since: Jan 23, 2009 Posts: 61

In article <b6dpd5thuia778tftsnftt5nfbp4tl29l9.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
gordonlrDELETE.TakeThisOut@swbell.net says...
> I have an HP Compaq Presario C 500 laptop computer that came with
> Windows Vista Home Basic installed. This has been upgraded to SP2. It
> has a Intel Celeron M CPU 430 @ 1.73 GHz
>
> I am contemplating buying a 3-pack of Windows 7 to install on my
> desktop, my wife's desktop and my laptop computers. I'm not sure this
> laptop will handle Windows 7, though.
>
> It has 512 MB of RAM and 68.9 GB of hard disk space with 47.4 GB free,
> presently. This is set up as a 32 bit O.S. I will probably do a clean
> install and delete all files from this hard drive, after backing the
> important stuff up onto a flash drive or CD.
>

Not sure if your laptop will handle x64 version of Windows 7, but I'm
running Windows 7 Ultimate on a laptop with a P4/3.2ghz CPU that is
hyper-threaded and 2GB ram and use MS Office 2007 for RFP's and
Proposals (some graphics in every document, lots of MS Excel sheets,
lots of MS Outlook emails) and I also manage 4 different firewall
products on it, with Symantec End Point Protection 11.5 installed.

The memory rarely goes above 1GB in use, and it's more responsive than
was Vista. I run the X32 version since my laptop won't do x64.

I would suggest that you upgrade your memory to at least 2GB, the drive
size should be fine, Win 7 will eat less than 10GB itself.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free.TakeThisOut@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Michael Dobony · External Since: Oct 21, 2009 Posts: 4

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:08:23 -0400, SC Tom wrote:

> "Michael Dobony" <survey.RemoveThis@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message
> news:9zlb8p869dn3.xnae06n9pxqj$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:08:17 -0400, David B. wrote:
>>
>>> By definition, moving from Vista to XP is a downgrade, not an upgrade.
>>
>> Lets see, XP is stable, Vista does random resets and lockups. XP runs just
>> about anything written in the last 7 years. Vista can't even run its own
>> bundled programs. XP is 2x faster than Vista. Since upgrading to XP last
>> Christmas XP locked up only about 5 or 6 times. From August to Christmas
>> prior to upgrading to XP, Vista locked up that many times a week. Not very
>> nice when trying to take notes at school.
>
> Methinks you have more issues than the operating system. I haven't had XP
> lock up that many times since I first installed it in 2001. And while I'm no
> fan of Vista, I haven't had much trouble with it, just don't like the
> slowness and the heavy feel of it. I just upgraded to 7 on my Vista
> notebook. It's much faster and more responsive than Vista, but there are a
> few things about it I'm not crazy about either.
>
> SC Tom

When the same computer has mega problems on Vista and very few problems on
XP, the problem is Vista.

SC Tom · External Since: Jan 27, 2009 Posts: 89

"Michael Dobony" <survey.TakeThisOut@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message
news:kpznxnpohrdf.1v7za42z81auj$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:08:23 -0400, SC Tom wrote:
>
>> "Michael Dobony" <survey.TakeThisOut@stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message
>> news:9zlb8p869dn3.xnae06n9pxqj$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:08:17 -0400, David B. wrote:
>>>
>>>> By definition, moving from Vista to XP is a downgrade, not an upgrade.
>>>
>>> Lets see, XP is stable, Vista does random resets and lockups. XP runs
>>> just
>>> about anything written in the last 7 years. Vista can't even run its own
>>> bundled programs. XP is 2x faster than Vista. Since upgrading to XP last
>>> Christmas XP locked up only about 5 or 6 times. From August to Christmas
>>> prior to upgrading to XP, Vista locked up that many times a week. Not
>>> very
>>> nice when trying to take notes at school.
>>
>> Methinks you have more issues than the operating system. I haven't had XP
>> lock up that many times since I first installed it in 2001. And while I'm
>> no
>> fan of Vista, I haven't had much trouble with it, just don't like the
>> slowness and the heavy feel of it. I just upgraded to 7 on my Vista
>> notebook. It's much faster and more responsive than Vista, but there are
>> a
>> few things about it I'm not crazy about either.
>>
>> SC Tom
>
> When the same computer has mega problems on Vista and very few problems on
> XP, the problem is Vista.

Not necessarily.

Bob I · External Since: Jun 14, 2004 Posts: 8885

Michael Dobony wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:08:23 -0400, SC Tom wrote:
>
>
>>"Michael Dobony" <survey DeleteThis @stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message
>>news:9zlb8p869dn3.xnae06n9pxqj$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:08:17 -0400, David B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>By definition, moving from Vista to XP is a downgrade, not an upgrade.
>>>
>>>Lets see, XP is stable, Vista does random resets and lockups. XP runs just
>>>about anything written in the last 7 years. Vista can't even run its own
>>>bundled programs. XP is 2x faster than Vista. Since upgrading to XP last
>>>Christmas XP locked up only about 5 or 6 times. From August to Christmas
>>>prior to upgrading to XP, Vista locked up that many times a week. Not very
>>>nice when trying to take notes at school.
>>
>>Methinks you have more issues than the operating system. I haven't had XP
>>lock up that many times since I first installed it in 2001. And while I'm no
>>fan of Vista, I haven't had much trouble with it, just don't like the
>>slowness and the heavy feel of it. I just upgraded to 7 on my Vista
>>notebook. It's much faster and more responsive than Vista, but there are a
>>few things about it I'm not crazy about either.
>>
>>SC Tom
>
>
> When the same computer has mega problems on Vista and very few problems on
> XP, the problem is Vista.

No, actual the problem would be the person who configured it.

Leythos · External Since: Jan 23, 2009 Posts: 61

In article <kpznxnpohrdf.1v7za42z81auj$.dlg@40tude.net>,
survey RemoveThis @stopassaultnow.net says...
> When the same computer has mega problems on Vista and very few problems on
> XP, the problem is Vista.
>

Actually, the problem is not Vista, as not a single person has told you
that Vista is suited for any specific computer that was running XP and
not certified for Vista.

Don't get me wrong, while there could be issues with Vista, the vast
majority of them are bad drivers provided by third party vendors, bad
implementations of hardware interfaces, and people trying to install
Vista on machines that were not specifically designed for Vista - oh,
and people trying to move from x32 to x64 that don't understand the
issues that move brings.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free RemoveThis @rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)