Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or
Vista?

BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough
for Vista? ;-)

Am Sat, 12 May 2007 09:56:05 +0200 schrieb Enrico C:

> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or
> Vista?

I would personally go for Win XP Pro, as I do not really see the advantages
of Vista over XP. Vista might work fine, but I read a couple of reports
that the running time of laptops can be significantly lower with Vista
compared to XP. Partly this might be because drivers have to be adjusted
and optimised to the new OS in the coming months, partly it might be
because the 3D-chipset has more work to do on a Vista machine with Aero
enabled.

> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough
> for Vista? ;-)

It depends on what you intend to use the laptop for. Yet for most
applications that's sufficient, I would say.

Andreas

xp would be the choice, Vista may work on the laptop but you could have
problems with other devices like printers, pda's, ipod etc...
"Enrico C" <use_replyto_address@devils.com> wrote in message
news:1iycgwsj6tb3f.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...
> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro
> or
> Vista?
>
> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be
> enough
> for Vista? ;-)

1. Personal choice
2. Yes, that's fine for Vista; if any of that is borderline short, it's
the CPU (you need to specify the CPU type also, e.g. Core Duo, Core 2
Duo, Celeron, etc.)


Enrico C wrote:
> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or
> Vista?
>
> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough
> for Vista? ;-)

Enrico C wrote:
> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or
> Vista?
>
> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough
> for Vista? ;-)


It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the
new computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has
serious advantages over XP. There are many million Vista
computers out there now, and whatever bugs they found will be
resolved in a few months with a Service Pack.

As for equipment and software that won't work, when I
(reluctantly) switched, it happened. However, everything is now
fully functional, and Canon gave me a deep discount on a
replacement multifunction machine that wouldn't migrate to Vista.

We make jokes about being beta testers for Microsoft, but Vista
is here to stay and eventually virtually all of us will use it.

Ike wrote:
> Enrico C wrote:
>> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp
>> Pro or
>> Vista?
>>
>> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be
>> enough
>> for Vista? ;-)
>
>
> It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new
> computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious
> advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there
> now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months with
> a Service Pack.

Exactly what "serious advantage?"

--
Notan

Notan wrote:
> Ike wrote:
>> Enrico C wrote:
>>> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp
>>> Pro or
>>> Vista?
>>>
>>> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be
>>> enough
>>> for Vista? ;-)
>>
>>
>> It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new
>> computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious
>> advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there
>> now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months
>> with a Service Pack.
>
> Exactly what "serious advantage?"
>

Good question, and I can provide only a partial answer. There
are more complete answers on the net, and most experts agree
that Vista is (1) better and (2) here to stay.

1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since
3.1, Mac back to Lisa). I find it easier to move things around,
find what I want, etc., and far prefer the visuals of Vista,
even over Mac.

2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is
intrinsically more secure.

3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible. XP
compatibility will fade.

4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at
multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using
the same processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly
configured, and that's personal experience.

Ike wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>> Ike wrote:
>>> Enrico C wrote:
>>>> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp
>>>> Pro or
>>>> Vista?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be
>>>> enough
>>>> for Vista? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new
>>> computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious
>>> advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there
>>> now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months
>>> with a Service Pack.
>>
>> Exactly what "serious advantage?"
>>
>
> Good question, and I can provide only a partial answer. There are more
> complete answers on the net, and most experts agree that Vista is (1)
> better and (2) here to stay.
>
> 1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since 3.1, Mac
> back to Lisa). I find it easier to move things around, find what I want,
> etc., and far prefer the visuals of Vista, even over Mac.
>
> 2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is intrinsically
> more secure.
>
> 3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible. XP compatibility will
> fade.
>
> 4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at
> multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using the same
> processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly configured, and that's
> personal experience.


I just got a Dell D520 Latitude Core 2,SXGA video, 1.66MHz, 2 GB (1GB
from Dell (single DIMM) and 1GB from online source because it was much
cheaper than DELL. I selected XP because I was use to it. It is plenty
fast for XP.

I have played with 1.66MHz dual 2 core platforms with 1GB and VISTA for
word processing, excel, Access Data Base, music, web and photo browsing.
Plenty fast. This was with the Intel graphics platform using standard
DRAM (533MHz).

I have always found that more memory gives better performance than clock
speed and memory is WAY cheaper. Check out what options Dell offers and
their DRAM prices. I paid $10 extra to get their 1GB as 1 DIMM rather
than two 512MB DIMMS. Memory is alway cheaper via other sources (Mine
was DDR2, 633MHz). It takes about 5 minutes to install the DIMM memory.
Very easy.

I got a 120GB drive but it runs only at 5400 rpm. It should be cooler
and use less power. I had a 7200 rpm drive on my old Gateway laptop vs
its original 80GB 5400 rpm drive. I can't say I noticed much difference
with it running under XP with 1GB. If money is an issue I would go for
more memory first, then a dedicated video card, then a faster processor
and last a faster HD. I don't do games on my laptop. Just my opinion.

Multitasking is not a big deal but Vista is better than XP for this and
the more memory the better.

So what to do? If you intend to keep the laptop for a couple years I
would go with VISTA, that is the trend, and for sure get 2GB memory.




I must say I have VISTA on my 2.66MHz P4 w/1GB desktop and it works
fine. I may get another GB for it.

As people get use to VISTA it will become mainstream. I will be getting
a new laptop in 6 months and by then the Santa Rosa Intel platform will
be offered by all PC vendors and off course Apple.

Notan said: > Exactly what "serious advantage?"

Yeah, it LOOKS prettier. Don't you know most people will choose on that
basis! Why choose XP, after all it doesn't have 3-D bubbles nor the
'beautiful' shiny spherical look!!!

Isn't it amazing how BIG corporations have learned to give 'treats' to
ADULTS, treat them like children and the suckers will buy it! Use lots
of primary colors, make interfaces cartoon like, splash with 3-D bubbles
and you'll have a smash hit!!

We've turned into a nation of fools.
___


"Notan" <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in message
news:brednR0668UWYtjbnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Ike wrote:
> > Enrico C wrote:
> >> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win
Xp
> >> Pro or
> >> Vista?
> >>
> >> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD
be
> >> enough
> >> for Vista? ;-)
> >
> >
> > It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new
> > computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious
> > advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there
> > now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months
with
> > a Service Pack.
>
> Exactly what "serious advantage?"
>
> --
> Notan

On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:06:49 -0700, David wrote:

> I have always found that more memory gives better performance than clock
> speed and memory is WAY cheaper.

I think a 7200 rpm HD, rather than 5400 rpm, is a better-for-the-buck
upgrade too. A slow HD can be the real bottleneck, IMHO.

--
"And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech".
(Genesis 11,1)

On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:38:03 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote:

> 2. Yes, that's fine for Vista; if any of that is borderline short, it's
> the CPU (you need to specify the CPU type also, e.g. Core Duo, Core 2
> Duo, Celeron, etc.)

Let's say a "D820 Intel Core Duo T5500 (1.66GHzm 667 MHz) with integrated
Intel GMA 950" (whatever an "integrated GMA" is! :-)


--
"And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech".
(Genesis 11,1)

On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:28:56 -0700, Ike wrote:

> 1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since

That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users tipically think the best
interface is the one they are used to ;D

> 2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is
> intrinsically more secure.

That might be a good point, especially for new users, who are not
experienced and risk the most.

> 3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible.

Tipically old users have "old" (not brand new, at least) software and
hardware, and they are not eager to pay for an upgrade just to make their
old software or hardware "Vista-compatible".

> XP compatibility will fade.

In how many years? I guess no less than four yrs.


> 4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at
> multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using
> the same processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly
> configured, and that's personal experience.

That's interesting, thanks for sharing!

--
"And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech".
(Genesis 11,1)

I don't know that I agree with that.

Certainly a 7200 rpm drive is faster than a 5,400 rpm drive. But there
is a huge cost premium. 5400 rpm drives are made up to 200GB, while I'm
not even sure that you can get a 160GB 7200 rpm drive. And while a 5400
rpm 160GB drive is under $100, a 160GB drive with a 7200 rpm speed is
almost $300. So you need to think long and hard about going for a 7200
rpm drive, because it's really going to cost you.

Enrico C wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:06:49 -0700, David wrote:
>
>> I have always found that more memory gives better performance than clock
>> speed and memory is WAY cheaper.
>
> I think a 7200 rpm HD, rather than 5400 rpm, is a better-for-the-buck
> upgrade too. A slow HD can be the real bottleneck, IMHO.
>

I ***think*** that T5500 is a Core 2 Duo and not a Core Duo (different
processor families ... Core 2 Duo is somewhat better (about 15%)).

GMA is "Graphics Media Accelerator" ... it's Intel's integrated chipset
video. GMA 950 is actually pretty good for anything other than gaming,
although GMA X3000 is better (this only exists in the brand new, just
released this week "Santa Rosa" chipset, aka "Centrino Pro").

Enrico C wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:38:03 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote:
>
>> 2. Yes, that's fine for Vista; if any of that is borderline short, it's
>> the CPU (you need to specify the CPU type also, e.g. Core Duo, Core 2
>> Duo, Celeron, etc.)
>
> Let's say a "D820 Intel Core Duo T5500 (1.66GHzm 667 MHz) with integrated
> Intel GMA 950" (whatever an "integrated GMA" is! :-)
>
>

Re: "That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users typically think the
best interface is the one they are used to"

Right click on the Vista "Start" button, and select "Classic Start Menu"
(which also gives you "Classic Desktop").

Suddenly, you will like Vista a ***LOT*** more, it looks functionally
more like Windows 98SE (with all of the eye candy ....). It is a LOT
more friendly, and a lot more useable.

There are even more settings to make it's interface even more XP/98SE
like buried a bit deeper and in control panel and Tools/Folder Options,
but I don't remember where all of them were.


Enrico C wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:28:56 -0700, Ike wrote:
>
>> 1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since
>
> That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users tipically think the best
> interface is the one they are used to ;D
>
>> 2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is
>> intrinsically more secure.
>
> That might be a good point, especially for new users, who are not
> experienced and risk the most.
>
>> 3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible.
>
> Tipically old users have "old" (not brand new, at least) software and
> hardware, and they are not eager to pay for an upgrade just to make their
> old software or hardware "Vista-compatible".
>
>> XP compatibility will fade.
>
> In how many years? I guess no less than four yrs.
>
>
>> 4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at
>> multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using
>> the same processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly
>> configured, and that's personal experience.
>
> That's interesting, thanks for sharing!
>