Patty wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:19:22 -0700, AJL wrote:
>
>> Patty <patty@iainttellin.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I ran the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor on my desktop which is
>>> about 5 years old. With Vista, the NForce2 chipset gave an error on that
>>> Advisor since it wasn't supported, but Win7 Advisor says all is fine.
>> I'm guessing that this reportedly good W7 compatibility with old
>> machines will be useful for businesses that may want to upgrade
>> without buying a lot of new computers. However I doubt that anyone
>> here will rush out and spend $200 for a copy of W7 to run on their 5
>> year old laptop... ;)
>
> Companies usually get license deals so they probably wouldn't pay $200 for
> each system. I, however, will probably just limp along with XP. ;)

It's not limping if it works well enough to serve it's intended purpose.
XP does everything i need it too. I do not need a bunch of fancy
(resource hogging) bells and whistles & cartoony crap to be productive.

W7's big corporate concession is that there is an XP emulator sandbox
built into the OS so that corporations can run their old apps. We'll see
how well this flies, but I see a whole new support path that will need
to be staffed. Can't wait.

Microshaft has already started a complex new system of licensing
agreements for corporate software. With the evolution of virtual
machines, for workstations and servers, things will probably clearer
than mud in no time.

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>Well the rule of thumb is the larger the source code,
>the slower it runs.

The source code runs in modules, so if a W7 module is coded more
efficiently it could run faster even though the overall OS was larger.

>So if Win7 actually runs faster than XP,
>it would be a shift from the norm.

Speed isn't everything. DOS is faster than XP but it's not much good
for modern software. XP = DOS in ten years. And by that time we'll all
be working in the cloud anyway... ;)

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:4a3bd2bd$0$1655$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl,
> Sjouke Burry typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:02:37 +0200:
>> AJL wrote:
>>> John Doue <notwobe******.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I very much doubt any application will run faster on W7 than on XP.
>>> W7 certainly could be faster than XP. It is possible to write faster
>>> code. But besides that I imagine that you're pissing into the wind.
>>> XP will surely go the way of prior OSs. Lets see, are there still
>>> any W98 diehards out there? Going once, going twice... ;)
>> 0 w7
>> 0 vista
>> 1 xp
>> 1 w98
>> 2 dos/win311 for workgroups
>> 1 arc310 risccomputer
>> 2 BBC B micro's
>> 1 Acorn Elektron (German version)
>
> Now list them in the order you use the most with the most on the top and
> the least on the bottom. No Win7 or Vista here, but most of mine are
> running XP. Although I might be upgrading some of the XP machines to
> Windows 2000 soon. <grin>
>
> "We're thinking about upgrading from SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." -- Henry
> Spencer
>
W98 should drop 4 places, the rest is in the right order.

In news:4a3bec5c$0$1637$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl,
Sjouke Burry typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:51:56 +0200:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:4a3bd2bd$0$1655$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl,
>> Sjouke Burry typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:02:37 +0200:
>>> AJL wrote:
>>>> John Doue <notwobe******.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I very much doubt any application will run faster on W7 than on
>>>>> XP.
>>>> W7 certainly could be faster than XP. It is possible to write
>>>> faster code. But besides that I imagine that you're pissing into
>>>> the wind. XP will surely go the way of prior OSs. Lets see, are
>>>> there still any W98 diehards out there? Going once, going twice...
>>>> ;)
>>> 0 w7
>>> 0 vista
>>> 1 xp
>>> 1 w98
>>> 2 dos/win311 for workgroups
>>> 1 arc310 risccomputer
>>> 2 BBC B micro's
>>> 1 Acorn Elektron (German version)
>>
>> Now list them in the order you use the most with the most on the top
>> and the least on the bottom. No Win7 or Vista here, but most of mine
>> are running XP. Although I might be upgrading some of the XP
>> machines to Windows 2000 soon. <grin>
>>
>> "We're thinking about upgrading from SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." --
>> Henry Spencer
>>
> W98 should drop 4 places, the rest is in the right order.

Wow! Impressive! <grin>

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

In news:28mn351mipdaugo5lc731fvj13ehscn4u4@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:52:55 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Well the rule of thumb is the larger the source code,
>> the slower it runs.
>
> The source code runs in modules, so if a W7 module is coded more
> efficiently it could run faster even though the overall OS was larger.

One would hope anyway. Although the sloppy way modern day programmers
program, I wouldn't really count on this possibility.

>> So if Win7 actually runs faster than XP,
>> it would be a shift from the norm.
>
> Speed isn't everything. DOS is faster than XP but it's not much good
> for modern software. XP = DOS in ten years. And by that time we'll all
> be working in the cloud anyway... ;)

Well look at it this way...

DOS was number one for about 10 years ('82-'92)
Windows is number one for about 17 years ('92-present)
Windows 2000/XP is number one for about the last 9 years

So half of the Windows number one status has been do to the Windows
2000/XP kernel. And thanks to the netbook craze, the Windows 2000/XP
kernel is still going strong. So I will predict that no, I think Windows
XP will still be around in 10 years. I am sure Microsoft doesn't like
this. But it isn't up to Microsoft, but it is up to the users when XP
dies. <grin>

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Patty wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:19:22 -0700, AJL wrote:
>
>> Patty <patty@iainttellin.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I ran the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor on my desktop which is
>>> about 5 years old. With Vista, the NForce2 chipset gave an error on that
>>> Advisor since it wasn't supported, but Win7 Advisor says all is fine.
>> I'm guessing that this reportedly good W7 compatibility with old
>> machines will be useful for businesses that may want to upgrade
>> without buying a lot of new computers. However I doubt that anyone
>> here will rush out and spend $200 for a copy of W7 to run on their 5
>> year old laptop... ;)
>
> Companies usually get license deals so they probably wouldn't pay $200 for
> each system. I, however, will probably just limp along with XP. ;)

I would say, limp is not the right word since I very much doubt any
application will run faster on W7 than on XP.

--
John Doue

John Doue <notwobe******.com> wrote:

>I very much doubt any application will run faster on W7 than on XP.

W7 certainly could be faster than XP. It is possible to write faster
code. But besides that I imagine that you're pissing into the wind. XP
will surely go the way of prior OSs. Lets see, are there still any W98
diehards out there? Going once, going twice... ;)

In news:nqfn355abennqrp6gops3a6g68a0557q3t@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:40:18 -0700:
> John Doue <notwobe******.com> wrote:
>
>> I very much doubt any application will run faster on W7 than on XP.
>
> W7 certainly could be faster than XP. It is possible to write faster
> code. But besides that I imagine that you're pissing into the wind. XP
> will surely go the way of prior OSs. Lets see, are there still any W98
> diehards out there? Going once, going twice... ;)

Well the rule of thumb is the larger the source code, the slower it
runs. So if Win7 actually runs faster than XP, it would be a shift from
the norm. Of course, the computer language also makes a big difference.
The fastest one known is assembly language. Although is is very hard to
program under assembly and very hard to debug. Thus rarely used for
anything anymore.

Speaking about prior OSs, I am liking this Windows 2000 very much on
this EeePC. Virtually anything I can do under XP, I can also do under
2000 with half of the RAM. As far as Windows 98SE, I'll let you know if
I try to get that installed on one of these EeePCs. lol

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

In news:4a3bd2bd$0$1655$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl,
Sjouke Burry typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:02:37 +0200:
> AJL wrote:
>> John Doue <notwobe******.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I very much doubt any application will run faster on W7 than on XP.
>>
>> W7 certainly could be faster than XP. It is possible to write faster
>> code. But besides that I imagine that you're pissing into the wind.
>> XP will surely go the way of prior OSs. Lets see, are there still
>> any W98 diehards out there? Going once, going twice... ;)
> 0 w7
> 0 vista
> 1 xp
> 1 w98
> 2 dos/win311 for workgroups
> 1 arc310 risccomputer
> 2 BBC B micro's
> 1 Acorn Elektron (German version)

Now list them in the order you use the most with the most on the top and
the least on the bottom. No Win7 or Vista here, but most of mine are
running XP. Although I might be upgrading some of the XP machines to
Windows 2000 soon. <grin>

"We're thinking about upgrading from SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." -- Henry
Spencer

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

AJL wrote:
> John Doue <notwobe******.com> wrote:
>
>> I very much doubt any application will run faster on W7 than on XP.
>
> W7 certainly could be faster than XP. It is possible to write faster
> code. But besides that I imagine that you're pissing into the wind. XP
> will surely go the way of prior OSs. Lets see, are there still any W98
> diehards out there? Going once, going twice... ;)
0 w7
0 vista
1 xp
1 w98
2 dos/win311 for workgroups
1 arc310 risccomputer
2 BBC B micro's
1 Acorn Elektron (German version)

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>I think Windows XP will still be around in 10 years.

DOS is "still around" after 25+ years so by your loose definition that
prediction is likely correct. But I doubt that more than one percent
of users (hobbyists) will be using XP in ten years. If Vista hadn't
been such a debacle I wouldn't have given it 5 years...

>I am sure Microsoft doesn't like this.

They have taken notice. A version of W7 is designed for netbooks.

>it is up to the users when XP dies. <grin>

Judging from the new processors in the works the death of XP may be
greatly underestimated... ;)

In news:utco35t3laqj5ntfoi8phipbt4srdsdn37@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:30:25 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I think Windows XP will still be around in 10 years.
>
> DOS is "still around" after 25+ years so by your loose definition that
> prediction is likely correct. But I doubt that more than one percent
> of users (hobbyists) will be using XP in ten years. If Vista hadn't
> been such a debacle I wouldn't have given it 5 years...

But I am not using the loose definition. There are virtually no
applications that requires a Vista or W7 machine. And I don't see this
changing much in the next 5 to 10 years either.

>> I am sure Microsoft doesn't like this.
>
> They have taken notice. A version of W7 is designed for netbooks.

So I noticed some netbooks on eBay have W7 installed on them.

>> it is up to the users when XP dies. <grin>
>
> Judging from the new processors in the works the death of XP may be
> greatly underestimated... ;)

I wouldn't worry too much about new processors. I am sure the gamers
will be excited. But the average joe only cares if they can play videos
or not.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>There are virtually no applications that requires a Vista

There are applications that require Vista only. But still a small
percentage I agree. I blame the Vista debacle...

>or W7 machine.

WMP 12 apparently requires W7.

>And I don't see this changing much in the next 5 to 10 years either.

10 years back would be W98. Check the shelves for W98 software today.

>some netbooks on eBay have W7 installed on them.

The W7 basic which apparently will be used on netbooks is still in
design flux. But it is apparently going to be very emasculated.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs AJL wrote:
> John Doue <notwobe******.com> wrote:
>
>> I very much doubt any application will run faster on W7 than on XP.
>
> W7 certainly could be faster than XP. It is possible to write faster
> code. But besides that I imagine that you're pissing into the wind. XP
> will surely go the way of prior OSs. Lets see, are there still any W98
> diehards out there? Going once, going twice... ;)

I'm still running 98 on my Dell Latitude CPi-A 400 (Dixon) and it goes just
fine. (Actually it's a hybrid OS called 98SE2ME (Google..) that takes the
[very] few improvements that ME had over 98SE [mainly memory management] and
inserts them into 98SE.) It boots faster than my 1.7GHz Pentium M (Dothan)
R51 ThinkPad which is running XP Pro and is actually more responsive in use.
Add to that I've maxed the RAM on the R51 at 2GB but can't find a reasonable
price for the SD-RAM SODIMMs to take the CPi-A from 128MB [2 x 64MB] to it's
max of 256MB. (No good spending more than the machine's worth in re-sale
value to increase the RAM.)

A kind person gave me a 20GB HDD to replace the 6.4GB that it came with.

However, it doesn't have Wi-Fi built in, NIC, DVD writer, nor USB2 and it
only has one (type II) CardBus slot so I can't have all those things at
once. Also it only has a 1024 x 768 (13") screen. Other than that it's
absolutely fine for web surfing, newgroping <g>, word processing,
bittorrenting, watching avis etc.

I also have a Celeron (Mendicino) 500MHz desktop that's as capable as the
CPi-A but even more responsive (due to the HDD being a 7,200rpm desktop
model and having 256MB RAM) that is running W98.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs AJL wrote:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I think Windows XP will still be around in 10 years.
>
> DOS is "still around" after 25+ years so by your loose definition that
> prediction is likely correct. But I doubt that more than one percent
> of users (hobbyists) will be using XP in ten years. If Vista hadn't
> been such a debacle I wouldn't have given it 5 years...
>
>> I am sure Microsoft doesn't like this.
>
> They have taken notice. A version of W7 is designed for netbooks.

Is it still cripled so as to only run three applications at a time?
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.