Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> 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>

I think that perhaps Sjouke runs a computer museum. <g>

Then again, the same could almost be said about me.

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.

"~misfit~" wrote:

>Is it [W7] still cripled so as to only
>run three applications at a time?

Due to public outrage I believe they
finally scrapped that idea.

~misfit~ wrote:
> 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.)
>

I may have what you need in my shoebox memory museum, Specs please...
(pc 100 ????)

In news:655q3519les4t0jskefkt4nh9rtlbf4d5o@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:20:17 -0700:
> "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...

If you were a software developer, why would you write software just for
Vista when it isn't hard to make it Windows XP SP2 compatible too?

>> or W7 machine.
>
> WMP 12 apparently requires W7.

So? Does anybody really care, seriously? I mean besides Microsoft?
<grin>

>> 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.

Not the same thing at all. W9x is very limited as far as resources are
concern. Not a great OS for modern day bells and whistles applications.
Windows 2000/XP doesn't have this limitation at all. I forget what the
limit is, but something like 2TB per application. Even the most bloated
applications hasn't come close to this limit yet.

>> 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.

Well they have to come up with something for netbooks. As Microsoft
really doesn't want to support Windows XP forever. <grin>

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Correct AJL, they have scrapped the idea on the limited execution version of Windows 7. However that wasn't the version for netbooks that would have supposedly done that. It was the version they were trying to build for legacy hardware in developing third world countries. However, like was said, this plan was scrapped, as it took more time and effort to implement the restriction than it would to just not have it (plus, yes, public outcry). As far as netbook variant os Windows 7, _normal_ Windows 7 installs and runs just fine. The only things you need to watch are the size (don't install media center and some of the fancy consumerist stuff) and HDD grinding things (only applies to SSDs, as repeated write/rewrite/rewrite/rewrite/etc will kill those over time). Superfetch and indexing improvements have been massively streamlined and work even on very limited hardware. There was a post just recently about getting Windows 7 to be usable on a Pentium 2 266Mhz, with 96MB of RAM (they couldn't drop it to 64MB without it failing to load up fully). That is a massive feat right there, and while it required massive tuning, you would have to do the same to Windows 2000 even to get it usable on that level of hardware. I suggest giving the Windows 7 Release Candidate a try. It is free, and will only cost you the download and some time (and maybe a DVD-R to burn it to). You can get it from Microsoft over here: Windows 7 RC | Support, Deployment, Resources
I have it running on an older bit of hardware right now as a file server that also does media streaming to the PS3 in the TV room. I also have it running on my old laptop (about 8 years old) also. It runs pretty well, and moves just as swiftly (and in some cases faster) than Windows XP did on it. Microsoft saw what went wrong with Vista, and decided to not only try to fix it, but improve even past that.
If you are comfortable with your build and dont need to change, then don't. You will be fine for a while to come. However, if you need to use more current software, or have some newer technology (SATA or solid state drives for instance) Windows 7 will be easier to install and get running than Windows XP.

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

>If you were a software developer,
>why would you write software just for Vista

Exactly.

Developers try to write software for the biggest user base. That way
they can sell more software and make more money. But there comes a
time when the expense of making software backwards compatible with old
OSs no longer makes economic sense. In most cases that's long before
an OS is 10 years old.

>when it isn't hard to make it Windows XP SP2 compatible too?

Exactly.

Much new software now requires at least XP SP2.
XP SP2 is only *5* years old...

BTW I remember having a similar discussion in the Palm Pilot groups
about 5 years ago about the coming demise of the Palm OS.
So far I'm 1 for 1... ;)


>Well they [MS] have to come up with something [W7 basic] for netbooks.

When launched I predict that W7 basic will immediately take a
commanding lead in netbook sales. I further predict that XP will take
cliff dive in netbook sales. Well, that last prediction is kind of a
'duh' statement since MS will have stopped netbook XP sales. In any
case if you don't believe my predictions you're welcome to come over
and check my crystal balls... 8-O

DataCabbitKSW <kwhittington@crimson-consulting.com> wrote:

>Windows 7 installs and runs just fine. The only things you need to watch
>are the size (don't install media center and some of the fancy
>consumerist stuff) and...

I have never worried about Windows OS installations since I have never
owned a separate Windows copy. I have always bought my laptops with
the Windows already installed and IMO that saves me a lot of hassle.
When the Windows OS starts getting out of date, usually the computer
is also. I recently gave away my 6 year old 17" HP laptop (XP) and I
am planning to replace it this fall at which time I should be getting
my W7 fix... ;)

In news:1ctv3517ilmogvp9g0sic0evhi1eap9tmq@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:37:19 -0700:
> I have never worried about Windows OS installations since I have never
> owned a separate Windows copy. I have always bought my laptops with
> the Windows already installed and IMO that saves me a lot of hassle.

I too think this is the smart way to go. No need to hunt for drivers
either. As sometimes they don't exist if you buy a retail Windows
version you bought. Also Linux isn't much better. <sigh>

> When the Windows OS starts getting out of date, usually the computer
> is also. I recently gave away my 6 year old 17" HP laptop (XP) and I
> am planning to replace it this fall at which time I should be getting
> my W7 fix... ;)


Some of us bought computers with Windows 98FE or Windows ME and needed
to dump the junk that came with our computers and go out and buy a newer
Windows version. <sigh>

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

In news:31qv35djlhdhnb72aontlc6j8ki6952keh@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:08:40 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> If you were a software developer,
>> why would you write software just for Vista
>
> Exactly.
>
> Developers try to write software for the biggest user base. That way
> they can sell more software and make more money. But there comes a
> time when the expense of making software backwards compatible with old
> OSs no longer makes economic sense. In most cases that's long before
> an OS is 10 years old.
>
>> when it isn't hard to make it Windows XP SP2 compatible too?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Much new software now requires at least XP SP2.
> XP SP2 is only *5* years old...

Trust me. Windows 2000/XP is far different than any other OS before it.
And it is going to be here for sometime to come. Longer than any Windows
version before it and possibly after it.

> BTW I remember having a similar discussion in the Palm Pilot groups
> about 5 years ago about the coming demise of the Palm OS.
> So far I'm 1 for 1... ;)

When Windows CE came out, I saw Palm OS days numered. Although I didn't
see Windows CE dying off so soon. Microsoft should have created a
generic version for netbooks too. But Microsoft doesn't listen to me
anyway. lol

>> Well they [MS] have to come up with something [W7 basic] for
>> netbooks.
>
> When launched I predict that W7 basic will immediately take a
> commanding lead in netbook sales. I further predict that XP will take
> cliff dive in netbook sales. Well, that last prediction is kind of a
> 'duh' statement since MS will have stopped netbook XP sales. In any
> case if you don't believe my predictions you're welcome to come over
> and check my crystal balls... 8-O

Well I haven't seen W7 yet. So I can't say very much. But 4G netbooks
can't even handle XP with SP3. There just isn't enough disk space to
pull it off. You need at least 5G and I believe I saw the temps eating
7G before it finished.

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

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

>4G netbooks can't even handle XP with SP3.

That is a problem with very small SSD netbooks. They pretty much are
limited to Linux. And the general public doesn't seem to care much for
Linux so I imagine that they will go the way of the Palm Pilot... ;)

In news:9m2045d9g4dv8c2r3ae6pgtlo4mevfjfg0@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:57 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> 4G netbooks can't even handle XP with SP3.
>
> That is a problem with very small SSD netbooks. They pretty much are
> limited to Linux. And the general public doesn't seem to care much for
> Linux so I imagine that they will go the way of the Palm Pilot... ;)

Naw... Windows 2000 SP4 only needs 700MB and runs very well on netbooks.
At least on the Asus netbooks anyway. Still lots of new copies of
Windows 2000 being sold on eBay too.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:h1qdba$k2r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:9m2045d9g4dv8c2r3ae6pgtlo4mevfjfg0@4ax.com,
> AJL typed on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:57 -0700:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> 4G netbooks can't even handle XP with SP3.
>>
>> That is a problem with very small SSD netbooks. They pretty much are
>> limited to Linux. And the general public doesn't seem to care much for
>> Linux so I imagine that they will go the way of the Palm Pilot... ;)
>
> Naw... Windows 2000 SP4 only needs 700MB and runs very well on netbooks.
> At least on the Asus netbooks anyway. Still lots of new copies of
> Windows 2000 being sold on eBay too.
>
> --
> Bill
> Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
> Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
>
>

Yes, the eeePC701 4gb 2g Ram 16g SDHC Card does very well with Win 2000, but
there are several programs I use which don't play well with W2000 so I still
run the full version of XP SP3 with all updates and the 701 does very well
with it. No, I don't do Photoshop or Video editing on it, but I have most
common programs installed plus garmin GPS and HAVA Video streaming and am
using approx 2.4gb of the 4gb SSD. Plenty of room on the 16gb SDHC for large
files and I have put several large programs(GPS) on the card with no
noticable performance loss. Of course I can still plug in a second 16gb card
via USB card reader for movies, etc. If I need to use some of the larger
programs on my main computer I just connect up to it via www.logmein.com and
run anything I want remotely from anywhere I have internet access. I don't
use a swap file or hibernate to save hd space and this has never caused my
performance to suffer....<wink><grin> and a big (:>)

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:h1qdba$k2r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:9m2045d9g4dv8c2r3ae6pgtlo4mevfjfg0@4ax.com,
> AJL typed on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:57 -0700:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> 4G netbooks can't even handle XP with SP3.
>>
>> That is a problem with very small SSD netbooks. They pretty much are
>> limited to Linux. And the general public doesn't seem to care much for
>> Linux so I imagine that they will go the way of the Palm Pilot... ;)
>
> Naw... Windows 2000 SP4 only needs 700MB and runs very well on netbooks.
> At least on the Asus netbooks anyway. Still lots of new copies of
> Windows 2000 being sold on eBay too.
>
> --
> Bill
> Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
> Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
>
>

PS...have been running WIN7 RC on my old Dell C610 with VG results and as
soon as I can scare up the drivers I'm going to try it on the 701

> AJL typed on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:57 -0700:

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

>> That is a problem with very small SSD netbooks. They pretty much are
>> limited to Linux. And the general public doesn't seem to care much for
>> Linux so I imagine that they will go the way of the Palm Pilot... ;)

>Windows 2000 SP4 only needs 700MB and runs very well on netbooks.

Only Linux and XP are currently available on *new* netbooks.

> At least on the Asus netbooks anyway.

What the 'general public' wants is what's usually for sale. Indications are
they don't like netbooks with Linux or very small screens. So like my Palm
TX, this Linux powered 7" screened 2G SSDed EeePC 2GSurf is probably the
last of it's kind... :(

> Still lots of new copies of Windows 2000 being sold on eBay too.

Great for us hobby people but not much help for Asus's bottom line... ;)

In news:7abvr3F1uv4doU1@mid.individual.net,
olfart typed on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:24:19 -0400:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:h1qdba$k2r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In news:9m2045d9g4dv8c2r3ae6pgtlo4mevfjfg0@4ax.com,
>> AJL typed on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:20:57 -0700:
>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4G netbooks can't even handle XP with SP3.
>>>
>>> That is a problem with very small SSD netbooks. They pretty much are
>>> limited to Linux. And the general public doesn't seem to care much
>>> for Linux so I imagine that they will go the way of the Palm
>>> Pilot... ;)
>>
>> Naw... Windows 2000 SP4 only needs 700MB and runs very well on
>> netbooks. At least on the Asus netbooks anyway. Still lots of new
>> copies of Windows 2000 being sold on eBay too.
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>> Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
>> Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
>
> Yes, the eeePC701 4gb 2g Ram 16g SDHC Card does very well with Win
> 2000, but there are several programs I use which don't play well with
> W2000 so I still run the full version of XP SP3 with all updates and
> the 701 does very well with it.

Yes this is true. I can use either myself. Although I had to stop using
Maxthon 1.5.6 with XP SP3. It causes webpages to load so slowly.

> No, I don't do Photoshop or Video editing on it, but I have most
> common programs installed plus garmin GPS and HAVA Video streaming
> and am using approx 2.4gb of the 4gb SSD.

That is what I remember XP only using of a 4GB SSD. But I checked again
and the OEM version of XP for Asus only has 400MB free. I can delete
Works v9 and the Live stuff to get about 800MB free, but still not a lot
and not enough to install SP3. I should grab my XP install disks and see
what size they install at.

> Plenty of room on the 16gb SDHC for large files and I have put
> several large programs(GPS) on the card with no noticable performance
> loss. Of course I can still plug in a second 16gb card via USB card
> reader for movies, etc. If I need to use some of the larger programs
> on my main computer I just connect up to it via www.logmein.com and
> run anything I want remotely from anywhere I have internet access.

I have three 16GB now. Very nice for extra storage.

> I don't use a swap file or hibernate to save hd space and this has
> never caused my performance to suffer....<wink><grin> and a big (:>)

Very good idea. <big grin>

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC