Well I haven't found anybody really saying that Windows 7 isn't so hot
yet on the Internet. So maybe this is the first. And I am not so
impressed.

On one Gateway MX6124 laptop ('06 era), it only detected the wireless.
Intel's video driver didn't work right. Gateway's video driver didn't
work either. Only Asus' Intel video driver worked. No sound card driver
will work, so this wouldn't be much fun to use it all.

One of my EeePCs, it was going well. Except now it will not allow an
external monitor to work anymore. But even when it was working, the only
thing I liked about Windows 7 was the taskbar and the gadgets. And
Windows 7 compatibility with XP software isn't too hot. Some wouldn't
run at all and those that do, start slow. Windows 7 itself runs almost
as fast as XP and even boots nearly as fast. So that is the good news.
<grin>

So I don't know, I don't think this is for me. And it appears to be more
like a bug fix for Vista. I don't think it is going to be too much of a
hit with the masses either. And Microsoft thinks that netbook crowd are
going to want to run Windows 7? Me thinks they better not toss out that
XP source code just yet. <grin>

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

BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
: Well I haven't found anybody really saying that Windows 7 isn't so hot
: yet on the Internet. So maybe this is the first. And I am not so
: impressed.
:
Hmmm, does this mean that Vista is now the shortest lived
windows OS to date, even shorter lived than the excerable
ME?

Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes

In news:h366cj$9pl$1@news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
<BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

> On one Gateway MX6124 laptop ('06 era), it only detected the wireless.
> Intel's video driver didn't work right. Gateway's video driver didn't
> work either. Only Asus' Intel video driver worked. No sound card
> driver will work, so this wouldn't be much fun to use it all.

Did you run the Win 7 compatibility test before installing it?

I ran it on both my laptops. For the newer one (Thinkpad R51), it
pointed out a couple of new drivers that would be needed. The older one
(Thinkpad 600E) was hopeless, as I expected.

Even so, I'm perfectly happy with XP Pro and will stick with it 'til
forced to change, probably not 'til I start replacing the current
hardware.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

In news:Xns9C444D6917B81VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7,
Bert Hyman typed on 10 Jul 2009 12:36:35 GMT:
> In news:h366cj$9pl$1@news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
> <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> On one Gateway MX6124 laptop ('06 era), it only detected the
>> wireless. Intel's video driver didn't work right. Gateway's video
>> driver didn't work either. Only Asus' Intel video driver worked. No
>> sound card driver will work, so this wouldn't be much fun to use it
>> all.
>
> Did you run the Win 7 compatibility test before installing it?

Nope! I have been getting things to work for decades that wasn't
supposed to work. So if some compatibility program says it will work or
won't, it really doesn't mean anything.

> I ran it on both my laptops. For the newer one (Thinkpad R51), it
> pointed out a couple of new drivers that would be needed. The older
> one (Thinkpad 600E) was hopeless, as I expected.

Seven of my laptops/netbooks use Intel chips. And Intel has not released
any Windows 7 drivers yet. And probably won't until Windows 7 is in the
stores.

> Even so, I'm perfectly happy with XP Pro and will stick with it 'til
> forced to change, probably not 'til I start replacing the current
> hardware.

Lots of people feel this way. Prior to Windows 2000/XP, users had an
incentive to upgrade for at least one must have feature. Usually it was
for support for larger RAM, HDD, or devices like USB. Windows 2000/XP
doesn't have any of these limitations except for the 4GB limit on RAM.
And very few find this as a limitation yet. And for the few that does,
you have 64 bit OS anyway.

Even today, we still hear of Windows 3.1 users out there. No doubt,
their numbers are small. But I truly believe XP will enjoy the longest
lifespan of any prior or future OS. XP is 7 years old now and it is
still used by the majority. This is unheard of in the OS market. And it
isn't over yet. <grin>

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

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:h37fet$v6l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:Xns9C444D6917B81VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7,
> Bert Hyman typed on 10 Jul 2009 12:36:35 GMT:
>> In news:h366cj$9pl$1@news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
>> <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> On one Gateway MX6124 laptop ('06 era), it only detected the
>>> wireless. Intel's video driver didn't work right. Gateway's video
>>> driver didn't work either. Only Asus' Intel video driver worked. No
>>> sound card driver will work, so this wouldn't be much fun to use it
>>> all.
>>
>> Did you run the Win 7 compatibility test before installing it?
>
> Nope! I have been getting things to work for decades that wasn't
> supposed to work. So if some compatibility program says it will work
> or won't, it really doesn't mean anything.

Just for giggles, I ran the compatibility test and everything passed
except the built in card reader (no loss there, as it is only good up to
1G cards anyway) and the Aero user interface. So it says it is good to
go. And I finally got the sound card to work. But the mixer settings are
nil.

--
Bill
Windows Ultimate (build 7100)
Gateway MX6124 - 2G RAM

Bill, why, specifically, would it not run Aero? What chipset and how
much memory. [For Intel, the minimum chipset is a 945 and you need MORE
than 512MB of memory, which normally means 1GB (there has to be a full
512MB left after some of the system memory is used for video).


BillW50 wrote:
>
>
> Just for giggles, I ran the compatibility test and everything passed
> except the built in card reader (no loss there, as it is only good up to
> 1G cards anyway) and the Aero user interface. So it says it is good to
> go. And I finally got the sound card to work. But the mixer settings are
> nil.
>

BillW50 wrote:
> But I truly believe XP will enjoy the longest
> lifespan of any prior or future OS. XP is 7 years old now and it is
> still used by the majority. This is unheard of in the OS market. And it
> isn't over yet. <grin>
>

You must be joking.

1) XP would have a very long way to go to catch up with Linux, Sun's
Solaris, or IBM's AIX operating system. Linux and Solaris both run on
normal x86 PCs, but AIX does not.

Linux was developed in 1991 - I'm not sure when the first public release
was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux


2) Sun's Solaris has been in existence since 1992

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)

and is still going strong. The last release of the OS is Solaris 10 update 7

$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 10 5/09 s10s_u7wos_08 SPARC
Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 30 March 2009

and is updated every 6-12 months.

However, the OpenSolaris is updated more often.




3) AIX has been around since at least 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX

but has a much smaller user base than Solaris or Linux.


So there are several major operating systems which have been around
twice as long as XP.

--
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange' take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches.

"Dave" <foo@coo.com> wrote in message news:4a5bfadb@212.67.96.135...
> BillW50 wrote:
>> But I truly believe XP will enjoy the longest lifespan of any prior
>> or future OS. XP is 7 years old now and it is still used by the
>> majority. This is unheard of in the OS market. And it isn't over yet.
>> <grin>
>>
>
> You must be joking.
>
> 1) XP would have a very long way to go to catch up with Linux, Sun's
> Solaris, or IBM's AIX operating system. Linux and Solaris both run on
> normal x86 PCs, but AIX does not.
>
> Linux was developed in 1991 - I'm not sure when the first public
> release was:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
>
>
> 2) Sun's Solaris has been in existence since 1992
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)
>
> and is still going strong. The last release of the OS is Solaris 10
> update 7
>
> $ cat /etc/release
> Solaris 10 5/09 s10s_u7wos_08 SPARC
> Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> Use is subject to license terms.
> Assembled 30 March 2009
>
> and is updated every 6-12 months.
>
> However, the OpenSolaris is updated more often.
>
>
>
>
> 3) AIX has been around since at least 1990
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AIX
>
> but has a much smaller user base than Solaris or Linux.
>
>
> So there are several major operating systems which have been around
> twice as long as XP.

Hi Dave. No that isn't what I am talking about. Windows has been around
since 1985 too, but you missed the whole point. I am referring to the
single Windows version called XP. <grin>

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

--
Bill
Windows Ultimate (build 7100)
Gateway MX6124 - 2G RAM

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:h3dclq$mep$3@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bill, why, specifically, would it not run Aero? What chipset and how
> much memory. [For Intel, the minimum chipset is a 945 and you need
> MORE than 512MB of memory, which normally means 1GB (there has to be a
> full 512MB left after some of the system memory is used for video).
>
>
> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>> Just for giggles, I ran the compatibility test and everything passed
>> except the built in card reader (no loss there, as it is only good up
>> to 1G cards anyway) and the Aero user interface. So it says it is
>> good to go. And I finally got the sound card to work. But the mixer
>> settings are nil.

Hi Barry. All 7 of mine run the Intel 915 chipset.

--
Bill
Windows Ultimate (build 7100)
Gateway MX6124 - 2G RAM

Ok, the 915 chipset explains why they won't run Aero.

That sucks.

But what really sucks is that the 915 is capable of running Aero. It
meets all of the individual specs, and in the beta version of Vista, it
DID run Aero. Then they made a change to Aero and it no longer worked
with the 915. The problem, as I understand it, is very simple: Intel
won't do (didn't do) the necessary WDDM driver for the 915. The 945
(with GMA950 (the 915 had GMA900)) was the first Intel chipset to run
Aero in the released final version of Vista.

BillW50 wrote:
>
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:h3dclq$mep$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Bill, why, specifically, would it not run Aero? What chipset and how
>> much memory. [For Intel, the minimum chipset is a 945 and you need
>> MORE than 512MB of memory, which normally means 1GB (there has to be a
>> full 512MB left after some of the system memory is used for video).
>>
>>
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>> Just for giggles, I ran the compatibility test and everything passed
>>> except the built in card reader (no loss there, as it is only good up
>>> to 1G cards anyway) and the Aero user interface. So it says it is
>>> good to go. And I finally got the sound card to work. But the mixer
>>> settings are nil.
>
> Hi Barry. All 7 of mine run the Intel 915 chipset.
>

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:Xns9C444D6917B81VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7,
> Bert Hyman typed on 10 Jul 2009 12:36:35 GMT:
[snip]
>> Even so, I'm perfectly happy with XP Pro and will stick with it 'til
>> forced to change, probably not 'til I start replacing the current
>> hardware.
>
> Lots of people feel this way. Prior to Windows 2000/XP, users had an
> incentive to upgrade for at least one must have feature. Usually it
> was for support for larger RAM, HDD, or devices like USB. Windows
> 2000/XP doesn't have any of these limitations except for the 4GB
> limit on RAM. And very few find this as a limitation yet. And for the
> few that does, you have 64 bit OS anyway.

I'm also perfectly happy wih XP and have no intention of changing. The only
up-coming technology that's even close to must-have that could make any
difference to my decision would be USB3 and I'm pretty sure that there'll be
XP drivers for it so I can have a USB3 Expresscard in my T60.

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 Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:Xns9C444D6917B81VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7,
>> Bert Hyman typed on 10 Jul 2009 12:36:35 GMT:
> [snip]
>>> Even so, I'm perfectly happy with XP Pro and will stick with it 'til
>>> forced to change, probably not 'til I start replacing the current
>>> hardware.
>> Lots of people feel this way. Prior to Windows 2000/XP, users had an
>> incentive to upgrade for at least one must have feature. Usually it
>> was for support for larger RAM, HDD, or devices like USB. Windows
>> 2000/XP doesn't have any of these limitations except for the 4GB
>> limit on RAM. And very few find this as a limitation yet. And for the
>> few that does, you have 64 bit OS anyway.
>
> I'm also perfectly happy wih XP and have no intention of changing. The only
> up-coming technology that's even close to must-have that could make any
> difference to my decision would be USB3 and I'm pretty sure that there'll be
> XP drivers for it so I can have a USB3 Expresscard in my T60.
>
> Cheers,

Same here, even if I do not have any use - so far - for a faster USB
connection. Overtime, I have become wiser - most of us do, I guess!- and
I no longer upgrade applications and OSs if the newer versions do not
bring me something I really appreciate, or need.

Overtime, I have found that more often than not, upgrading meant lots of
headaches, new bugs, added complexity without any tangible benefit. This
goes for instance for Quicken, Firefox, Thunderbird, MS Office, just to
name a few.

In a word, my philosophy is to keep what works for me, while keeping
abreast of new products, out of curiosity and should a customer require
a newer version, and not to miss a really improved or innovating product.

XP SP3 works for me and gives me a choice of system file, which Vista
and and 7 do not: right or wrong, I trust the FAT32 system. Might be
less reliable than NTFS on the paper, but FAT32 problems I know how to
solve and have the tools for that. When NTFS fails, I guess most people
end up restoring a backup. I don't.

Then, not having the means or will to renew a hardware that works
impeccably for me, I tend to keep my machines way longer than OS specs
evolution would have me!

Regards

--
John Doue

In article <h366cj$9pl$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

> Well I haven't found anybody really saying that Windows 7 isn't so hot
> yet on the Internet. So maybe this is the first. And I am not so
> impressed.
>
> On one Gateway MX6124 laptop ('06 era), it only detected the wireless.
> Intel's video driver didn't work right. Gateway's video driver didn't
> work either. Only Asus' Intel video driver worked. No sound card driver
> will work, so this wouldn't be much fun to use it all.
>
> One of my EeePCs, it was going well. Except now it will not allow an
> external monitor to work anymore. But even when it was working, the only
> thing I liked about Windows 7 was the taskbar and the gadgets. And
> Windows 7 compatibility with XP software isn't too hot. Some wouldn't
> run at all and those that do, start slow. Windows 7 itself runs almost
> as fast as XP and even boots nearly as fast. So that is the good news.
> <grin>
>
> So I don't know, I don't think this is for me. And it appears to be more
> like a bug fix for Vista. I don't think it is going to be too much of a
> hit with the masses either. And Microsoft thinks that netbook crowd are
> going to want to run Windows 7? Me thinks they better not toss out that
> XP source code just yet. <grin>

Ever had the thought that MS is trying to get out of the OS business or
scrapping its previous approach to coding Windows?

Ever wondered why Apple switched their OS to run on Intel and is just
about to stop supporting PowerPC?

Take a guess why free distros of Linux are taking off like skyrockets.