What's the worst machine you saw running Windows 10?

I've this question to compare just to know if I should upgrade my Windows 7
system with 2 GB RAM and Dual Core processor. The machine came with Windows
Vista then I installed Windows 7 but it is not very fast.

I mean I'm happy with her but I'm not so sure if she has power enough to run
Windows 10. Then I presume Windows 10 will get slower with more and more
updates then will be impossible to reinstall Windows 7 over Windows 10
because new system takes the machine. Only way I see is to install Linux
over Windows 10.

If the machine is a desktop, I think you can take off the hard disk and
format it to reinstall older system but if it is a laptop it is harder to
disassemble and deal with 2.5" disk but I believe it's easier to use Linux,
I'm not sure.

Bermudez wrote:



I've this question to compare just to know if I should upgrade my Windows 7
system with 2 GB RAM and Dual Core processor. The machine came with Windows
Vista then I installed Windows 7 but it is not very fast.

I mean I'm happy with her but I'm not so sure if she has power enough to
run
Windows 10. Then I presume Windows 10 will get slower with more and more
updates then will be impossible to reinstall Windows 7 over Windows 10
because new system takes the machine. Only way I see is to install Linux
over Windows 10.

If the machine is a desktop, I think you can take off the hard disk and
format it to reinstall older system but if it is a laptop it is harder
to disassemble and deal with 2.5" disk but I believe it's easier to use
Linux, I'm not sure.

You can use any OS you want. Just need the skillz.

I can take the hard drive out of my laptop in 30 seconds.
There is a plastic plate and two screws covering it.
It would be easy to get a second blank drive, and insert
it in place of the regular drive.

Linux LiveCDs can be run from optical disc or USB
key, without any hard drive installation at all. You could
even try moving the persistent casper-rw file to a FAT32
partition already on the hard drive.

There are many options.

And your Dual Core processor will run any/all of them.

Paul

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 04:34:14 +0100, "Bermudez"
wrote:

If the machine is a desktop, I think you can take off the hard disk and
format it to reinstall older system but if it is a laptop it is harder to
disassemble and deal with 2.5" disk but I believe it's easier to use Linux,
I'm not sure.

The only problems I've had with Linux on laptops is that sometimes the
wireless adaptor or brightness or volume controls (when they're
operated by function keys) are not recognised without installing extra
software. Luckily you can run most of the recent Linux distros from
the DVD without making any changes to the hard drive, so you can check
what works and what doesn't, and decide if it's worth proceeding.

Usually the memory and hard drive on a laptop are reasonably
accessible. Everything's a bit smaller and fiddlier than on a desktop,
but easily dealt with as long as you take care.

The main issue with hard drives on laptops is that your reason for
wanting to remove one might be to replace it with a solid state drive,
in which case you'll probably find there's only space for one drive. A
worthwhile modification to a desktop is to add a low capacity SSD
(60GB or 120GB) just for the operating system, and keep the original
drive for your own file storage, but if you're restricted to one
physical drive, as in a typical laptop, you can partition it as two
but it'll have to be a bigger one and they're a bit more expensive.

Rod.

Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Bermudez wrote:
I've this question to compare just to know if I should upgrade my
Windows 7 system with 2 GB RAM and Dual Core processor. The machine
came
with Windows Vista then I installed Windows 7 but it is not very fast.



It runs excellently on a tablet with Quad-core 1.33GHz (1.83GHz burst
frequency) Intel Atom Z3735F processor, 2GB RAM, 32 bit on a x64-based
processor, 24GB SSD + 32GB sd card.

I have no idea at all what the burst frequency is, but I've copied it
from a written spec.

Ed


"Burst" - Depends on CPU temperature. And how good a job the
designers did cooling the processor. It can burst to 1.83GHz
if the CPU is cool enough.

Under sustained load, it could drop to 1.33GHz.

And other thermal features could also be engaged
to drop performance further.

It is a $17 processor. A SOC (system-on-a-chip).

It has a 64 bit memory interface, a single channel.
Your RAM is the most RAM that CPU supports (2GB).

The datasheet for the processor was a hoot. Vol.1
was the usual kind of Intel document. The second
document was larger. It was probably machine
generated, rather than humans writing it, and
Vol.2 is 4274 pages long. I take it, no human
has ever been forced to read the whole thing.

In terms of page count, this is the largest
PDF I've ever opened.

I suppose a BIOS designer somewhere, might have
been required to read it... Yikes.

Paul

I was in PC World the other day and I had a play with a Surface Pro
tablet.
My verdict; not better than the Linx 10 that I have; not faster, not
more HD, no better. And it costs more than twice as much.

And the Linx updated to Win10 with consummate ease and grace.

Take that large PDF through a different mind-set; one that proclaims
the vast attention to detail afforded to it, rather than as an
encumbrance designed to trip you up.

Ed

Where you would find the machines different (Surface Pro),
is when doing "compute jobs". Running 7ZIP on
Ultra compression, converting a movie to MP4,
doing Photoshop on a large file.

The OSes are designed on purpose, to try
to "equalize" the GUI, so that tablets and
desktops behave in a similar way. If you had
a 5GHz processor, the screen won't have any
additional "snap" to it. They tamed all that
with "events and timers" so a fast machine
can't be in too much of a rush.

If you want to see how computers would really
behave given a chance, look at a video of
the Temple OS. Herky-Jerky. No throttles.
You can tell things are running at "machine-rates"
in that OS. Not all slathered down with tricks
like the commercial OSes use. It looks horrible,
as GUI designs go, but it does give some
idea what modern design has robbed the
machine of.

I remember how I could do useful things, with
only a 1MHz processor. Now I own a 3000Mhz
processor. Is there any evidence it is
3000x faster ? Hard to spot.

Paul

It's horses for courses with me. I'd do all the heavy stuff you mention
on a different PC.
The Linx does its expected job perfectly well enough. I'd say "as well
as my iPad".

Ed

"Bermudez" wrote in
:

I've this question to compare just to know if I should upgrade my
Windows 7 system with 2 GB RAM and Dual Core processor. The machine
came with Windows Vista then I installed Windows 7 but it is not very
fast.


I have it running on Samsung N145 plus, 2GB RAM, single core 1.66GHz
processor. Loads and runs faster than the original Win 7 Starter.

On 2015-08-15 4:27 PM, troppo wrote:
"Bermudez" wrote in
:

I've this question to compare just to know if I should upgrade my
Windows 7 system with 2 GB RAM and Dual Core processor. The machine
came with Windows Vista then I installed Windows 7 but it is not very
fast.


I have it running on Samsung N145 plus, 2GB RAM, single core 1.66GHz
processor. Loads and runs faster than the original Win 7 Starter.

For now. There was likely a lot of useless software on your Windows 7
Starter installation which was removed with the upgrade, the anti-virus
most notably (if there was one).

--
A.M

Hillary for Prison 2016!!

"A.M" wrote in :

On 2015-08-15 4:27 PM, troppo wrote:
"Bermudez" wrote in
:

I've this question to compare just to know if I should upgrade my
Windows 7 system with 2 GB RAM and Dual Core processor. The machine
came with Windows Vista then I installed Windows 7 but it is not very
fast.


I have it running on Samsung N145 plus, 2GB RAM, single core 1.66GHz
processor. Loads and runs faster than the original Win 7 Starter.

For now. There was likely a lot of useless software on your Windows 7
Starter installation which was removed with the upgrade, the anti-virus
most notably (if there was one).

No argument with "for now" but I did a clean install of Linux on it, then
returned it to Starter when I found I could get the iso, and found out how
to fix some of the 7 Starter sillies. It bungs up a bit sometimes, but I
haven't got rid of all the telemetry yet.