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.

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:52:13 +0100
"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 have a 2009 Compaq-Presario 64 bit single processor, 2.7 GHz, 2 GBs
Ram.

I have been checking out Windows 10 on it, and it runs fine.

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.

Bermudez posted
this via :

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.

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/check-...compatibility-
windows-10

or: http://tinyurl.com/na9vnwy

Then, I'd make sure I had a backup image of the present system before doing
the upgrade; however, the upgrade allows you roll-back within 30-days if
you don't like what you got yerself into...

How fast is so dependent on so many things, especially your ISP, your plan,
your router, your gateway, software - especially AV and firewalls...

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; and,
It's like Yogi Berra always used to say:
"The future ain't what it used to be!"

http://tinyurl.com/ocnqvgq

In message , Bermudez
writes
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've been happily testing on a Lenovo X60 tablet laptop with a 1.6GHz
core 2 duo processor and 2GB ram.
It originally ran XP tablet edition. Some of these machines originally
came with Vista, but not this one.

I see very little improvement from the change of OS, and I haven't yet
got all the interfaces working in W10 that worked in XP (eg firewire
audio interfaces).
--
Bill

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.

My netbook is dual core celeron N2840, with 8GB and 64GB SATA2 SSD, it
has no problems with Win10.

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:52:13 +0100, 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.

My 2006 Dell Dimension with 2GB copes well with W10. In fact it runs
more smoothly than does my workhorse Lattitude E6410 with an i5
processor and 4GB.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

In article ,
says...

Bermudez posted
this via :

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.

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/check-...compatibility-
windows-10

or: http://tinyurl.com/na9vnwy

Then, I'd make sure I had a backup image of the present system before doing
the upgrade; however, the upgrade allows you roll-back within 30-days if
you don't like what you got yerself into...

How fast is so dependent on so many things, especially your ISP, your plan,
your router, your gateway, software - especially AV and firewalls...

The last paragraph has nothing to do with the speed of the pc. Unlikely
any working pc today can't keep up with the ISP's feed assuming it's not
doing so much else it simply can't do "everything" at same time.

pjp posted this via
:

In article ,
says...

Bermudez posted
this via :

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.

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/check-...compatibility-
windows-10

or: http://tinyurl.com/na9vnwy

Then, I'd make sure I had a backup image of the present system before
doing the upgrade; however, the upgrade allows you roll-back within
30-days if you don't like what you got yerself into...

How fast is so dependent on so many things, especially your ISP, your
plan, your router, your gateway, software - especially AV and
firewalls...

The last paragraph has nothing to do with the speed of the pc. Unlikely
any working pc today can't keep up with the ISP's feed assuming it's not
doing so much else it simply can't do "everything" at same time.

Depends on what he meant by "fast." You can always find something to be
argumentative about because you are an asshole with a keyboard - the
epitome of "troll" and a dumbass! No meds can cure you. Have a nice life.
Or not.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; and,
It's like Yogi Berra always used to say:
"The future ain't what it used to be!"

http://tinyurl.com/ocnqvgq

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

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

On 2015-08-08 10:52 AM, 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.

With 2GB of RAM, I found Vista and 7 to be quite swift. Of course, I
took great care in maintaining my systems. I would say that 10 should
run well on that amount but you should consider taking care of your
registry.

--
A.M
99 of 100 computer users agree: Linux sucks

If ever you meet a Linux advocate who doesn't lie, pinch yourself.

On 2015-08-08 11:16 AM, 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.

I can assure you that just about any distribution of Linux will run
quite well on 2GB. The problem is that most of their software is quite
buggy, the userbase consists of some of the most repulsive individuals
you'll ever meet and you won't necessarily get any real help for the
significant problems you're likely to face. Just compare Windows
newsgroups to Linux ones. People get along here whereas Linux ones
usually consist of people calling each other idiots and liars over the
slightest disagreement.

--
A.M
99 of 100 computer users agree: Linux sucks

If ever you meet a Linux advocate who doesn't lie, pinch yourself.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:39:48 -0400, A.M wrote:

I can assure you that just about any distribution of Linux will run
quite well on 2GB.

That is true.

The problem is that most of their software is quite buggy,

That is definitely FALSE.

the userbase consists of some of the most repulsive individuals
you'll ever meet and you won't necessarily get any real help for the
significant problems you're likely to face. Just compare Windows
newsgroups to Linux ones. People get along here whereas Linux ones
usually consist of people calling each other idiots and liars over the
slightest disagreement.

...and that ONLY happens because *YOU* go there and CAUSE IT TO HAPPEN. You
live up to your former nyms of "Slimer" and "Silver Slimer."

Bermudez, do not pay any attention to what this troll has to say about
Linux. He is just jealous.