If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: But I'd say the answer to my first question - why does he think he needs a new computer at all - needs answering before anything else: in other words, what does he expect a new computer would do for him that his present one doesn't (or couldn't if it was bought some more memory). Unless it's unreliable. In my experience, the "add more RAM" mantra ended with computer systems purchased in the early 2000's, about a decade ago. Up until then it was common to see systems starved for RAM, but since then I very rarely see an opportunity for such an easy performance upgrade. -- Char Jackson |
Ads |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: But I'd say the answer to my first question - why does he think he needs a new computer at all - needs answering before anything else: in other words, what does he expect a new computer would do for him that his present one doesn't (or couldn't if it was bought some more memory). Unless it's unreliable. In my experience, the "add more RAM" mantra ended with computer systems purchased in the early 2000's, about a decade ago. Up until then it was common to see systems starved for RAM, but since then I very rarely see an opportunity for such an easy performance upgrade. Well, it was described as "an very old machine running win xp", so I thought it worth a punt. Certainly (unless it's a _very_ old mobo) it's a very simple thing to do. (Within the last year or two we cheered up an old [XP] laptop of my brother's no end: I can't remember what it had had, but we upped it to 1G, and it was like a new machine. Without having to change OS of course.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf This was before we knew that a laboratory rat, if experimented upon, will develop cancer. [Quoted by] Anne ), 1997-1-29 |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: But I'd say the answer to my first question - why does he think he needs a new computer at all - needs answering before anything else: in other words, what does he expect a new computer would do for him that his present one doesn't (or couldn't if it was bought some more memory). Unless it's unreliable. In my experience, the "add more RAM" mantra ended with computer systems purchased in the early 2000's, about a decade ago. Up until then it was common to see systems starved for RAM, but since then I very rarely see an opportunity for such an easy performance upgrade. I've got a couple that were short on RAM (512MB) after installing SP3 on XP. I upgraded them to a Gigabyte, and now the bottleneck's the memory bus. :-/ -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
In message , John Williamson
writes: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: But I'd say the answer to my first question - why does he think he needs a new computer at all - needs answering before anything else: in other words, what does he expect a new computer would do for him that his present one doesn't (or couldn't if it was bought some more memory). Unless it's unreliable. In my experience, the "add more RAM" mantra ended with computer systems purchased in the early 2000's, about a decade ago. Up until then it was common to see systems starved for RAM, but since then I very rarely see an opportunity for such an easy performance upgrade. I've got a couple that were short on RAM (512MB) after installing SP3 on XP. I upgraded them to a Gigabyte, and now the bottleneck's the memory bus. :-/ Is the original poster ("mick") still reading this thread? If so, I for one would be interested to know if any more details are available, particularly how much RAM the original "old xp machine" has. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf This was before we knew that a laboratory rat, if experimented upon, will develop cancer. [Quoted by] Anne ), 1997-1-29 |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
On 4/11/13 5:02 PM, mick wrote:
I have a friend who is asking me to help him choose a new desktop computer. He has an very old machine running win xp, he does not do much other than email, internet, a bit of video editing and photograph editing. He is also not that computer literate, I have to walk him through most basic things much of the time. Choosing a computer to suit his needs is not much trouble but I am stuck on whether to advise win7 or win8. I know a lot about win7 and can help him to easily get to grips with understanding it, but if I go for win8 I know it will be more difficult, as I do not have that here at home to play with when he asks the inevitable help questions over the phone. The new computer will be between 4 and 8gb, no gaming, no touch screen. I don't want to appear selfish from my point of view and help him spend his money by buying an already oldish win7 when the newer win8 is widely advertised as the next best thing since sliced bread if you see what I mean. As to myself, I have three machines here with win7 and cannot ever see me upgrading to win8 as all the reports I have read so far just don't convince me it is better. I had vista on a couple of machines awhile back and although it worked well(for me), win 7 just blew it out of the water and that is what I will be sticking with for quite a long time. Oh, what to do :-? Have you considered having your friend try a couple of Linux Live CD's to see if one of them would work? -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.3 Firefox 20.0 Thunderbird 17.0.5 LibreOffice 4.0.1.2 |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
In message , Lemon
writes: On 11/04/2013 7:02 PM, mick wrote: I have a friend who is asking me to help him choose a new desktop computer. He has an very old machine running win xp, he does not do much other than email, internet, a bit of video editing and photograph editing. He is also not that computer literate, I have to walk him through most basic things much of the time. Why does he want a new computer? He has a wad of money burning a hole in his pocket :-) Technology moves on, software gets better and needs more resources. We now have USB3, blue ray and solid state drives to consider not to mention wide screen monitors with HD. Bit like having an old car, it will still go from A to B but a new model will do it in style, probably safer and more efficiently. -- mick |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
"mick" wrote in message ...
Why does he want a new computer? He has a wad of money burning a hole in his pocket :-) Must be nice... -- -gufus Thou Shalt NOT excessively annoy others or allow Thyself to become excessively annoyed |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
In message , John Williamson
writes: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: But I'd say the answer to my first question - why does he think he needs a new computer at all - needs answering before anything else: in other words, what does he expect a new computer would do for him that his present one doesn't (or couldn't if it was bought some more memory). Unless it's unreliable. In my experience, the "add more RAM" mantra ended with computer systems purchased in the early 2000's, about a decade ago. Up until then it was common to see systems starved for RAM, but since then I very rarely see an opportunity for such an easy performance upgrade. I've got a couple that were short on RAM (512MB) after installing SP3 on XP. I upgraded them to a Gigabyte, and now the bottleneck's the memory bus. :-/ Is the original poster ("mick") still reading this thread? If so, I for one would be interested to know if any more details are available, particularly how much RAM the original "old xp machine" has. I'm still here :-) The old machine has 512k. We tried putting in 2x 1mb about a year ago but it just wouldn't recognise the ram, yes it was the correct spec. We sent the ram back and got a different brand replacement and still no luck so we gave up. It was a cheap spec mother board with everything on the board. -- mick |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
mick wrote:
Is the original poster ("mick") still reading this thread? If so, I for one would be interested to know if any more details are available, particularly how much RAM the original "old xp machine" has. I'm still here :-) The old machine has 512k. We tried putting in 2x 1mb about a year ago but it just wouldn't recognise the ram, yes it was the correct spec. We sent the ram back and got a different brand replacement and still no luck so we gave up. It was a cheap spec mother board with everything on the board. A`lot of older motherboards won't recognise modules above 512Meg each or a total of more than a gigabyte, or possibly even 512 Megabytes. If you read the Motherboard manual, either on paper as supplied or on the maker's website, it will tell you the maximum RAM, and the maximum module size. Grin On the other hand, if you did put a whole megabyte of RAM in, it should have coped with DOS quite nicely... -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
In message , mick
writes: In message , John Williamson writes: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] Is the original poster ("mick") still reading this thread? If so, I for one would be interested to know if any more details are available, particularly how much RAM the original "old xp machine" has. I'm still here :-) The old machine has 512k. We tried putting in 2x 1mb about a year ago but it just wouldn't recognise the ram, yes it was the correct spec. We sent the ram back and got a different brand replacement and still no luck so we gave up. It was a cheap spec mother board with everything on the board. [Assuming you meant M and G!] I presume you did try just fitting one of the new sticks? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I am entitled to my own opinion." "Yes, but it's your constant assumption that everyone else is also that's so annoying." - Vila & Avon |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
In message , mick
writes: In message , John Williamson writes: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] Is the original poster ("mick") still reading this thread? If so, I for one would be interested to know if any more details are available, particularly how much RAM the original "old xp machine" has. I'm still here :-) The old machine has 512k. We tried putting in 2x 1mb about a year ago but it just wouldn't recognise the ram, yes it was the correct spec. We sent the ram back and got a different brand replacement and still no luck so we gave up. It was a cheap spec mother board with everything on the board. [Assuming you meant M and G!] I presume you did try just fitting one of the new sticks? Tried everyways and always. It is an old PC World machine, says it all really. -- mick |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
mick wrote:
In message , mick writes: In message , John Williamson writes: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] Is the original poster ("mick") still reading this thread? If so, I for one would be interested to know if any more details are available, particularly how much RAM the original "old xp machine" has. I'm still here :-) The old machine has 512k. We tried putting in 2x 1mb about a year ago but it just wouldn't recognise the ram, yes it was the correct spec. We sent the ram back and got a different brand replacement and still no luck so we gave up. It was a cheap spec mother board with everything on the board. [Assuming you meant M and G!] I presume you did try just fitting one of the new sticks? Tried everyways and always. It is an old PC World machine, says it all really. Did the DIMMs have 8 chips total or 16 chips total ? Was half of the RAM detected ? It could be a "density" problem, and a low density module was actually desired. Generally, when there are doubts, finding the 16 chip modules are safer. If you know the chipset, it's possible to look up the requirements for some of the chipsets. A copy of CPUZ could tell you that info. http://www.cpuid.com/medias/images/e...es-cpuz-03.jpg In that example, an identifier is "P55". That's not the best example possible, because being a modern processor, the memory controller is on the processor itself. On older chipsets, the Northbridge hosts the memory channels. Then I look up the Northbridge, if info is available. On my current motherboard, the chipset is X38/ICH9R, and the X38 Northbridge would be the chipset details I'd need to look up. This is an example of what I could find, for a reference. Using 128Mx8 chips, the biggest DIMM supported is 2GB total. Times four DIMMs. So I can have at most, 8GB in the machine. The DIMMs I use, are 16 chip type. http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/whitepaper/318469.pdf Paul |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
mick wrote:
In message , mick writes: In message , John Williamson writes: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] Is the original poster ("mick") still reading this thread? If so, I for one would be interested to know if any more details are available, particularly how much RAM the original "old xp machine" has. I'm still here :-) The old machine has 512k. We tried putting in 2x 1mb about a year ago but it just wouldn't recognise the ram, yes it was the correct spec. We sent the ram back and got a different brand replacement and still no luck so we gave up. It was a cheap spec mother board with everything on the board. [Assuming you meant M and G!] I presume you did try just fitting one of the new sticks? Tried everyways and always. It is an old PC World machine, says it all really. Did the DIMMs have 8 chips total or 16 chips total ? Was half of the RAM detected ? It could be a "density" problem, and a low density module was actually desired. Generally, when there are doubts, finding the 16 chip modules are safer. If you know the chipset, it's possible to look up the requirements for some of the chipsets. A copy of CPUZ could tell you that info. http://www.cpuid.com/medias/images/e...es-cpuz-03.jpg In that example, an identifier is "P55". That's not the best example possible, because being a modern processor, the memory controller is on the processor itself. On older chipsets, the Northbridge hosts the memory channels. Then I look up the Northbridge, if info is available. On my current motherboard, the chipset is X38/ICH9R, and the X38 Northbridge would be the chipset details I'd need to look up. This is an example of what I could find, for a reference. Using 128Mx8 chips, the biggest DIMM supported is 2GB total. Times four DIMMs. So I can have at most, 8GB in the machine. The DIMMs I use, are 16 chip type. http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/whitepaper/318469.pdf Paul From memory I think they were 8 chips. It is irrelevant now anyway as said machine is soon off to the knackers yard, :-) -- mick |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
Ken Blake has written on 4/18/2013 8:43 PM:
"Until I can completely hide the new UI, I'm still recommending Win7 to the people who ask me, so it would be nice to address these last few items." As far as I know, there's no way to do that, so Char can't "completely hide the new UI." As I said earlier, I think that what Char wants is a minor point, and not worth worrying about, but he disagrees and has a right to that opinion. 1. 8.1 lets you do that. 2. For 8, see http://winaero.com/comment.php?comment.news.103 |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
New computer but win 7 or 8
Juan Wei has written on 8/14/2013 2:39 PM:
Ken Blake has written on 4/18/2013 8:43 PM: "Until I can completely hide the new UI, I'm still recommending Win7 to the people who ask me, so it would be nice to address these last few items." As far as I know, there's no way to do that, so Char can't "completely hide the new UI." As I said earlier, I think that what Char wants is a minor point, and not worth worrying about, but he disagrees and has a right to that opinion. 1. 8.1 lets you do that. 2. For 8, see http://winaero.com/comment.php?comment.news.103 Or do this. Open Task Scheduler and create a new task. In "General", name it Show Desktop at Boot, and Configure for Windows 8. Click the Trigger tab and then New. Begin the task "on log on" Click "OK" Click the Actions tab Program/script: c:\windows\explorer.exe Click "OK" as many times as needed to finish. Restart to test. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|