Convert laptop to Windows 7

On 2/7/19 2:17 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I agree with you, though, at least I think you agree, that XP was more
user friendly than 7, and 7 was more user friendly than 8, and so on.
Windows has been getting worse with each major version for quite some
time now.

I wish I could stay with 2000. It appears to be the best (although I
have no experience with earlier NT versions).

Sam E wrote:
On 2/7/19 2:17 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I agree with you, though, at least I think you agree, that XP was more
user friendly than 7, and 7 was more user friendly than 8, and so on.
Windows has been getting worse with each major version for quite some
time now.

I wish I could stay with 2000. It appears to be the best (although I
have no experience with earlier NT versions).

MS-DOS 1.0 or die! :-)

Or better yet, 1971 (HP) DOS-M [1] on a million dollar system.

And if you can't be bothered to have a disc, ~1967 era SIO/BCS
(Software Input/Output System, Basic Control System) [2].

[1] http://www.hpmuseum.net/document.php?hwfile=4293
Couldn't find a document/date for plain 'DOS', i.e. for fixed-head
(per-track) disCs (not disKs).

[2] http://www.hpmuseum.net/document.php?hwfile=6030

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 2/6/19 5:56 PM, Bill in Co wrote:

[snip]

This is exactly the crap that keeps me off of Windows 7, for the most part.
That, and the fact it takes twice as long to boot up this bloated OS.

I remember something about Win 7 being a less bloated version of Vista.
Of course they didn't saw it was still more bloated than XP.

[snip]

Every new versions get bloated.
--
Happy Chinese New Year (Earth Pig)! Oink!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 2/7/19 1:43 PM, Johnny wrote:

[snip]

Microsoft started out good, but gradually ruined their operating system.

It looks that way to me. I'd be surprised if they release a GOOD Windows 11.

It seems every company is like this. Look at Google, Apple, Yahoo!,
Cisco, Symantec, IBM, etc.
--
Happy Chinese New Year (Earth Pig)! Oink!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Sam E wrote:
On 2/7/19 2:17 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I agree with you, though, at least I think you agree, that XP was more
user friendly than 7, and 7 was more user friendly than 8, and so on.
Windows has been getting worse with each major version for quite some
time now.

I wish I could stay with 2000. It appears to be the best (although I
have no experience with earlier NT versions).

Ditto. There are so many old tech things I wish I could keep using.
Actually, you can in VMs. However, hardwares and other fast changing
technologies are the problems. I'm an old fart and old school too.

--
Happy Chinese New Year (Earth Pig)! Oink!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 2/8/19 10:49 AM, Ant wrote:

[snip]

Ditto. There are so many old tech things I wish I could keep using.
Actually, you can in VMs. However, hardwares and other fast changing
technologies are the problems. I'm an old fart and old school too.

I have several VMs with older versions of Windows, mainly to check my
website with older Firefox and MSIE. These include XP, 2000 (2), ME, and
95 (2).

The XP VM has IECollection (https://utilu.com/IECollection/) which
provides IE 8, 7, 6, 5.5, 5, 4, 3.03, 3.01, 3, 2.1, and 1.5 (although
versions before 3 don't work on modern shared hosting). Note that v1.0
require Win 95 or NT 4.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought." -- Graham Greene,
1981

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 2/8/19 10:49 AM, Ant wrote:

[snip]

Ditto. There are so many old tech things I wish I could keep using.
Actually, you can in VMs. However, hardwares and other fast changing
technologies are the problems. I'm an old fart and old school too.

I have several VMs with older versions of Windows, mainly to check my
website with older Firefox and MSIE. These include XP, 2000 (2), ME, and
95 (2).

The XP VM has IECollection (https://utilu.com/IECollection/) which
provides IE 8, 7, 6, 5.5, 5, 4, 3.03, 3.01, 3, 2.1, and 1.5 (although
versions before 3 don't work on modern shared hosting). Note that v1.0
require Win 95 or NT 4.

Actually I've found that even IE 8 has difficulty with a lot of sites
today - it's essentially useless. So basically a Windows XP user has no
choice but to use something like Firefox or Chrome, and even then, the
compatible browser versions are limited.

In message , Mark Lloyd
writes:
On 2/8/19 10:49 AM, Ant wrote:

[snip]

Ditto. There are so many old tech things I wish I could keep using.
Actually, you can in VMs. However, hardwares and other fast changing
technologies are the problems. I'm an old fart and old school too.

I have several VMs with older versions of Windows, mainly to check my
website with older Firefox and MSIE. These include XP, 2000 (2), ME,
and 95 (2).

The XP VM has IECollection (https://utilu.com/IECollection/) which
provides IE 8, 7, 6, 5.5, 5, 4, 3.03, 3.01, 3, 2.1, and 1.5 (although
versions before 3 don't work on modern shared hosting). Note that v1.0
require Win 95 or NT 4.

How long before you start having to nest VMs, do you think (-:?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lebanon is smaller than Wales but they have taken on one million refugees and
they don't talk about it as much as we seem to here in this country.
- Hassan Akkad, RT 2017/10/28-2017/11/3

On 2/8/19 5:06 PM, Bill in Co wrote:

[snip]

Actually I've found that even IE 8 has difficulty with a lot of sites
today - it's essentially useless. So basically a Windows XP user has no
choice but to use something like Firefox or Chrome, and even then, the
compatible browser versions are limited.

IE 8 (and below) are missing some of the important JavaScript functions,
including for events, which could explain how so much doesn't work in
IE 8 even though it does in other browsers.

Even the first version of Firefox (.8, earlier ones were called
something else) supports this stuff better than IE 8.

My website does have some special code only for IE versions 5 - 8, that
does the more important things. No other browsers (even Opera 7) need it.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one
young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion." [Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, "Eight Years and More"]

On 2/8/19 6:21 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip]

The XP VM has IECollection (https://utilu.com/IECollection/) which
provides IE 8, 7, 6, 5.5, 5, 4, 3.03, 3.01, 3, 2.1, and 1.5 (although
versions before 3 don't work on modern shared hosting). Note that v1.0
require Win 95 or NT 4.

How long before you start having to nest VMs, do you think (-:?

I'm not sure why I would need that. Perhaps a limit on the number of Ms
to a host?

BTW, these are all on the same computer (with a 512GB SSD and 4TB
spinning drive). It would be very slow having all those VMs running at
the same time, but that's never necessary.

A VM makes backup (or even transferring the whole VM to another host, as
I have done once) easy. The whole "hard disk" is a single file on the host.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one
young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion." [Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, "Eight Years and More"]

In message , Mark Lloyd
writes:
On 2/8/19 6:21 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip]

The XP VM has IECollection (https://utilu.com/IECollection/) which
provides IE 8, 7, 6, 5.5, 5, 4, 3.03, 3.01, 3, 2.1, and 1.5 (although
versions before 3 don't work on modern shared hosting). Note that
v1.0 require Win 95 or NT 4.

How long before you start having to nest VMs, do you think (-:?

I'm not sure why I would need that. Perhaps a limit on the number of Ms
to a host?

I don't know enough about details like that: I just envisage a situation
in which some version of Windows won't support VMs earlier than a
certain version, and some systems not being simulatable on the earliest
version of VM that _is_ supported.

(Has anyone _tried_ nesting VMs - if only out of curiosity? I would
_imagine_ it makes for a very slow VM.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

[snip]

(Has anyone _tried_ nesting VMs - if only out of curiosity? I would
_imagine_ it makes for a very slow VM.)
[]

I expect it would. That may be something to try someday.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The happy do not believe in miracles." [Goethe]

Mark Lloyd wrote:
[snip]

(Has anyone _tried_ nesting VMs - if only out of curiosity? I would
_imagine_ it makes for a very slow VM.)
[]

I expect it would. That may be something to try someday.


We tried that back in the day.

There are different types of VMs. We had some years
ago, that were instruction translators (ran at 0.1x to 0.01x
of real speed). If you nested those, they ran real real slow.

The VMs today are x86 on x86 with "fallthrough" for
instructions, that run at 0.9x (hardly any performance loss).
Where VMs have to be slow, is in the emulated hardware around
them. Storage doesn't run at full speed. Networks are slower,
Graphics though are faster than the "pixel by pixel" drawing
emulations of the past. At one time, you could see rows of pixels
being drawn, the implementation was so dreadful.

What I don't know, is whether the current generation of
x86 on x86 really like to be nested. If your hosting
software can run without VT-X support, you might try
it that way.

The thrill for me wore off years ago (playing Quake at
1 FPS...).

Paul

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:09:49 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"KenW" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 08:42:39 -0500, Art Todesco
wrote:

I have a Dell Latitude 7350 touch screen laptop with Windows 10. I
really hate Windows 10. Can it be converted to Windows 7? Will I be
able to get the touch screen working? I've tried to make it look like
Windows 7, but there are many things that just don't work well. Am I
nuts to do something like this? I appreciate any comments.

Yes. Read and learn Win 10.

I would say that you should become *reasonably* familiar with Windows 10 in
case you need to revert to that UI temporarily, even if you install Classic
Shell etc to give a UI that you are more familiar with because that's how
all previous versions of Windows have looked (with the exception of small
incremental changes from one version of Windows to another).

Unfortunately Microsoft tried to force a new UI on people, in the misguided
belief that desktop PC users should get used to something that was
simplified for use by touch screens instead of having two different UIs that
the user can select. Not surprisingly, the people who were familiar with
pre-Win8 and could "drive" that instinctively, rebelled at the gross changes
to the start menu - especially the "mess of tiles" interface where an icon
for a given program changes place from day to day, instead of being in a
fixed location on the desktop.

For me, Win10 is perfectly usable providing you install Classic Shell and as
long as you take the trouble to become vaguely familiar with the Modern
interface in case you ever have to use it.

Maybe I'm a luddite but I strongly believe that once you've designed a UI,
you stick with it through thick and thin, *adding* new features and ways of
doing things, but *never, never, never* removing the old "deprecated" way of
doing it. Make all the changes and improvements that you want "under the
hood", but keep the controls in the place that you are used to. Changing
from Windows 7 to 8 to 10 should have been no more difficult than getting
used to driving a new car: the controls may be in slightly different places,
but they should be substantially the same so there is as little
getting-used-to-it as possible. In car terms, the pedals should still be in
the same order, the gear lever and handbrake should still be between the
seats, the indicator switch should still be on the left and the wipers on
the right.

You've apparently never driven a car with three on the tree and had
the parking brake next to the clutch... or a floor mounted dimmer
switch. Guess I'm showing my age...

In article , (Roy
Smith) wrote:

You've apparently never driven a car with three on the tree and had
the parking brake next to the clutch... or a floor mounted dimmer
switch. Guess I'm showing my age...

....or with the accelerator pedal (gas pedal for those in foreign lands...) between
brake and clutch! :^)

--
Regards
John ) Remove the obvious to reply...