A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New computer but win 7 or 8



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #241  
Old May 4th 13, 04:35 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old May 4th 13, 04:48 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default 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  
Old May 4th 13, 04:54 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
John Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default 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  
Old May 4th 13, 05:06 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default 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  
Old May 5th 13, 01:49 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default 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  
Old May 5th 13, 09:48 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
mick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default 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  
Old May 5th 13, 09:52 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
gufus[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 192
Default 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  
Old May 5th 13, 09:56 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
mick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default 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  
Old May 5th 13, 10:34 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
John Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default 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  
Old May 6th 13, 09:33 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default 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  
Old May 7th 13, 10:35 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
mick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default 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  
Old May 8th 13, 03:31 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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  
Old May 9th 13, 12:08 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
mick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default 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  
Old August 14th 13, 07:39 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Juan Wei
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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  
Old August 14th 13, 07:47 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Juan Wei
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.