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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
In ,
Allen Drake typed: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:30:23 -0600, "BillW50" wrote: In , Allen Drake typed: ever ran. Plus Windows 2000 is Windows compatible while Linux is not. I have seen many Youtube videos about the various Eee PC machines and some about installing Win7. I haven't seen any about how these upgrades run so I am glad I posted here and thank you for your reply. I am also surprised just how many versions there are out there now. some of the newer ones I see come with Win7 starter of which I am totally unfamiliar with. I haven't used 2000 in several years and didn't know it was still being used. I could possibly drag out an install and see how it runs if it would be worth the effort of getting familiar with that OS again. So far I am happy to see my 1000HD operating fast again. I am unable to restore it to factory settings as F9 does not bring up that option. I see nothing in BIOS ver. 1401 that references that either. I am wondering if by cloning the original drive to the SSD if somehow that changed anything. Yes cloning could have broken the recovery partition, Exactly how could that happen? I thought cloning created and exact copy of a HDD. They can clone exactly, but they don't have too. I don't know what application you used for cloning, as they are all different. But some of them might only clone one partition and not the others on the drive by default. I always use Seagate to clone and I see the two partitions present like I did on the original HDD which I still have in case of an emergency. Seagate uses Acronis and that should work. My only beef with cloning with Acronis is it doesn't save my RealFlight keys. Which having all of the addons and expansion packs adds up to about 18 different keys. Although if you are backing up and restoring (different than cloning), Acronis could mess that up if you are not careful. I guess I might have to dig through my disk collection. I still have Windows 95 that I ran across recently and a system that still has it installed. I wonder is Win2K disks are for sale on Ebay for cheap. Yes last time I checked Windows 2000 disc were reasonable on eBay. I just searched for W2K and saw quite a few. So many that I am wondering how many are legitimate. I would hate to get something that I can't use or find to be something pirated. I saw some for as low as around $60 which I would purchase if I were sure about it. EBay's Buyer Protection is very good nowadays (years ago it wasn't). So worse comes to worse you would need to ship it back to get your money back if one you bought was pirated. I had Windows 2000 on this machine a couple of years ago for a few days. Then I put XP back on it again. And a few days ago I just put Windows 2000 back on it again. So I am still learning what I can do and what I can't under Windows 2000. And I am surprised how much of my stuff will actually run under 2000 still. It seems to me Flash v9 is the last one you can run under 2K. And I see no .NET stuff here yet and I have a feeling that .NET won't run under 2K either (which is perfectly fine by me). Two of the shocking things that work are Avast6 and Trillian 5 (multiple IM application). And I thought for sure Trillian 5 needs .NET to work. 2K did need KB816542 before Avast6 would install. -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
In ,
mechanic typed: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:02:51 -0600, BillW50 wrote: Well if you call such things as OpenOffice, Thunderbird, and Firefox as high quality, I suppose. But those are the last applications I would use. And GUI drivers are generally featureless. Like if I want to use a larger desktop than 800x480 of this screen, it can't be done through the GUI. Instead I have to use terminal to make that happen. Touchpad drivers don't have all of the features of say of Synaptics Windows drivers do. Etc. Most modern distros can change resolution in a handy GUI if the right values are not set automatically. Were you using an up-to-date distro? Which one? Many users familiar with Ubuntu, Debian etc. would not recognise the kind of problems you describe. Xandros, Puppy, and Ubuntu 9.10. And using the native or less for a resolution isn't a problem under Linux's GUI. The problem is using a higher resolution than native. Under Windows this happens either two ways and you can use either or. 1) The desktop becomes larger than your screen and you scroll around by moving the mouse to the edges. 2) Some Windows drivers allow you to use compressed display. The Intel 915GM for example allows this. And you can actually see the whole larger resolution desktop on a smaller screen. Both tricks are handy for things that need a larger screen. I have never seen any Linux to be able to do this under the GUI yet. Although I can hookup an external monitor, use that higher resolution, than disconnect it and now I can scroll around the larger desktop on the internal smaller screen. So Linux can do this, but it should be there under Linux's GUI but it isn't. I never seen Linux do the compressed trick though, just Windows. And OpenOffice, Tbird and particularly Firefox are pretty high quality (few bugs) but perhaps different in features from the Windows stuff you are happier with. No these are not buggy per se. They are just very basic for my needs. For example: OpenOffice: Lacks converting case to title case. I use this one all of the time under Word. Nor does OpenOffice know anything about text with layout like Word does. Even 20 year old DOS text editors can do these things, but OpenOffice cannot. Thunderbird: It is fine for email, but for newsgroups it is terrible. As you can set a rule to flag your posts as watched (so far so good), but you can't flag replies to your posts as watched too. Plus while you can view *only* unread watched threads. Why not both read and unread watched? As how can you review what was said earlier? Firefox: I've been using Firefox since 1.5. Although it never had that warm spot in my heart. It has allows been just a basic browser to me and pretty worthless without addons. And the more addons, the more unstable Firefox becomes. Maxthon for example comes in three versions. And all of them are far superior to Firefox any version. -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 26/02/2012 9:45 AM, Allen Drake wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:28:00 -0500, Wolf [...] [LinuxMint] is a great way to extend the life of older hardware. I installed LinuxMint on my wife's ancient laptop when I bought her a new one. It's a lovely OS, well tuned to the average user. Yesterday I connected it to the TV, it and the TV communicated automagically, it even resized the display on the laptop so that it would be an exact match for what the TV could display. Occasionally, I have to press the wi-fi switch on the laptop to start the connection, that's the only glitch. BTW, I use the Gnome desktop, no problems. HTH Wolf K. How did you connect your PC to the TV? I have a USB TV device but I have not tried it on my netbook. My TV has a VGA plug input. It also has a DVI input, but I haven't tried that. It's a 42" Sony Bravia, now getting on for 3 years old. HTH Wolf K. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:39:42 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
In , Stefan Patric typed: FWIW, just as a comparison since someone recommended Linux. A little over a year ago, I set up a EeePC 900--900MHz Celeron M and 1GB RAM--with Eeebuntu 3.0, a customize version of Ubuntu Linux for the EeePC. It installed without a hitch and everything worked. It took 1.7GB of the SSD to install, including the apps. For e-mail, web, word processing, playing and streaming video, etc. it worked great. Much smoother and more responsive than the version of XP (Home, I think) that was originally on it. Although, XP didn't run all that badly. Still very usable. You just had to be careful not to open too many browser tab windows, or run too many apps at once. Xandros and Ubuntu for netbooks both were awful for multimedia for me. Very choppy and very low frame rates. Running XP all of these problems disappear. If you're talking about on the 701, that's one of the reasons I opted for the 900. That, and the larger screen and keyboard. The 900 was a much improved model. Asus seemed to have corrected most of the caveats of the 700 series. However, High Definition stuff like movies and TV shows (streaming or DVD) is never played on the machine. So, I can't say how well they would play. YouTube and the like stuff seems okay though. It's a business travel machine. To give you an idea of RAM usage after booting to the desktop, no apps running: Eeebuntu 262MB; XP 476MB. Windows 2000 uses 224MB at boot here. My Linux memory is about the same as yours, my XP on many of machines use around 800MB. Although my machines has 2GB and XP runs fine for me. The big difference between Windows 2000 and XP on these EeePC machines is that I haven't seen Windows 2000 ever get bogged down yet. As I can open up as many webpages for example that I want and it keeps blazing through it all. 800MB!? Just to boot and run the OS? That's excessive even for Windows. Something's amiss. W2k has a published minumum of 64MB. So, I would expect it to work better than XP (min 128MB) or your average Linux distro (128-512MB). I've got 2000 Pro SP4 running on an 11 year old Thinkpad 240X--500MHz P3, 192MB RAM--along with a very customized install of Debian 4 (Etch) with the lightweight XFCE desktop. Even when running on battery when the CPU speed drops to 166MHz, both run smoothly. However, as with the EeePC, I never play HD or rarely, if ever, any other kind of video on it. So, I can't say how well it played them. I do know that with either OS, regular Flash ads and YouTube stuff played fine. Although, I never viewed them at full screen, which is only 800x600. It was for years my "travel" machine for e-mail, Usenet, word processing, expense sheet, etc. Both OSes use a smidgen over 100MB to boot to the desktop. Stef |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
In ,
Stefan Patric typed: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:39:42 -0600, BillW50 wrote: In , Stefan Patric typed: FWIW, just as a comparison since someone recommended Linux. A little over a year ago, I set up a EeePC 900--900MHz Celeron M and 1GB RAM--with Eeebuntu 3.0, a customize version of Ubuntu Linux for the EeePC. It installed without a hitch and everything worked. It took 1.7GB of the SSD to install, including the apps. For e-mail, web, word processing, playing and streaming video, etc. it worked great. Much smoother and more responsive than the version of XP (Home, I think) that was originally on it. Although, XP didn't run all that badly. Still very usable. You just had to be careful not to open too many browser tab windows, or run too many apps at once. Xandros and Ubuntu for netbooks both were awful for multimedia for me. Very choppy and very low frame rates. Running XP all of these problems disappear. If you're talking about on the 701, that's one of the reasons I opted for the 900. That, and the larger screen and keyboard. The 900 was a much improved model. Asus seemed to have corrected most of the caveats of the 700 series. Well I use both 701 and 702s. Not a big difference except the 702s the SSD is replaceable and comes with 8GB instead of 4GB on the motherboard (the 701SD is replaceable too, but comes with the less impressive MLC SSD). And I never owned a 900, but it isn't really better than a 702 IMHO except for two SSD and a larger screen. However, High Definition stuff like movies and TV shows (streaming or DVD) is never played on the machine. So, I can't say how well they would play. YouTube and the like stuff seems okay though. It's a business travel machine. I would say the 700 series can handle 700bps without a problem. So most youtube videos plays fine under 2000/XP. And most DVDs plays at 1500bps plus. And I do this from an USB DVD drive. And no it isn't perfect. Better than half of the time it is perfect, but not good enough. Blame it on the USB port, the EeePC or whatever. This is under XP and if I really wanted better results I believe I could get 20% better performance easy without thinking about it from stock. Under Linux, it is totally different. As Linux is so much slower for this stuff that a 700 series machine or any Celeron 900MHz there just isn't much hope for. To give you an idea of RAM usage after booting to the desktop, no apps running: Eeebuntu 262MB; XP 476MB. Windows 2000 uses 224MB at boot here. My Linux memory is about the same as yours, my XP on many of machines use around 800MB. Although my machines has 2GB and XP runs fine for me. The big difference between Windows 2000 and XP on these EeePC machines is that I haven't seen Windows 2000 ever get bogged down yet. As I can open up as many webpages for example that I want and it keeps blazing through it all. 800MB!? Just to boot and run the OS? That's excessive even for Windows. Something's amiss. Well that isn't stock, but all of my favorite stuff to make XP useable. Not a problem since all of my XP machines have 2GB anyway (I think they all have anyway, I have many). I haven't done a fresh install of XP in years so I don't remember what that takes. W2k has a published minumum of 64MB. So, I would expect it to work better than XP (min 128MB) or your average Linux distro (128-512MB). XP also can claim of working under 64MB. Although every comment I have ever heard is that it is so painfully slow (I never tried it myself). I run Windows 2000 for years on a Toshiba 2595XDVD maxed out with 192MB of RAM. Sure it had a Celeron 400MHz CPU. But the CPU wasn't the problem, just the 192MB of RAM was just too low and it swapped most of the time. I've got 2000 Pro SP4 running on an 11 year old Thinkpad 240X--500MHz P3, 192MB RAM--along with a very customized install of Debian 4 (Etch) with the lightweight XFCE desktop. Even when running on battery when the CPU speed drops to 166MHz, both run smoothly. However, as with the EeePC, I never play HD or rarely, if ever, any other kind of video on it. So, I can't say how well it played them. I do know that with either OS, regular Flash ads and YouTube stuff played fine. Although, I never viewed them at full screen, which is only 800x600. It was for years my "travel" machine for e-mail, Usenet, word processing, expense sheet, etc. Weird. I have two Toshiba 2595XDVD with 192MB of RAM and 400MHz Celeron. One has Windows 98SE on it and the other Windows 2000. Back then I used the Windows 2000 one more often than not. No today I think it takes likes 8 minutes to boot. Can't play DVDs well at all (it can handle about 100pbs streamed videos and that is all). But what it did do better and why I used it more often was it could handle the resource problem of W98 hands down. So I could open up an application after application and I didn't worry about Windows becoming unstable or crashing. And it ran most applications just as fast as Windows 98 did The Windows 98SE one I rarely used. But it would boot very fast (I dunno like 30 seconds or something), play DVDs nearly perfect, and handle streaming video better than 700bps. All great and everything, but couldn't handle opening one application after another like Windows 2000 could. Both OSes use a smidgen over 100MB to boot to the desktop. Huh? I never see Windows 2000 or higher or any Linux use just a tad more than 100MB. I am really interested how this could be done. I don't know what the minimum is for Windows 98, but I am pretty sure that anything over 64MB doesn't help much. As adding more didn't improve much at all for me. I also freely admit that Linux needs less RAM than XP does. But in my experience it needs more than Windows 2000. And when comparing Windows to Linux, what Linux really stinks at is it needs a lot more processor power. One might not notice until you start using multimedia. Now Linux needs tons of processor power to compete with Windows. -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 26/02/2012 15:37, BillW50 wrote:
Do you realize that I have many other machines? Like Windows XP, Windows 7, and Linux machines? Then why specifically mention W2K in your sig? And do you realize that security updates is a poor way of keeping a system secured? A far better way is to have a real-time AV. That way any malware that ever gets on the machine through a security hole, dumb user click, or whatever gets stopped in its tracks anyway when it tries to execute and can't do anything to your system. Still head in sand. Real time AV is only PART of your defences. You also should have a fully patched and up to date OS - which you cannot possibly do with W2K.... |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:33:22 -0500, Wolf K
wrote: On 26/02/2012 9:45 AM, Allen Drake wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:28:00 -0500, Wolf [...] [LinuxMint] is a great way to extend the life of older hardware. I installed LinuxMint on my wife's ancient laptop when I bought her a new one. It's a lovely OS, well tuned to the average user. Yesterday I connected it to the TV, it and the TV communicated automagically, it even resized the display on the laptop so that it would be an exact match for what the TV could display. Occasionally, I have to press the wi-fi switch on the laptop to start the connection, that's the only glitch. BTW, I use the Gnome desktop, no problems. HTH Wolf K. How did you connect your PC to the TV? I have a USB TV device but I have not tried it on my netbook. My TV has a VGA plug input. It also has a DVI input, but I haven't tried that. It's a 42" Sony Bravia, now getting on for 3 years old. HTH Wolf K. Oh, so then you connected your TV to your PC. Now I get it. I thought you connected your PC to your TV. It's the OC that outputs the signal to your TV. I have been doing just that for some years now. I also have the same Sony. I am now using a 42" Vizio for my main computer monitor. Five HDMI inputs allows me to switch from TV to 4 other computers one being an ASUS 73SW but I pulled out the TV cards. You really should try your DVI and HDMI inputs. They are much better quality. Some of the Youtube videos are in HD and look rather nice. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:33:52 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:
In , Allen Drake typed: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:37:49 -0600, "BillW50" wrote: In , Gordon typed: On 26/02/2012 15:06, BillW50 wrote: -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 If you are REALLY using Windows 2000 to access the internet then I think you are being very head in the sand - you do realise that you have not had ANY security updates for Windows 2000 for TWO YEARS? Do you realize that I have many other machines? Like Windows XP, Windows 7, and Linux machines? And do you realize that security updates is a poor way of keeping a system secured? A far better way is to have a real-time AV. That way any malware that ever gets on the machine through a security hole, dumb user click, or whatever gets stopped in its tracks anyway when it tries to execute and can't do anything to your system. I have had my suspicions about windows updates for some time. I have yet to see someone point to an example of a system being compromised in any way do to a lack of a specific update. I have, however, had windows update trash my system and needed to install a clone to get up and running again. I have for the most part disabled WU and never suffered any ill effects. The last issue I had was identical to the one that killed a system, Net Frame something or other. It hung for hours not allowing even allowing a cancel. Luckily I tried an install of an application that recognized a partial update and offered to remove it which it did. I found no way of doing that myself. Now I wait until an application says it actually needs an update before I like MS have it's way with me. I completely agree with you Allen. In fact, it was this machine when I have XP installed on it which forced me into not updating. As there was no room on this 4GB SSD for updates. I thought I would have to restore from a backup without security updates. But that was over 4 years ago and it never got infected. About three years I stopped updating about 6 other machines and they didn't get infected either. Strangely enough, on February 7th on a machine I do religiously update picked up a trojan. It didn't get a chance to execute upon rebooting (that is when most of these things gets installed) as Avast6 stopped it right in its tracks. So much for religiously updating, eh? I am glad I finally found someone that has some sense. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 27/02/2012 08:47, Allen Drake wrote:
I am glad I finally found someone that has some sense. Sheer luck more like. I take all the critical updates for whatever OS I am running when they are released and I have only had ONE infection ever, in over 20 years, when I accidentally connected a pre-SP1 XP machine to the internet, when Windows Firewall was turned off by default. Why do you think that there are hardly any viruses for Linux in the wild? One reason is because when a vulnerability is identified the patch is released almost immediately and people UPDATE! I've never heard so much balarney about reasons NOT to update. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 26/02/2012 16:52, Allen Drake wrote:
I have had my suspicions about windows updates for some time. I have yet to see someone point to an example of a system being compromised in any way do to a lack of a specific update. I have, however, had windows update trash my system and needed to install a clone to get up and running again. I have for the most part disabled WU and never suffered any ill effects. The last issue I had was identical to the one that killed a system, Net Frame something or other. It hung for hours not allowing even allowing a cancel. Luckily I tried an install of an application that recognized a partial update and offered to remove it which it did. I found no way of doing that myself. Now I wait until an application says it actually needs an update before I like MS have it's way with me. You are comparing apples with oranges. WU trashing a system is a COMPLETELY different issue to that of SECURITY. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 27/02/2012 08:59, Gordon wrote:
On 27/02/2012 08:47, Allen Drake wrote: I am glad I finally found someone that has some sense. Sheer luck more like. I take all the critical updates for whatever OS I am running when they are released and I have only had ONE infection ever, in over 20 years, when I accidentally connected a pre-SP1 XP machine to the internet, when Windows Firewall was turned off by default. Why do you think that there are hardly any viruses for Linux in the wild? One reason is because when a vulnerability is identified the patch is released almost immediately and people UPDATE! I've never heard so much balarney about reasons NOT to update. It is NOT sheer luck but a matter of places you visit. One chap looking for a hooker bargained one down to $20 but ended up getting crabs from her. Next time he saw her, he complained about this and she responded: What did you expect for $20? Lobster?! -- choro |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 27/02/2012 09:01, Gordon wrote:
On 26/02/2012 16:52, Allen Drake wrote: I have had my suspicions about windows updates for some time. I have yet to see someone point to an example of a system being compromised in any way do to a lack of a specific update. I have, however, had windows update trash my system and needed to install a clone to get up and running again. I have for the most part disabled WU and never suffered any ill effects. The last issue I had was identical to the one that killed a system, Net Frame something or other. It hung for hours not allowing even allowing a cancel. Luckily I tried an install of an application that recognized a partial update and offered to remove it which it did. I found no way of doing that myself. Now I wait until an application says it actually needs an update before I like MS have it's way with me. You are comparing apples with oranges. WU trashing a system is a COMPLETELY different issue to that of SECURITY. Sorry, I am not really following this conversation but I would have thought that systems and security were closely involved. You can't divorce one from the other. -- choro |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 27/02/2012 09:24, choro wrote:
On 27/02/2012 09:01, Gordon wrote: On 26/02/2012 16:52, Allen Drake wrote: I have had my suspicions about windows updates for some time. I have yet to see someone point to an example of a system being compromised in any way do to a lack of a specific update. I have, however, had windows update trash my system and needed to install a clone to get up and running again. I have for the most part disabled WU and never suffered any ill effects. The last issue I had was identical to the one that killed a system, Net Frame something or other. It hung for hours not allowing even allowing a cancel. Luckily I tried an install of an application that recognized a partial update and offered to remove it which it did. I found no way of doing that myself. Now I wait until an application says it actually needs an update before I like MS have it's way with me. You are comparing apples with oranges. WU trashing a system is a COMPLETELY different issue to that of SECURITY. Sorry, I am not really following this conversation but I would have thought that systems and security were closely involved. You can't divorce one from the other. -- choro Of course - but a Windows Update making a system unstable is a completely different issue from a system becoming infected because a Windows Update is or is not applied.... |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:51:08 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
OpenOffice: Lacks converting case to title case. I use this one all of the time under Word. Nor does OpenOffice know anything about text with layout like Word does. Even 20 year old DOS text editors can do these things, but OpenOffice cannot. Version 3.3 apparently can: http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/f..._Changing_Case - and of course it's entirely free! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install
On 26/02/2012 18:51, BillW50 wrote:
OpenOffice: Lacks converting case to title case. I use this one all of the time under Word. AFAIK Libre Office has had this ever since it's inception.....but it's not called that. Nor does OpenOffice know anything about text with layout like Word does. What exactly do you mean by that? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|