New computer but win 7 or 8


T

Twayne

In
....winston said:
"Char Jackson" wrote in message

Thanks, winston. I'm not interested in Win8's Modern UI
and I'm *really* not interested in using a Microsoft account to do
anything,
so I'll probably just wipe this laptop and put 7 on it. For me, 8 is not
better in any significant way.

Windows 7 is a good choice. Even MSFT is comfortable with
continued use of Win7.
It's different for those using XP which have to make a
choice in the foreseeable future (especially those who
rely on retail based OEMs for pcs since Win7 pre-installed will
diminish).

-- --
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps
XP will be around in use for many years to come yet. Just because support
stops doesn't mean the software does. And you can download each and every
update you wish to from the MS site, to run at your own leisure anytime you
need them.

No big deal at all.
 
Ad

Advertisements

W

...winston

Fyi - I didn't state that XP won't run or be around

What I did infer....once XP's Lifecycle ends updates (all product and security updates will cease).
- nothing to download.
- no future patches for o/s product updates and security vulnerability

Likewise - software manufacturers will discontinue backward support (including AV manufacturers, printer manufacturers, etc.).

In the long run, XP may continue to run, but doing so will be at a higher risk.

If one has XP and the system is capable of Win7, upgrading makes sense.
If one's XP pc fails - the cost to fix or repair will be a concern vs. a new pc.

Likewise, imo, for many, downloading and manually installing updates as you've suggested from the MSFT site isn't likely to happen
unless you're planning on doing it for them.


--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps
"Twayne" wrote in message
In
....winston said:
"Char Jackson" wrote in message

Thanks, winston. I'm not interested in Win8's Modern UI
and I'm *really* not interested in using a Microsoft account to do anything,
so I'll probably just wipe this laptop and put 7 on it. For me, 8 is not
better in any significant way.

Windows 7 is a good choice. Even MSFT is comfortable with
continued use of Win7.
It's different for those using XP which have to make a
choice in the foreseeable future (especially those who
rely on retail based OEMs for pcs since Win7 pre-installed will diminish).

-- --
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps
XP will be around in use for many years to come yet. Just because support
stops doesn't mean the software does. And you can download each and every
update you wish to from the MS site, to run at your own leisure anytime you
need them.

No big deal at all.
 
L

Lemon

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 :-?
Set him up with a nice computer running Windows 7 Professional or Home.

Why?

1. You know it. He's familiar with it.

2. He looks to you for support, you run Windows 7.

3. It's a competent OS and compatible with most everything out there.

4. Windows 7 is officially supported all the way to 2020 (at least).

5. Generally speaking, people like Windows 7.

6. The Windows 8 team doesn't know which way is up. They are already
overhauling the butt ugly monetized user interface of the thing for some
time later this summer. It seems, though, they will only be digging the
pit deeper (they are putting the Start button back, but not the menu to
go with it!). People hate it, and for good reason. Avoid.

7. Windows 7 is nicer.


'Hope this helps,

Lemon
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Why does he want a new computer?
[]
Set him up with a nice computer running Windows 7 Professional or Home.

Why?

1. You know it. He's familiar with it.
Well, he knows XP, and 7 is less of a change from XP than 8.
2. He looks to you for support, you run Windows 7.

3. It's a competent OS and compatible with most everything out there.
I was in a similar position a few years ago in advising a (similarly not
very computer-literate) friend about a new PC. Though I know little of
7, I plumped for it, on the basis that it was probably better for her to
have the latest, for future-proofing reasons (that's mainly why I take
this 'group, in case I need to support anything - though in practice I
don't think it would matter _what_ OS she has, as she only uses about
three applications - Thunderbird, Firefox, Skype, and possibly
IrfanView. So in a similar situation now I _might_ go for 8, though I
don't like what I've seen of it (but then, I wasn't too keen on what I'd
seen of Vista and 7 then).
[]
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.
 
L

Lemon

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.

J. P. Gilliver:

Maybe the Pentium II with 32MB RAM has started to seem sluggish, what
with YouTube and flash websites? Sure when it came out is was an
advanced computer aimed at people who do professional video editing and
CAD/CAM design, but over the years do they get rusty somehow (?) perhaps
slowing them down making them unsuitable for CAD/CAM and advanced
applications?

Hm .. maybe that's why you should keep a computer out of the rain?

'Have a nice day,
Lemon
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Lemon said:
J. P. Gilliver:

Maybe the Pentium II with 32MB RAM has started to seem sluggish, what
with YouTube and flash websites? Sure when it came out is was an
advanced computer aimed at people who do professional video editing and
You've snipped what I'd deliberately left in of mick's original post:

"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."

(If it was running XP, it'd have had more than 32M.)
CAD/CAM design, but over the years do they get rusty somehow (?)
perhaps slowing them down making them unsuitable for CAD/CAM and
advanced applications?

Hm .. maybe that's why you should keep a computer out of the rain?
You've lost me there.
'Have a nice day,
Lemon
I guess I was just asking whether it is actually necessary to get the
person in question a new computer, rather than just tidy up his old one,
and possibly buy it some more RAM. Sure, getting him a 7 (or 8) will
future-proof him for a few more years, but at the expense of his having
to learn a new way of working - and any such future-proofing is only
temporary!

My question was/is really: is it better to put off the evil day
(possibly by buying some more RAM) for a few more years, at the expense
of the change required being greater when it eventually happens, or is
it better to force the change on him now, with the knowledge that
further such change(s) will be required in a few years (but two small
changes rather than one big one)? Without knowing more about the
individual, the actual machine, and his requirements, I can't say.

The description of his requirements so far given suggests to me that a
new computer is _not_ justified at this point; however, the fact that he
"is asking me to help him choose a new desktop computer" suggests it
might be; however however, "He is also not that computer literate, I
have to walk him through most basic things much of the time" means he
might not realise that the more-RAM solution might help without him
having to learn new ways.
 
C

Char Jackson

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.
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Char Jackson said:
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

John Williamson

Char said:
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. :-/
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

John Williamson said:
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.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Springer

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
 
M

mick

writes:

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.
 
M

mick

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.
 
J

John Williamson

mick said:
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...
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

mick said:
John Williamson said:
Char Jackson 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)[email protected]+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
 
M

mick

writes:
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.
 
P

Paul

mick said:
mick said:
In message <[email protected]>, John Williamson
Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
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/en/softwares-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
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mick

mick said:
In message <[email protected]>, mick <[email protected]>
writes:
In message <[email protected]>, John Williamson
Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:12:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[]
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/en/softwares-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, :)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top