Upgrading old computers

[Char Jackson]

My new desktop computer, a 64 bit computer running Windows 7, is set
up as the "manager" of the new router system. It works very well.

Note that routers don't need a "manager". The setup software provided
in the box with a new router is completely optional. The intent is to
make it easier for you to put the new router into service, but many
people find that it only gets in the way. It's usually faster to toss
the setup CD in the trash and set up the router with a web browser.

 

[Joe Morris]

And one very good reason not to: many peripherals have 32-bit drivers
but no 64-bit drivers.

I'll agree with that when discussing peripheral devices sold more than a few
years in the past, or off-brand products today. Since the name-brand
consumer-level computer manufacturers have been packaging 64-bit Windows on
their systems, vendors that want to continue to sell to the consumer
marketplace don't have much choice but to provide 64-bit drivers.

One minor oddity about the 32/64 bit choice is that Microsoft itself
strongly recommends that uses of Office install the 32-bit version, even on
64-bit Windows systems, unless the user has a need for humongous data files
in Excel or Access. One significant reason for this recommendation is that
few third-party Office add-in products are compatible with the 64-bit
version of the product - an issue tht also exists for Internet Explorer
add-ins.

One reason that might force the choice of 32-bit Windows would be where the
user has mission-critical 16-bit applications: 64-bit Windows has never
supported double-thunk programs (16-bit subsystem under 32-bit subsystem
under 64-bit product). One casualty of this on 64-bit Windows is Visicalc,
which runs quite happily on 32-bit Windows 7 but dies on the 64-bit version.

Joe

 

[Ken Blake]

On 24 Jun 2012 00:36:55 GMT, ray wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 16:06:34 -0500, Antares 531 wrote:

If these computers are upgradable, can I install a new hard drive then
format it for 64 bits, then install Windows 7, then use the old files
that are now stored on a second hard drive that is formatted for 32 bit
data?

You can't 'format it for 64 bits unless the processor is a 64 bit.

Please don't post disinformation.

There's NO SUCH THING as "formatting it for 64 bits" when "it" is a
hard drive. The "bitness" of the CPU and the "bitness" of the
operating system are not reflected in any sort of "bitness" for a
hard drive.

A hard drive doesn't have "bitness"; it has a file system. The two
more popular, for Windows, are NTFS (much the better choice) and
FAT32. But either works just fine with 32-bit or 64-bit Windows.

You said essentially the same thing as I said yesterday ("There is no
such thing as "format[ting] for 64 bits. Formatting has nothing to do
with the 'bitness' of your CPU or the 'bitness' of what version of
Windows you are running"), but thanks for using my made-up word
"bitness."<g>

You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

 

[Joe Morris]

Ken Blake wrote:

You said essentially the same thing as I said yesterday ("There is no
such thing as "format[ting] for 64 bits. Formatting has nothing to do
with the 'bitness' of your CPU or the 'bitness' of what version of
Windows you are running"), but thanks for using my made-up word
"bitness."<g>

You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

But then we have the question of how *you* would define a "real word". Are
you, for example, using Potter Stewart's dictum about pornography ("I know
it when I see it")?

Or perhaps you would accept it as industry jargon but not (yet) entered into
mainstream usage?

Joe

 

[Ken Blake]

Ken Blake wrote:
You said essentially the same thing as I said yesterday ("There is no
such thing as "format[ting] for 64 bits. Formatting has nothing to do
with the 'bitness' of your CPU or the 'bitness' of what version of
Windows you are running"), but thanks for using my made-up word
"bitness."<g>
You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

But then we have the question of how *you* would define a "real word".

Too difficult a question to answer. And the reality of words changes
all the time.

Are
you, for example, using Potter Stewart's dictum about pornography ("I know
it when I see it")?

Or perhaps you would accept it as industry jargon but not (yet) entered into
mainstream usage?

Something like that, but I didn't know that anyone other than me was
using it.

 

[Question Quigley]

We have two old desktop computers in our household network that are on
the verge of obsolescence, but I would like to upgrade them. Both are
still running Windows XP but I'm not sure the CPUs and the motherboard
in general is capable of handling a later version...say Windows 7, 64
bit.

How can I determine the upgrade limitations for these old computers
before I buy any new hard disks or software for them?

If these computers are upgradable, can I install a new hard drive then
format it for 64 bits, then install Windows 7, then use the old files
that are now stored on a second hard drive that is formatted for 32
bit data?

See what the minimum requirements are for running Windows 7. It will
usually tell you what the minimums are for the CPU, memory, and hard
disk space. You can always stay with XP - personally, I think Windows
7, well, sucks.

You may find that upgrading the CPU, memory, and, if possible, a video
card is a very inexpensive proposition that will allow you to get many
more years out of the PCs. You can even buy inexpensive wireless cards
to add.

If the PCs are bare-bones entry level PCs, your options will usually be
limited by the type and number of expansion slots you have available.
Hard drives are relatively cheap and you can get decent used IDE or SATA
drives on ebay. Bigger is not necessarily better.

After stretching the lifetime of a very good Dell XPS Pentium 3 to about
11 years, I finally had to go buy a new HP desktop (Pavilion p6720f)
with an AMD quad core processor and 6GB of RAM last year. Cost was
$540. But I kept the old keyboard and wireless mouse. I do miss XP,
though.

 

[Wolf K]

Ken Blake wrote: [...], but thanks for using my made-up word

"bitness."<g>

You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

Of course it is. So you know you made it up. So?

It's correctly formed: base BIT plus suffix -NESS. That's all it takes.

If you keep up this modesty (or whatever it is), I'll have to make up a
word: Kenblakeness == "unwillingness to accept that one's neologisms are
legitimate words."

;-)

 

[Wolf K]

On 24/06/2012 3:37 PM, Question Quigley wrote:
[...]

You may find that upgrading the CPU, memory, and, if possible, a video
card is a very inexpensive proposition that will allow you to get many
more years out of the PCs. You can even buy inexpensive wireless cards
to add.

[...]

Emphasis on "may." I found that upgrading my old box with new Mobo
(entailed bigger PSU) + CPU (and fan) + RAM would cost me about 10% less
than an all new machine with same specs + better enclosure + 250GB HDD.
Not enough of a savings, so the old box went to charity, and I built
this all-new box.

 

[Ed Cryer]

Ken Blake wrote:

You said essentially the same thing as I said yesterday ("There is no
such thing as "format[ting] for 64 bits. Formatting has nothing to do
with the 'bitness' of your CPU or the 'bitness' of what version of
Windows you are running"), but thanks for using my made-up word
"bitness."<g>

You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

But then we have the question of how *you* would define a "real word".

Too difficult a question to answer. And the reality of words changes
all the time.

Are
you, for example, using Potter Stewart's dictum about pornography ("I know
it when I see it")?

Or perhaps you would accept it as industry jargon but not (yet) entered into
mainstream usage?

Something like that, but I didn't know that anyone other than me was
using it.

Have a look at this Googlre search;
http://tinyurl.com/7yfau5q

I've been aware of it for years.

How about a word I've made up? It's "stroodlestrainedness". I haven't
found anything to use it on just yet, but having just watched England
lose to Italy in Euro 2012, I'm thinking of defining it as "the
situation wherein Rooney, Carroll and Gerrard all play so damn uselessly
that it's a minor miracle that they only got beaten in a penalty shoot-out".

Ed

 

[Ken Blake]

Ken Blake wrote: [...], but thanks for using my made-up word
"bitness."<g>


You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

Of course it is. So you know you made it up. So?

It's correctly formed: base BIT plus suffix -NESS. That's all it takes.

If you keep up this modesty (or whatever it is), I'll have to make up a
word: Kenblakeness == "unwillingness to accept that one's neologisms are
legitimate words."

LOL!

 

[Char Jackson]

Ken Blake wrote:

You said essentially the same thing as I said yesterday ("There is no
such thing as "format[ting] for 64 bits. Formatting has nothing to do
with the 'bitness' of your CPU or the 'bitness' of what version of
Windows you are running"), but thanks for using my made-up word
"bitness."<g>

You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

But then we have the question of how *you* would define a "real word".

Too difficult a question to answer. And the reality of words changes
all the time.

Are
you, for example, using Potter Stewart's dictum about pornography ("I know
it when I see it")?

Or perhaps you would accept it as industry jargon but not (yet) entered into
mainstream usage?

Something like that, but I didn't know that anyone other than me was
using it.

Have a look at this Googlre search;
http://tinyurl.com/7yfau5q

I've been aware of it for years.

Likewise for me, going back LONG before I ever stepped foot in this
newsgroup. I'd like to say it was the 1980's, but I'll give my memory
the benefit of the doubt and say 1990's, just to be safe. It's been
around a very long time.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I installed my new router's software in my new desktop computer, which
is a 64 bit computer, running Windows 7. It works very well.

But, the older computers, one Cat 5 and one Wi-Fi connection to this
new router won't make the connection. Both of these old computers are
32 bit with Windows XP SP3. They work well in all other respects, but
won't make the connection to the household network for some reason.

OK, I was misinterpreting your original information, sorry.

I'm about ready to give up, too!

LOL! Glad you saw humor there...

My laptop, which is one of the newer computers that has connected to
the Wi-Fi is a 32 bit system running Windows Vista. It had no problem
making the Wi-Fi connection and seems to be doing very well.

My new desktop computer, a 64 bit computer running Windows 7, is set
up as the "manager" of the new router system. It works very well.

The old desktop, which I need to connect by the Wi-Fi setup, is an old
32 bit computer running Windows XP and it shows the new household
network as an available network and will let me key in the SSID and
password, but it just sits there until it times out, never completing
the connection.

The old desktop, which is Cat 5 connected to the router shows up on
the router's lights as an available computer (amber light) but it
won't complete the connection and go green light, nor does the
household network show up in any form on this computer's screen.

Well, I have no idea what's happening, so I'll try to bow out gracefully
from this thread. Again, sorry about this.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm about ready to give up, too!

In the reply I posted, I said I had no idea etc., but one thing just
occurred to me.

Is it possible that the lightning surge damaged some of the interface
hardware in the old computers?

Just a thought.

Try pinging to the IP addressees from a command prompt to see if there's
some contact.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

But when I say "bitness" I'm not talking about "64-bit architecture"
but about the various kind of architecture. And if I had said
"Formatting has nothing to do with the architecture of your CPU or the
architecture of what version of Windows you are running," would the OP
have understood what I meant? Maybe, but I'm not so sure. I'm much
more comfortable with my guess that he would understand what I meant
by "bitness."

Well, that's not how I would have worded it.

Everywhere that [architecture] appears above I would have said [64-bit
architecture].

Again, when I say "bitness," I never mean 64-bit architecture, I mean
whatever number of bits the architecture I am referring to has. For
example, I might ask a question like "what 'bitness' is your version
of Windows?" If I said "what 64-bit architecture is your version of
Windows?" it would make no sense.

So make the necessary changes in how you read my remark

BUT - in Message-ID: <[email protected]>, that mean old Ed
Cryer has just shot me down about the bitness controversy

However, I'll repeat something that you clipped:
<QUOTE>
Some posters in (IIRC) the news.software.readers newsgroup are in the
habit of remarking on quotes as indicating that the writer doesn't mean
what he wrote, and I'm much inclined to take it the same way. As an
example, think of an ad saying

Guaranteed for "life".
</QUOTE>

I still think you should stop apologizing for your word - especially now
that Ed has shown you (and me!) the light.

BTW, in general, I don't like using nonstandard terminology,
*especially* for beginners, since then there's a real risk that they
won't understand the accepted terminology when they run across it from
another source.

I've seen it happen.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

In the reply I posted, I said I had no idea etc., but one thing just
occurred to me.

Is it possible that the lightning surge damaged some of the interface
hardware in the old computers?

Just a thought.

Try pinging to the IP addressees from a command prompt to see if there's
some contact.

As I read further along after posting the above, I see that I'm late to
the game. Others had already made similar remarks.

 

[Antares 531]

Note that routers don't need a "manager". The setup software provided
in the box with a new router is completely optional. The intent is to
make it easier for you to put the new router into service, but many
people find that it only gets in the way. It's usually faster to toss
the setup CD in the trash and set up the router with a web browser.

This has caught my attention! Please tell me how I can use my web
browser to set up the older computers such that they will make the
connection with the router.

 

[Ed Cryer]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:50:46 -0400, "Joe Morris"

Ken Blake wrote:

You said essentially the same thing as I said yesterday ("There is no
such thing as "format[ting] for 64 bits. Formatting has nothing to do
with the 'bitness' of your CPU or the 'bitness' of what version of
Windows you are running"), but thanks for using my made-up word
"bitness."<g>

You'll be lucky!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitness

Thanks. So I'm not the only one who made it up! But still, as far as
I'm concerned, it's not a real word.

But then we have the question of how *you* would define a "real word".


Too difficult a question to answer. And the reality of words changes
all the time.


Are
you, for example, using Potter Stewart's dictum about pornography ("I know
it when I see it")?

Or perhaps you would accept it as industry jargon but not (yet) entered into
mainstream usage?


Something like that, but I didn't know that anyone other than me was
using it.

Have a look at this Googlre search;
http://tinyurl.com/7yfau5q

I've been aware of it for years.

Likewise for me, going back LONG before I ever stepped foot in this
newsgroup. I'd like to say it was the 1980's, but I'll give my memory
the benefit of the doubt and say 1990's, just to be safe. It's been
around a very long time.

Not to be confused with "bittiness";
http://tinyurl.com/7lgbced

Ed

 

[Antares 531]

The solid light indicates LINK status. It needs to be lit solidly at
both ends. If not, try another Ethernet cable, but it seems most
likely that the nearby lightning strike killed the Ethernet port. If
this is a desktop computer, add or replace the NIC, if you intend to
keep using the computer. A decent NIC can be had for $10, or many
times free after rebate.

I tried changing the Ethernet cable but got no results. In fact when I
switch these Ethernet cables between the two cable connected computers
the one that balks still balks and the one that works still
works...with either cable.

Temporarily disable the router's wireless security. If you can connect
successfully, it indicates a security issue. Make sure you selected
security settings on the new router that are actually supported on the
old computer.

This sounds worth a try. I'll see if I can figure out how to do it and
hope for the best.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

This has caught my attention! Please tell me how I can use my web
browser to set up the older computers such that they will make the
connection with the router.

The web browser is used to set up the *router*. The computers are set up
in the Windows Control Panel, in various network settings panels.

To get to the router, enter something like http://192.168.1.1 in the
browser's address bar. 192.168.1.1 is an example; your router's address
may differ a bit from that.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

So make the necessary changes in how you read my remark

I want to clarify.

The necessary changes might include replacing architecture by data
width, or even (oh, this is so hard to admit!) bitness.

You implicitly pointed out that without the qualifier (e.g., 64-bit),
architecture covers too much ground. It could mean RISC or a lot of
other things, so when it's unqualified, it's too vague.

Now that I've lost most of my arguments, I'm going to go kick the dog.

Not to worry: I don't have a dog, or even access to one.