Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : Old PC. Linux No. Win 7 Yes? |
|
Answer» Myself, I would have said Windows 98 is best. Rejuvenating your 7-year-old PC with Windows, not Linux, can now make technical and fiscal sense.Yes, hes said Windows 7. Read the story.Reading the article with the claim of running Office 97 on Windows 7, my friend is running Windows 7 64-bit with Office 2000 and Office 2000 is unstabile with 7 64-bit. Maybe 32-bit is stabile with the older offices. Most of the time the Office 2000 runs ok, but he gets lots of lock ups and application crash windows with Office 2000 on it where it asks if you would like to send the error report to Microsoft. The claims of Windows 7 running on a 233Mhz with 96mb Ram is just crazy. It must operate as slow as tar if it is true. Guessing some one kiosk'ed it to strip it of the majority of its internals to run bare minimum. Or they are EXTREME RAMDISK'ing I still wont put Windows 7 on anything lesser than a Pentium 4 and 1GB Ram to avoid frustration. 7 can run on lesser power, but I cant stand a computer that crawls after being spoiled by speed!!! Microsoft will only state minimum requirements that it is willing to back support for. If they claimed lesser powerful computers that crawl on it, they would get a ton of complaints. I think the only OS I ever ran on lesser than stated requirements was Windows 95 on a 80386DX25 with 4MB Ram when 8MB was recommended. That was way back in 1996 when I couldnt afford a new computer and was running on mixed guts from whatever I could get for free or cheap. Quote from: nixie on November 14, 2011, 02:39:27 PM Reading the article with the claim of running Office 97 on Windows 7, my friend is running Windows 7 64-bit with Office 2000 and Office 2000 is unstabile with 7 64-bit. Maybe 32-bit is stabile with the older offices. Most of the time the Office 2000 runs ok, but he gets lots of lock ups and application crash windows with Office 2000 on it where it asks if you would like to send the error report to Microsoft.It runs OK for me with win7 x64, or it did when I was using 2000. That said, using Office 97 on win7 would be stupid anyway- why do you need to install a new OS to "rejuvenate" the machine. Use the OS it was designed for. Quote I think the only OS I ever ran on lesser than stated requirements was Windows 95 on a 80386DX25 with 4MB Ram when 8MB was recommended. That was way back in 1996 when I couldnt afford a new computer and was running on mixed guts from whatever I could get for free or cheap.And- that still meets the minimum requirements stated by MS. on to the article itself. Quote Linux has long been the preferred operating system for rejuvenating older PCs for three reasons: It's lighter weight than Windows, it's secure enough to let you sidestep CPU-hogging anti-virus programs, and it's free.1. It's not "lighter than windows" that's retarded. Unless you happen to choose a specially lightweight distribution. Of course using the term "lighter" is weasel wording anyway, because you can't really define what that means. 2. "It's secure enough to let you sidestep CPU hogging AV programs" Sigh. the standard FUD. Linux is NOT AUTOMATICALLY SECURE. the only reason it's SAFE now is because it's not being TARGETED. If it ever becomes popular in the eyes of the public, than you are going to need one of those "CPU hogging AV programs". And you don't 'need' one for windows anyway, that is specious at best. 3. "It's Free" So is whatever OS the system already has on it... Since you've already got it. Quote Windows 7 may shake up that thinking, being the first version of Windows that, judging from widespread reviews from beta testers, runs faster than the prior oneThat doesn't make sense. Windows 7 is not measurably faster than Vista, the reason it is "faster" is because the hardware evolved over the time frame between Vista and 7's release. Second even if it was, it still isn't going to run faster than XP on the hardware XP was designed for. Quote Vista was so bloated that it ran poorly on many PCs.Computers in 2006 were slower than they were in 2009. People seem to easily overlook that. Also, most of Vista's problems came from manufacturers cutting corners. Quote In the past it usually made little economic sense to reinstall Windows on an older PCIt makes perfect sense. Reinstalling the OS it came from shouldn't cost you anything, since you still have the key and all that. Unless you are one of those deviants who get's stuck the first time they have an issue, or gives up when activation fails and you have to phone MS, but instead they buy a new copy and *censored* about "mafiasofts evil DRM". Yes, god forbid you be forced to have real human contact using a phone. Quote Also, Windows 7 continues Microsoft's legendary backward compatibility for applications. For instance, I was able to get my 12-year-old copy of Office 97 running on Windows 7 with no hitches.-_- So what was the net result of upgrading to windows 7 if they are still using software that was outdated at Windows XP's release? Why use Windows 7 at all? I also love the anecdotal and useless information regarding how low you can go. classic. If somebody is really after the "latest and greatest" Operating System and/or Applications software, they are going to have to get better hardware. Anything else is just foolish. Upgrading systems past the OS they were designed for without major upgrades to their components is, for lack of a better word, idiotic. "hey look we can run windows 7 on a 233Mhz Pentium 2 with 256MB of RAM and a 4MB video card" sure. And what about actually running applications? Can you browse the web, use E-mail, etc at a reasonable speed? No. Of course not. And yet the system it was designed f or can do those things at those specs at a reasonable speed, so what exactly did you pay for with an upgrade. That money would be better invested in NEW PCs. And if you have new PCs already, why the *censored* do you want to use the old ones with an old OS. use OSs for that era, don't try to jury-rig some new OS into and old system, because it isn't going to work out as you planned. Quote from: Geek-9pm on November 14, 2011, 11:51:32 AM Myself, I would have said Windows 98 is best. That's just silly. Windows 7 would be sooooo slow on the hardware they're talking about. I can't imagine how frustrating that would be. On the other hand, there are several modern Linux distros that would run quite well on that older hardware. I don't know what the author of that article was smoking... Quote from: JJ 3000 on November 15, 2011, 09:41:59 PM On the other hand, there are several modern Linux distros that would run quite well on that older hardware. I don't know what the author of that article was smoking... Aside from DSL (*censored* Small Linux) No Linux distro that is still maintained (and thus modern) would run very well on a 266Mhz Pentium 2. Quote from: BC_Programmer on November 15, 2011, 10:14:41 PM Aside from DSL (*censored* Small Linux) No Linux distro that is still maintained (and thus modern) would run very well on a 266Mhz Pentium 2.For anybody who wants to pursue the subject of small Linux: Quote Small Unix DistributionsThe link above is really about minimal or embedded systems, which is off topic . Still, making an old PC into a file and print server is not a bad idea. As for the idea that Windows 7 is better that anything for old computers, I cound not disagree more. I started this post this to see how others would react. Quote As for the idea that Windows 7 is better that anything for old computers, I cound not disagree more. I started this post this to see how others would react. Which is a common thread in your Posts lately... HOWEVER...carry on. |
|