I have to build some laptops tonight -- more next week -- for a nonprofit.
So far, I've been installing whatever the CoA on the device claims *was* on the device (originally). (drives are invariably "wiped" when I am given the machines).
Two of the machines tonight claim "Vista Business". I never ran Vista so no idea what it is like. *But*, wasn't this the one with the gawdawful reputation? I.e., am I better off "consuming" one of their volume licenses for XP or 7 for these machines? (those are "precious" so I would prefer not to "waste" them, unduly).
Have I misremembered/confused Vista's reputation? Or, was all the negativity over rated?
Thx,
--don
P.S. I think *8* is also getting a fair bit of bad press?
Why don't you try Ubuntu 12.04? it can do everything you can do on Windows, no license required, unless they are using some specific software in the nonprofit. Open Office is not great, but it can do pretty much anything MS Office can do, in a file-compatible way. There are better spreadsheets like Gnumeric that is also Excel compatible.
Sorry, I should have anticipated this response. (d'oh!)
The machines go to underprivileged kids -- various ages. So, they need something that is consistent with what their peers are using and/or the teachers/counselors around them.
Something as "old" as XP could be "tolerated" (by those staff/counselors/etc) but Linux/*BSD would probably end up being "ill-received" -- even if the kids could produce "MSWord compatible" documents.
As the existing CoA's are Vista, I can go that route "free". But, if it's a pile of crap, that wouldn't be anyone any favors!
Vista needed a lot more RAM and somewhat more video card than the existing XP systems had, in order to run well. People trying to upgrade existing machines didn't like this. Also, if you bought a new PC a year after Vista came out, it ran a lot better than if you had bought a PC the day it came out. (I think this is generally true of major Windows versions, at least since XP; I think Microsoft designs their OSes that way partly because of their lifecycles and partly to drive PC sales.)
Vista also was the beginning of User Account Control (UAC), which is (broadly) the thing that asks you for permission to do certain things, like installing drivers, etc. Microsoft cranked it up to 11 in Vista, so it prompted users for permission a lot, which was annoying. It's still there in Win7 (which is really Vista underneath), but toned down a lot.
There are probably other things, but those two are the big ones I remember.
My opinion: If the laptops will come back to you before April 2014, put XP on them; XP will run better than 7 on modest hardware. If they won't come back before then, install 7 and let it be slow if the hardware is modest.
April 2014 is the current end-of-support for XP, and it looks like it will really stick this time. Some people are predicting a big malware explosion for XP at that time; I'm not sure it will be as big as the hype, but it is somewhat of a concern.
It is. They changed the UI a lot, basically to make it look and work like a smartphone. That's fine if you're used to smartphones (and your PC has a touch screen), but kind of sucks if you're used to the way Windows has worked for the past 18 years. For a while, Microsoft was telling people "just use it for a while, you'll get used to it", but they finally gave up - Windows 8.1 makes the UI work a little bit more like 7.
I can arrange for them to "come in for service" if there is an advantage to that. Why? To install the final XP upgrades and then leave them as XP machines? Or change them over to 7 at that time and hope 7 is then "better"?
I don't think they have any volume licenses for 8 so not an option.
Of the two -- XP & 7 -- which licenses should I "cherish more" (i.e., be more resistant to "consume")?
I don't know. I recall that there were some "how to make UAC less annoying" tips floating around the internets when Vista came out, but I don't know what the mechanism is.
Those might actually do OK with Win7. If you can, I'd try putting Win7 on one, but not activating it yet (so as not to burn the license). Then put on whatever other software you want to run and try it out. If it runs OK, activate it and be happy. If not, try XP.
Also, 32-bit XP won't be able to see all 4 GB of the RAM; it will see something north of 3 GB but not all 4. (The exact amount depends on the hardware.) If you have 64-bit XP it will see all the RAM.
7 will probably never get any faster or better than it is right now, on a given piece of hardware. 7's user interface is close to XP, but not exactly the same, so there might be some user retraining involved if you switch them from XP to 7.
XP won't get patches from Microsoft after end-of-support, and hardware vendors will probably stop providing XP drivers. If you don't care about either of those things, use XP.
It depends. :)
If the computer has to be used by random users in unknown environments, use 7.
If the computers are used by smart users in a controlled environment (firewalls and other security services provided), or not connected to the Internet at all, it's your choice between 7 and XP. XP will make older/lower-spec computers usable for longer.
For most purposes, the value of the XP licenses will drop to zero or near zero in about six months from now.
Some people who want XP for specialized purposes might still be willing to buy the licenses today, or even after the end-of-support. If your license agreement permits resale, and if you only have a couple of XP licenses left, it might be worth selling the remaining XP licenses and using the money to fund more 7 licenses.
I sort of doubt it, but Microsoft (or whoever you got the licenses from) may offer a trade-in or upgrade for unused XP volume licenses. Asking is free.
I use OO under Ubuntu for all my private stuff, but using it for business purposes was a disaster. All the clients I work with are MS-based, and being full of engineers, sometimes the applications are pushed pretty hard. OO and MS Office interoperate moderately OK with simple stuff, but as soon as you get deeper into the available functionality forget it.
OK, you say, but this is just for kids. Come on, they're likely to push the boundaries harder than the engineers.
Meaning, creating a document that uses some specific MS feature that the OO folks haven't yet got 'round to implementing (or, implementing CORRECTLY)? Sort of like trying to get non-Adobe versions of Reader to handle all the extensions (JS, multimedia, etc) that Adobe already handles?
Meaning, they are more likely to do things "creatively" -- which may not be the "right way" -- but "it LOOKS like it should" (and won't otherwise?)
You're preaching to the choir! I run XP (on the MS machines) and doubt any of them are newer than 3-5 years. Yet, they *all* spend billions of cycles waiting for me to figure out what key to press, next! :-/
OK. So, it wasn't a feature that they *expected* to be configurable. Any "fix" is a hack of something that *happened* to be available.
OK.
Yes. Video always eats a big chunk of PHYSICAL memory space. Not sure I would want to burn a 64b license on these, though. May be easier to pull a 2G DIMM and replace it with a 1G -- use the 2G elsewhere.
No idea what these kids are used to. OTOH, something about the mouth of a gift horse comes to mind...
I think it is probably unrealistic to expect them *not* to be connected to 'net. That might be the single decision criterion!
I don't think "sale" is possible. AFAICT, the licenses are donated (possibly by MS) to the organization. So, if not used, they just evaporate.
OTOH, from your above comments, if I think I am likely to see more *older* machines in the future, I would want to hang on to the XP licenses for them (as 7 would probably be too sluggish). Conversely, if I expect to see more (donated) *newer* machines in the future, then save the 7 licenses for those and burn the XP now!
Tough call (but, predicting the future usually is! :> )
Thanks, I've got some thinking to do. I'm sure the staff, there, won't be of much help in coming to an *informed* decision on this sort of stuff. :< That's why they (DON'T) pay me the big bucks!
There wasn't a single version of Windoze that did NOT get bad press immediately after its release. Besides the usual 18 months that it takes to get things working reasonably well, people do not like change.
I still have two customers that have Vista installed on laptops. I also have a Vista laptop (Dell Inspiron 1525). Most of my other Vista installations have had Win 7 installed. I do yet another Vista to Win
7 upgrade next week. Note that there is an in-place update path from Vista to Win 7 and Win 8, but no in-place update from XP. If you install XP now, you're doing your customer a disservice should they want to upgrade later.
Under the covers, Vista is very much like Win 7. Every time there was an update to system level programs in Win 7, there was also a similar update to Vista. However, I have noticed problems in Vista with various system databases getting corrupted, and the supplied tools not working. I've had to do a few total reinstalls of Vista to recover. No similar reinstalls have been required with Win 7.
Personally, I prefer XP for my own machines mostly because I don't like the tedious UAC in Vista. I have it disabled on my Vista laptop. So, if the intended recipient has any plans to later install Win 7 and you don't want to consume a license, I would install Vista. If the intended recipient is overly conservative and doesn't want to learn anything new, then XP will suffice. If you just want to get it out the door and not consume a license, then Vista will suffice.
I've done three Win 8 to Win 7 downgrades. This is in the window of a local computer store:
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
I think there was some configuration or "never ask me this" designed into it. Google is your friend. I don't use Windows as a daily driver so I don't know all the niceties of each version.
That's not why. A 32-bit machine that has a separate video card and doesn't use system RAM for video will still not be able to "see" more than 3.mumble GB of RAM. The reason is that the PCI bus and some other stuff are memory-mapped way up near the top of the 32-bit address space, in the "nobody'll ever use THIS!" range. (Remember, PCI was introduced when 0.008 GB was still a lot of memory.) The exact amount you get depends on the hardware and maybe the OS; it's fairly common for people to say "3.5 GB", which is usually about right.
In my experience, laptops (at least Dell, IBM/Lenovo, and Apple) tend to have whatever memory they shipped with soldered to the motherboard. They have a DIMM slot and it works, but it's usually empty.
XP will make the laptops marginally harder to sell at the pawn shop, if that is a concern. :)
If the slower machines don't need the net, sure. If they do, you probably don't want to install XP at all after spring 2014.
Hmmm... I have boxes with 4G RAM that only report 3.0 that I have attributed to the 1GB on the video adapter! I will have to look at each machine and and see how they differ/agree.
I've not opened these. The laptops *I* have worked with have had a pair of DIMMs behind a little door in the underside of the machine. Pull both and the machine won't boot.
I've also noticed some restrictions on memory *quantity*. One of my Tablet PCs won't recognize more than 1.5G (?) regardless of what you stuff in it!
(OTOH, other devices will tolerate *more* than the manufacturer ever claimed possible. E.g., my LX, a few of my printers, etc.)
I try to push them *out* the door and into students' hands as fast as they come in. This is relatively easy when a batch of several identical units come in -- esp if they aren't BROKEN! But, when you start getting onesie/twosies, the overhead for each unit climbs. More hours on the clock -- even if many of them are spent waiting! (for downloads, installs, reboots, etc.)
Check the graphics chip set, if it's a intel GM965 or later Win7 will support it. Go to the intel website and verify it. You can get the non-profit discount for most OS's
Sure -- I ran W2K, W2Ks, W2K3, etc for AGES rather than move to XP! :> If it ain't broke (well, if t ain't any *more* broke than its successor), why fix it?
In some cases, this may simply not be an option. E.g., I can't run
7 on some of my servers (no drivers, etc.)
That is important. There is no "tech support" for these folks (or, rather, if there *was*, *I* would have to be it! And that's not a practical option for me -- I already spend 400-500hrs annually on pro bono work and don't want to have to ALSO be in the "drop everything! Joan's laptop has a problem" business!
So, it can be turned off, completely? Is there any downside to that -- worse than XP's behavior in similar circumstances? E.g., once disabled, can non-administrators do things that admins should only be allowed to do?
I want to do what's right for the end user while considering the
*cost* to the nonprofit. Goal here is to try to "make do" with what you have "free/cheap" and NOT to say "money is no object; buy everyone the latest and greatest!!"
From some of the paperwork (handwritten notes) that came with these, it appears they were Vista->XP downgrades. Though I am not sure if that was done "officially" (in which case, why the vista coa?) or "after-market...
This box has 4GB installed plus 1GB video. Windows (32b) says 3.25GB free, and the video has a total 224MB memory mapped in three ranges (presumably, windowed to the PCI-e, but who knows what the interface actually is).
So, that's still reasonably consistent with my observations (as I have no idea what else "eats memory" in your system). I.e., a
128MB video adapter could change that 3.25 to 3.375, leave it unchanged or any other value based on it's design (and how it's driver wants to access it)
I have assumed windows wants to make life easy and allow *everything* that it may want to access to fit in a 32b address space (video can be accessed in weird paged ways as "something OFTEN special").
E.g., if the OS wants to reference something from user space *into* the kernel, the kernel *and* user space both reside in the processor's logical address space at that instant -- along with I/O's.
So, the memory and hardware associated with a particular IRQ (which can assert at any time) will "be there" when the IRQ asserts, etc.
You could, conceivably, operate the kernel through a small *window* (one page!) that peeks into 4G - (1 page) of "user space". Or, have the kernel occupy all *but* 1 page of logical memory and have it just "peek" into user space through that 1 page window, etc. (been there, done that, T-shirt...)
Or, combinations thereof *without* going to a 64b implementation. It's just how much of a performance hit you want to take to keep massaging the MMU, "supervisor space", etc.
(I've never checked to see what Windows does in real life. But, I'd suspect they'd take the easy route!)
Yes, my servers (*BSD/Solaris) have no problem, there. I hadn't realized "3.0G" was a "hard-coded limit in XP32 but, rather, had assumed Windows chopped holes in R/W memory based on what the probe() discovered in terms of hardware compliment ON THIS BOX.
Something from ATI. I'll have to check (I've not been concerned with "video performance", etc. -- just getting the things running). Or, just throw a 7 install disk in and see what happens...
[Why the hell don't manufacturer web sites have an option to "download all drivers" in a single click -- accompanied by their release notes (which are rarely bundled in the executables!) Oh, yeah. Because then EVERYONE would be clicking on the "download all" button!! :< ]
I think they get the licenses essentially for free. But, that doesn't mean you (I) want to waste them, needlessly. I don't want to put a license on a box and have it "underperform". Nor have it be a PITA to *use*, etc.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.