Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 7 vs. Windows XP On a Netbook

Posted by timothy on from the all-battery-life-claims-are-lies dept.

Justin writes "Many in the industry are counting on Windows 7 to bring the netbook market to the next level. Having netbook manufacturers ship netbooks with 7+ year old Windows XP pre-installed surely deterred some from joining the ranks of households with the small, light and portable netbooks. It seems Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP. Legit Reviews has the full scoop of battery life and performance tests pitting Windows 7 against Windows XP on the ASUS Eee PC 1005HA Netbook." I'd like to see a follow-up with a few different Netbook-friendly Linux distros, too.

13 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. So what? by LeinadSpoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.

    1. Re:So what? by Wowsers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point of installing Windows 7 is to keep Linux OFF a netbook!

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    2. Re:So what? by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Security for starters. Vista changed a lot under the hood to improve security. So if your netbook is only for accessing the internet, there is actually more, not less, reason for dumping XP.

    3. Re:So what? by LeinadSpoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've ran XP for years and never had a security issue. Standard practices such as not opening attachments from people you don't know and keeping everything updated do wonderfully. Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.

    4. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      /facepalm -- Keeping Linux off the Netbook IS about making MS money.. are you new here?

    5. Re:So what? by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your whole point in installing Windows 7 is to not run something else, then just think of the money you could save by just not buying a netbook. Or a PC. Or a broadband or dialup Internet connection.

      I choose my O/S based upon what it does run.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:So what? by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux doesn't default to granting root privileges, I know. And you don't need root privileges to delete files out of your own home directory. Hence the tilde before the slash: ~/* not /*

      Linux does have executable files.

      Now, I am not entirely certain it could have the +x flag set on the file after being an e-mailed attachment, though, actually. I could be mistaken there.

      On the other hand, you could just bundle it up into an RPM, make it look "real" and people will "install" the "video." If you switch the average Windows user to Linux, they'll know even less about Linux than they do about Windows. They'll install RPMs (or whatever) as quickly as they will install Smilie Packs on Windows. If that means typing in their password - which they'd be used to, by now, if they've been installing updates - then they will type it in.

    7. Re:So what? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main reason IE needs that is because it is so integrated into the O.S.

      Are we back to the 1990s belief that IE somehow runs "in the kernel?" Can you Microsoft bashers at least get up to date on this stuff please? IE is no more "integrated into the OS" than any other application that uses a system library.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. What a Joke! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP.

    What a fracking joke! That the new product is almost as good as the 7 year old one that it replaces.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  4. Re:My Anecdotal Evidence by s7uar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might not be Ubuntu's fault, but it's Ubuntu's problem.

  5. Re:Strange conclusions? by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, that's good, isn't it? A 7 year old OS vs. a not-yet-released OS running on current hardware... and the not-yet-released OS performs almost just as well as the 7 year old OS?

    I'd say that's pretty good. Typical idea is that older OS's will run faster since they were smaller and HAD to run on .. less hardware. Hardware is better, so OS's can plan on using more of it. An OS that is able to run almost as well as a 7 year old OS on CURRENT hardware is doing pretty well.

  6. Re:Lighter weight XP??? by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From experience I can tell you that Windows 7 (64-bit version) can be installed on a 10 GB partition. Barely, but it does work.

    If you want light, Minix still can't be beat but I don't see anyone using it as a desktop OS. I wonder why.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.