Exactly. When I got a new drive, I just used the tool that came with the drive to expand the partition onto a new drive. Or just used xcopy at first. You could save all the long filenames in a file with lfnback, xcopy the drive with attributes and then put the long filenames back.
When a new OS came out, I just did an upgrade. I mainly did it from 3.0 to 3.1 to 3.11 to 95. But once people started saying you couldn't get a well-running computer by doing an upgrade, then I had to felt compelled to keep it going, just to prove people wrong.
Ultimately the XP drive just died unexpectedly (only about 2 years ago). I couldn't recover it, but it was quite a run.
Buy good hardware and don't get malware and you can upgrade all you want. Windows doesn't really slow down that much either, not that I've ever noticed.
I never said it was the same machine. Back then, it was no problem to move a hard drive to a new machine. Reboot 2-3 times and wait for the drivers to load and voila, no problems. XP and Server 2003 ended the ability to do that, but before that it was no problem to move drives between machines.
I find Win7-32 to be a little slower than XP-32. But I find Win7-64 to be MUCH faster than XP-32.
I find Vista to be shockingly slow every time I encounter it. My co-worker was running Vista on a laptop and we had to bring up Control Panel. It took 15-20 seconds to render the Control Panel icons! This is on SP2. What the heck is that? That kind of delay never happens on XP or Windows 7.
That's because they only time the task itself from start to finish. If they timed the amount of time it took the researchers to copy the test files to the machine from the network and to click around from task to task, XP would win by a landslide.
If Vista, or even Windows Server 2003, didn't already do this, then I would be very surprised.
You are right. This isn't about keeping thread A on CPU 1. It's about keeping threads A, B and C on CPU 1, because they total less than 100%. Previous versions would put A on 1, B on 2 and C on 3, because it would spread out the load. But now that CPU cores can be shut off to save power, it makes a lot more sense to put A, B and C on CPU 1 and let CPUs 2, 3 and 4 continue to sleep. And if you do need more, by all means put it on 2 because it is the second core of the same CPU.
Pentium 4 HT 1.5GB RAM: XP-32 to 7-32. 2-3% slower.
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 1.5 GB RAM: XP-32 to 7-64. About 10% faster. Very old XP partition, though. Never re-installed after 4 years.
Atom N270 1.6 GHz netbook 2GB RAM. XP-32 to 7-32. 2-3% slower.
Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz 4GB RAM: XP-32 to 7-64. 200-300% faster. Yes, 2 to 3 times faster. Not sure why, but Windows 7 screams on this machine.
Quad core 6600 8GB RAM: Vista-32 to 2008 Server-64 to 2008 R2-64. 12-20% faster and again 10-15% faster.
This is all subjective, but to some extent that's what matters when selling OSes. BTW, there is no way in heck that Vista runs on those first 3 machines. There is documented evidence online that it is a miserable experience trying.
Except that Windows 7 is WAY faster than Vista, on lower hardware. On my Asus 901HA netbook, nobody runs Vista because it is so slow as to be unusable (1.6GHz Atom CPU, garbage Intel 945 graphics, 2GB RAM (maxed)). Windows 7 is about 2-3% slower than XP. Just enough to be noticeable, but not enought to be annoying.
Windows XP - usable. Vista - unusable. 7 - usable.
It's hard to underestimate 15-second pauses. A co-worker is scanning PDFs and data entering them. On XP, the system works great. On Vista, every 3rd PDF results in a literal 15-second pause. I mean a FULL OS LOCKUP for 15 seconds.
I upgraded her to Windows 7. It took 3 hours yesterday. We'll see today, but after using Win7 released version on every machine at home for almost 3 months now, I am confident that she won't have this problem anymore.
It's the lack of "senior moments", you know, where your dual-core 2GB machine quits responding for 15 seconds. That doesn't happen at all on Windows 7.
Random 15-second pauses. No random 15-second pauses. Better run a scientific study to see if there really is a difference...
It was time-consuming, but great. All the benefits of an in-place upgrade and all the speed of a fresh install. Even better, it can take all your settings from 32-bit to 64-bit. I plan on doing this at work, as it would take me 3-4 days to reinstall everything I have there.
While I have had some trouble tracking down 64-bit hardware, I really haven't had that bad of a time on 3 machines.
A Linksys network card had to use a Realtek chipset driver. I had to look that up online, but the box didn't even say anything about 64-bit drivers at all.
On an old Compaq laptop, Windows update suggested I download and install a Beta driver in order for my video card to work, and it did work (ATI Radeon 200M). An HP desktop with the same chipset would NOT work at all under 32-bit, even replacing "64" with "32" in the name of the driver and searching Google. Found the file, but it wouldn't work (wish I had gone 64-bit, but my wife has some 16bit apps for work). Fortunately I had a GeForce 7200 sitting in a drawer that worked just fine.
On a computer I built, Asus didn't provide a 64-bit driver for their motherboard network card, but fortunately ECS did on theirs, so I used that driver (same chipset). Works great.
Bottom line, drivers are a bit of a pain, but with a bit of searching, a tech can get it done most of the time. Average users will want to look for the Windows 7 64-bit logo.
My EeePC 901 came with Windows XP Home. I was going to change it to another version but then I just decided to wait until Windows 7 Ultimate came out on MSDN (Aug. 3).
Now, this is a low-end machine, and anyone that put Vista on there is completely unhappy with it. It is super slow and nobody uses it that way.
I would say Windows 7 Ultimate (with full Aero glass) is only about 3-5% slower than Windows XP. But you can do so many things with so many fewer clicks, that it's worth it.
Actually, the worst people of the 20th century were Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Stalin and Mao were devout atheists and Hitler (contrary to his speeches which told his listeners what they wanted to hear) followed a Eugenics doctrine which believed devoutly in survival of the fittest.
So, no, actually the 3 worst people I know were atheists. Thanks for playing, though.
And it would seem that the person in need of learning what they don't understand isn't me.
That being said, I realize that some atheists are certainly capable of caring about others, and some so-called Christians are bad people, but that's not the way to bet.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the vending machine owner won't have any trouble stocking up a machine full of $50 batteries for every laptop model on earth.
Despite scientists stating repeatedly that it would take at least 2 2-liter bottles of binary explosives to cause a problem...
Shouldn't they have fired whoever was signing off on your work?
Who do you think fired him?
so far no US fighter has shot down a rouge airliner
Chartreuse and teal airliners, yes, but not rouge...
You wave furiously with the blue screen of death at the fighter pilot...
FTFY
I thought this was Mayan...
Exactly. When I got a new drive, I just used the tool that came with the drive to expand the partition onto a new drive. Or just used xcopy at first. You could save all the long filenames in a file with lfnback, xcopy the drive with attributes and then put the long filenames back.
When a new OS came out, I just did an upgrade. I mainly did it from 3.0 to 3.1 to 3.11 to 95. But once people started saying you couldn't get a well-running computer by doing an upgrade, then I had to felt compelled to keep it going, just to prove people wrong.
Ultimately the XP drive just died unexpectedly (only about 2 years ago). I couldn't recover it, but it was quite a run.
Buy good hardware and don't get malware and you can upgrade all you want. Windows doesn't really slow down that much either, not that I've ever noticed.
I never said it was the same machine. Back then, it was no problem to move a hard drive to a new machine. Reboot 2-3 times and wait for the drivers to load and voila, no problems. XP and Server 2003 ended the ability to do that, but before that it was no problem to move drives between machines.
Windows 7 is stable now. Much more stable than Vista SP2.
I find Win7-32 to be a little slower than XP-32. But I find Win7-64 to be MUCH faster than XP-32.
I find Vista to be shockingly slow every time I encounter it. My co-worker was running Vista on a laptop and we had to bring up Control Panel. It took 15-20 seconds to render the Control Panel icons! This is on SP2. What the heck is that? That kind of delay never happens on XP or Windows 7.
And this is a 2GB machine with a dual core CPU.
That's because they only time the task itself from start to finish. If they timed the amount of time it took the researchers to copy the test files to the machine from the network and to click around from task to task, XP would win by a landslide.
And jeezus is dead, he's not going to help you or anyone else. IMO
Actually, he's alive. Maybe you missed that whole Easter resurrection thing...
If Vista, or even Windows Server 2003, didn't already do this, then I would be very surprised.
You are right. This isn't about keeping thread A on CPU 1. It's about keeping threads A, B and C on CPU 1, because they total less than 100%. Previous versions would put A on 1, B on 2 and C on 3, because it would spread out the load. But now that CPU cores can be shut off to save power, it makes a lot more sense to put A, B and C on CPU 1 and let CPUs 2, 3 and 4 continue to sleep. And if you do need more, by all means put it on 2 because it is the second core of the same CPU.
My experience upgrading several machines:
Pentium 4 HT 1.5GB RAM: XP-32 to 7-32. 2-3% slower.
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 1.5 GB RAM: XP-32 to 7-64. About 10% faster. Very old XP partition, though. Never re-installed after 4 years.
Atom N270 1.6 GHz netbook 2GB RAM. XP-32 to 7-32. 2-3% slower.
Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz 4GB RAM: XP-32 to 7-64. 200-300% faster. Yes, 2 to 3 times faster. Not sure why, but Windows 7 screams on this machine.
Quad core 6600 8GB RAM: Vista-32 to 2008 Server-64 to 2008 R2-64. 12-20% faster and again 10-15% faster.
This is all subjective, but to some extent that's what matters when selling OSes. BTW, there is no way in heck that Vista runs on those first 3 machines. There is documented evidence online that it is a miserable experience trying.
Except that Windows 7 is WAY faster than Vista, on lower hardware. On my Asus 901HA netbook, nobody runs Vista because it is so slow as to be unusable (1.6GHz Atom CPU, garbage Intel 945 graphics, 2GB RAM (maxed)). Windows 7 is about 2-3% slower than XP. Just enough to be noticeable, but not enought to be annoying.
Windows XP - usable. Vista - unusable. 7 - usable.
I upgraded her to Windows 7. It took 3 hours yesterday. We'll see today, but after using Win7 released version on every machine at home for almost 3 months now, I am confident that she won't have this problem anymore.
It's the lack of "senior moments", you know, where your dual-core 2GB machine quits responding for 15 seconds. That doesn't happen at all on Windows 7.
Random 15-second pauses. No random 15-second pauses. Better run a scientific study to see if there really is a difference...
That's funny. I went from Windows 3.0->3.1->3.11->95->98->XP on the same HD image and had the most stable 98 and XP of anyone I knew.
I used Laplink's PCMover Upgrade Assistant. http://www.laplink.com/pcmover/pcmoverupgradeassistant.html. I know, I didn't think they were still in business either.
It was time-consuming, but great. All the benefits of an in-place upgrade and all the speed of a fresh install. Even better, it can take all your settings from 32-bit to 64-bit. I plan on doing this at work, as it would take me 3-4 days to reinstall everything I have there.
While I have had some trouble tracking down 64-bit hardware, I really haven't had that bad of a time on 3 machines.
A Linksys network card had to use a Realtek chipset driver. I had to look that up online, but the box didn't even say anything about 64-bit drivers at all.
On an old Compaq laptop, Windows update suggested I download and install a Beta driver in order for my video card to work, and it did work (ATI Radeon 200M). An HP desktop with the same chipset would NOT work at all under 32-bit, even replacing "64" with "32" in the name of the driver and searching Google. Found the file, but it wouldn't work (wish I had gone 64-bit, but my wife has some 16bit apps for work). Fortunately I had a GeForce 7200 sitting in a drawer that worked just fine.
On a computer I built, Asus didn't provide a 64-bit driver for their motherboard network card, but fortunately ECS did on theirs, so I used that driver (same chipset). Works great.
Bottom line, drivers are a bit of a pain, but with a bit of searching, a tech can get it done most of the time. Average users will want to look for the Windows 7 64-bit logo.
My EeePC 901 came with Windows XP Home. I was going to change it to another version but then I just decided to wait until Windows 7 Ultimate came out on MSDN (Aug. 3).
Now, this is a low-end machine, and anyone that put Vista on there is completely unhappy with it. It is super slow and nobody uses it that way.
I would say Windows 7 Ultimate (with full Aero glass) is only about 3-5% slower than Windows XP. But you can do so many things with so many fewer clicks, that it's worth it.
Apparently: http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-Inside-Windows-7/
Does Windows 7 have those "senior moments" like Vista where it will just get non responsive for like 5-15 seconds, just long enough to piss you off?
No. That's why it's better than Vista.
How about networking, does it still slow to a crawl if you watch videos or listen to music while transferring files?
No. That's why it's better than Vista.
Actually, the worst people of the 20th century were Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Stalin and Mao were devout atheists and Hitler (contrary to his speeches which told his listeners what they wanted to hear) followed a Eugenics doctrine which believed devoutly in survival of the fittest.
So, no, actually the 3 worst people I know were atheists. Thanks for playing, though.
And it would seem that the person in need of learning what they don't understand isn't me.
That being said, I realize that some atheists are certainly capable of caring about others, and some so-called Christians are bad people, but that's not the way to bet.
Finally, Windows will run fast enough to be useful.
Yeah, but Windows 79 is releasing next week, and I hear it's kind of slow on only 500 exabytes of RAM...