Today I am going to talk about my own experience that I have had with two netbooks and two operating systems of Windows different. On the one hand, the Asus EeePC 1005HA with Windows XP Home Edition, and on the other, Nokia Booklet 3G with Windows 7 Starter Edition. I do not want to talk much about laptops, I will only say that they are very similar in terms of processor and RAM technical characteristics, so the hardware should not be very decisive in this comparison. Of course, the price of the Nokia is double that of the Asus.
Both operating systems are not the most complete of their respective versions, something logical considering that the devices are not very powerful, in fact, they are the most basic of each. However, there are big differences between the two. With Windows XP you can work fluently in a normal environment: music, browser, office automation ... We are not going to ask you for clear FullHD video. But with Windows 7 I've noticed that most of the usual use is slow and heavy.
After looking at the requirements of each system, it is clear that a netbook with Windows XP can work perfectly because in no case requires more than 1 GHz of processor or 512 MB of RAM (in fact, with 233 MHz and 64 MB it already operates) On the contrary, Windows 7 needs practically all the resources of the ultraportable. This makes it torture to work with him and get a decent performance. It is true that the Starter Edition does not help, but the Home Edition of XP is not great either.
In conclusion I could say that the lords of Microsoft have wanted to get us Windows 7 at all costs, even on netbooks where it really isn't functional. If you didn't try Windows Vista, why are you trying Windows 7? They are having a hard time getting rid of Windows XP and the fame of Windows Vista, but with this policy of using 100% of the resources I doubt they will earn anything, at least in ultraportable users.
73 comments, leave yours
It has nothing to do with it, but, a site like this, should not be able to be followed by identi.ca or similar, instead of a closed system like Twitter?
you are partly right, this blog should be in identi.ca but we are not closed to the cloud, why not use Twitter if it exists? Not all Linux users have the same ideology about free software.
Mno, it has nothing to do with it.
When they ask me how that new «güindous ciete» is doing, I always answer them: «If you have Vista, switch to Win7 ... if you have XP, stay where you are» :)
It was expected that it would occupy more resources and despite this they would make it work to the limit in low-power equipment.
On the other hand Linux, with many distros, works excellent. I have an Acer One with Ubuntu 9.10 and goooooo !!!!
Greetings and happy new year to all!
Well the truth, I do not totally agree, I am a defender of free software, and a lover of knowledge, and as Cesar says the AAO runs with Ubuntu more than great, but now that I am testing Windows 7 Ultimate I am also doing great, I think It depends a lot on the PC but the truth is that Seven will be the one that will move to XP, the support of Networks is better than the filthy of the sight and I particularly do very well. Of course not as much as having Trisquel or CentOS but fine.
Raul, Windows 7 Ultimate is likely to be fine, but here we are talking about the Starter Edition and on a netbook, Windows 7 Ultimate would not even boot on such a pc. They are totally different things.
I have had the Starter and the XP Professional on a netbook, in fact I still have them, the XP Professional on an Eee PC 701 with 1 GB of expanded Ram and the Starter on an HP Mini 110 and they have been more or less similar, but Windows 7 gives me some more benefits, of course the XP was the Professional version, that would not work in either of the two being that of Windows 7 ... it is what it has, it requires more benefits
I have a Blusens with 1G of ram and 1,6GHz of processor, and the W7 Ultimate works very well on it. Sure, it's probably because of the gig of ram.
What a ridiculous statement, in fact I use Windows 7 ultimate on my Asus eee 1000ha netbook and it works wonders. You can check it on my blog.
NOTHING LIKE LINUX UBUNTU THAT GUINDOWS NOR THAT CRAZY GUACHARACO THAT FUCKS WITH THE GUINDOWS NONE WORKS WELL FOR CONSUMPTION OF RESOURCES OR SAFETY !!!!
IT DOES NOT WORK AND POINT
RIDICULOUS YOUR COMMENT MEN ARE YOU CRAZY ???? LET'S SEE HOW MUCH IT WORKS FOR YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR THING THAT I DOUBT
Those who say that windows 7 ultimate does not run on a netbook show that they have no idea. I have windows 7 ultimate installed on my asus eeepc 1000ha with 1gb d ram and it runs the same or better than windows XP. first inform yourselves before speaking.
I tell you:
I always used Windows XP Professional SP3 (that of the SP always had it updated) but I had to format several times because Windows XP
I tell you:
I always used Windows XP Professional SP3 (that of the SP always had it updated) but I had to format several times because Windows XP is not "as secure" as Windows 7 from which I am writing you now, and although it seems difficult to believe Or believe that it is even a lie but I run Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bits with 2.2 Ghz Intel Celeron D and 256 MB of RAM =) and it goes very well, almost as well as in XP, only a little slower and without the effects because I only have 64MB of video = (.
I like Windows 7 for its many functionalities and because it is much more intuitive and intelligent compared to XP and much more stable than Windows Vista, in addition to the Task Bar (commonly called "Superbar") it is only about 2 minutes to get used to since Change the handling of windows and the options when you right-click the icon of the application you are running, many more options come out (which are very useful), I recommend that you use Windows 7, with 512 it runs excellent but it depends on you in the end and at the end =) I'm just still happy with having Windows 7 on my computer = D
«... even if it seems difficult to believe or believe that it is even a lie but I run Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bits with 2.2 Ghz Intel Celeron D and 256 MB of RAM =) and it goes very well, almost as well as in XP, ...»
Fuck it! Pinocchio has competition !!!
I tell you as much as this colleagues ...
xp is the best operating mode OS for office people and stuff, but if you want comfort and be with yourself windows seven is the way to go, it has excellent graphic effects, better than sight and has a great variety of compatibility with xp software ...
xp runs bn with 128MB RAM and 1ghz
seven runs bn with 1GB RAM and 2.0 ghz
I have a hp pavilion dv5 1132la with 2.2ghz working dual core osea 4.4 ghz
and 2GB RAM and the seven never lets me down ...
In conclusion choose either office or comfort.
Hello!! I have a hp pavilion dv2700 I have 2GB RAM and 2.0 GHz
I'm crazy about removing windows vista, but I don't know whether to install XP or seven ...
There are many benchmarks that have been run in 7 and XP and since XP wins in the majority, why buy something that is slower than XP? It is also very expensive, I personally, even if they give it to me, I install it on my main machine
I think the most, I just found this blog and it seemed good to me, I kept reading back and I came across this ...
First of all, it has been a long time since having 1gb of ram was something expensive or unthinkable, so today it is recommended to have more. Anyway, I have a Lenovo S10 and it works much better than Windows XP, especially in startup and stability, perhaps to be more accurate on this issue you should post a memory test or simply look at the task manager, and remember that the amount of Memory reflected by a program is relative to that actually used.
Greetings and good blog
I support you, Raul is very wrong.
I, like Armando, use Windows 7 Ultimate on a Lenovo S10E and it works perfectly better than Windows XP, especially in the GUI.
Greetings, I recently acquired a lenovo intel atom 1gb ram netbook, windows 7 starter, it starts very fast, I thought that some videos that I have in HD 1080, would not play, and it makes it very fluid, I think that Microsoft finally managed to mature its operating system , I have not found any but, for now.
Well ... to begin with, an Atom processor at 1.6Ghz with 1GB of RAM at 667Mhz, Windows 7 Home Premium, Professional or Ultimate would work normal and almost fluid in a netbook, since it has an allocation of services depending on the score of the machine, I mean, it depends on the power of the computer and the services it will use, this makes it adapt to all machines that had windows vista making them work much better. Another thing, the Atom processor has Hyper Threading, so it is as if you had a Pentium 4 of about 2.0Ghz, and that is enough for Windows 7 to work well, that if, if it had 2GB of ram, it would work wonderfully, but almost all netbooks come with 1GB and many are 533Mhz. So in my opinion, they should sell the Linux netbooks, as well as the first Aspire ONE. Nothing to do with linux here but that's the way it is, that way it would be affordable to buy the netbook, since with windows the price increases a lot. But the disadvantage is the compatibility, but how will there be compatibility if everyone uses a single system, damn Microsoft; but hey, that no longer has anything to do with it, Windows 7 or Windows XP, I would choose XP, but it works without any problem with Windows 7.
I don't know on which planet the author of this topic lives, the truth is, how is he going to say this ?:
In conclusion, I could say that the lords of Microsoft have wanted to put Windows 7 at all costs, even on netbooks where it really is not functional. If you didn't try Windows Vista, why are you trying Windows 7?
Is it not known that Microsoft was able to sell its Vista was because they put it in every laptop or brand machine and for 2 years or more we had to understand that !!! Where were you that you did not find out ???
And besides speaking with ignorance since Win 7 is an improvement of Vista and is much superior to the previous one!
Whoever wants to use an old operating system like XP with 9 years of age, to use it, that is everyone's taste, that XP manages to take advantage of the current Hadware that is another story, I would like to see XP trying to work with the next generation of CPU like the Intel i9 of 6 cores when as a joke it can use only 2 cores !!!
Your nose is stuck with reason.
I have an Acer Aspire One with Windows 7 and it works wonders for me, I think the author of this topic has no idea how wonderful it is to work with windows 7 with all its effects on an acer netbook, it works wonderfully on its own. I would miss going to buy a coffee at the super =)
It is the most beautiful thing that takes advantage of the resources of the PC and not that it wastes them like Windows XP, also Windows XP is already more vulnerable to viruses that come in removable storage media, and even with a good antivirus you are not saved.
I am hungry?
it is an idiot who says that w7 ultimate does not run on a netbook
Hello good ... I wanted to start by saying that windows xp has no comparison to windows 7 ultimate after downloading some little programs to my pc that windows 7 is installed some run and others do not, the problem with windows 7 is that it uses too much ram memory even some games get slow ... well apart from that I wanted to tell you that my experience with seven was terrible because some main folders were lost and there is no way to fix it except that you format it after it was formatted 6 times my poor pc for wanting the windows 7 I got tired and the only option that I kept was to return to my windows xp that will not have some graphic wonders that windows 7 has but it gives me a lot of peace of mind since most of the programs can be installed without any problem and it does not get slow because it does not use too many resources it is more stable ... of course the only thing wrong with it is that you have to install the drivers compared to the windows 7 that most of them install of the drivers but still support 100 × 100 to the xp that until now for me they have not been able to overcome it because it is very stable well my pc is one that has 2g of ram 3.4 processor and a pure intel plate a video card 512 well, if they gave me a choice between windows xp and windows 7, I lean towards xp and people who are carried away by the advertising of mocosoft saying and putting them everywhere that windows 7 is better for me not ... regarding the Viruses no longer create them for previous versions in case they do not know it now, how is the fashion seven make viruses only for those systems and the viruses that they created for the xp most already have a cure so don't even worry about viruses ... now As for the resources, the xp only uses what is necessary, you can also give it several heavy programs as you could say and it manages to use almost all of its resources ... see, put several simultaneous programs to seven and they will tell me if how it runs that is a lie because I I use those program s and the seven the only thing he does is exaggerate using resources the notbooks are not for that type of programs of course those little things if they are used to surf the internet I think that they are no longer useful because it does not even have a hard disk like normal PCs that is why ... little programs that give them ... I find those little things funny but they look like toys ...
Lewis, reading your comment everything was fine until you say "some main folders were lost and there is no way to fix it except you format it", weird to say the least
That tells me you have no knowledge of SO and the "best of winxp" observations are very superficial. In the change from win98 to win2k many comments of your style were seen, and it is because the common user does not accommodate radical changes and OS architecture, but in the end they get used to it.
Regarding your machine I can tell you that it does not matter how much ram and processor you have for graphic effects you have to have a compatible video card, otherwise your 3,2 processor gives me the impression that it is not dual core so win7 performance in multitask should be lousy.
I'm going to buy a netbook and this thread doesn't really help me much, since there are very opposite opinions.
I have 3 PC's and 2 laptops at home, all a little old; I don't throw anything. All running on XP.
You talk about cores, i9, but ...
How many cores does an athom have?
Focus a bit on the subject, please, that the thing is about netbooks.
And a little more respect… and spelling, which are free.
I hope you do not tell me how misspelling write atom with "h"
Hello gentlemen, I have an Intel Acer One with a CPU N270 1.60 GHz, 1 gb of ram, from my factory it came with the XP and it has not given me problems, but the detail is that I wanted to have the same speed, the same performance and with a slight improvement in the details, so I installed a win7 theme pack to my XP and it has gone great it has not affected my pc resources, I have read that some people have had some inconvenience but they are easy to uninstall or for greater security I made a system restore point before installing the new themes for my pc and they have worked wonderfully for me.
So if the change of OS (Operating System) is for graphic details, you can take the option that I present.
I hope I have helped something
the best is windoxs 7, it is the cock
I use it on my netbook and it is wonderful unlike xp which sucks.
has the following characteristics:
2gb ram memory
resolution 1024 x 600
intel atom 1.66ghz
250gb hard drive
and xp is a vile trash antiquity, windows 7 is not to blame that your computers are damn fossils and nothing potetes
Hello everyone, I have a netbook (1.6ghz, 1gb ram) with win 7 home premium, xp and ubuntu 10.10 and I'm doing great with win 7, I liked it much more than the xp.
The question is to compare the WXP with the W7 starter, since if you want to compare with the operating system that will be released in 15 years, it is more certain that it is better… .. but between these 2 options, AND NOT ANOTHER, which is better… ..
The truth is seven is a real crap, I bought a new machine that did not pay little money and every thing that I put x usb asked me for a driver or I did not even recognize it, immediately back to the glorious XP sp3
Nestor ... how unfortunate your comment ... it is absolutely normal that the Windows OS the first time you connect a usb device will install the drivers, then this should be faster.
Windows xp operates in the same way as windows 98, 2000, me, etc.
At least in my opinion, the windows 7 home premium is ideal for a netbock, it works for me with a higher speed in regards to the network and it does not give a better performance in all the programs and it provides all the versions that there are of windows but The one that convinces me the most in my work is the windows 7 home premium and the truth is that I recommend you, I can say that this system will completely displace windows xp
haha I tested all the so in a celeron d and look at the fps that I have been shooting in the same game:
Windows 95: It didn't work for me haha.
Windows 98 Upgraded: 65fps
Windows ME: 55fps
Windows 2000: 57/58fps
Windows XP: 70 fps (OO)
Windows Vista ultimate: 30fps :(
Windows 20 ultimate: XNUMXfps :(
Seven is good for those who like the style, just when playing, many open up to realize that the fps decrease or noticeably or something, something that I do not like, for example, are the styles that it brings (that does not let you erase them it just lets you remove the grouping in the taskbar) this was tested on this pc:
Intel Celeron D 3GHZ
1GB ram (at 98)
Geforce FX 5200
Something that I saw that in XP comes a patch for motherboards "Asrock" that makes the startup faster even if they put a timer they realize that seven takes time thanks to its logito to mask haha. Greetings
«The masses install Windows 7 ... we XP Technicians - Professional»
That Windows 7 is a machine that consumes resources and has problems with almost most of the programs and antivirus that were not "fixed" with Microsoft ... just like Vista, a mess.
pss in my opinion win 7 ultimate is very good :) and psss xp lei ke has limitations in terms of technology that if you want to build a makina with more than 4 gb in ram that does not detect it and current windows have support for up to 36 gb de ram bone more technology more support and there are already processors with 6 cores and everyone one day will have the technology in their hands and will have to force themselves to change to win 7 vista not because it is crap, my makinita has a mononucleus processor an athlon and ram It has 2 GB at the beginning I was going to change to xp but win 7 convinced me and I changed to ultimate :), and there are already places where you can get windows and workable for free
Nonsense pure idiots I have an acer netbook with 512 mb of ram and a compaq cq42 notebook with 8 Gigabytes of expanded ram and windows 7 is doing me super well but let's not leave aside my netbook which has windows xp and linux installed in my opinion xp runs faster on my netbook :) greetings
MMMMM well personally I think that Win 7 in security is better than Xp but in Xp compatibility it is even better that I think it is too early to say that Win 7 is slow or fast over time, hopefully it will evolve in fact to My an operating system that has excellent graphics and is more versatile does not serve me if it is slow in applications I prefer one with bad or low graphics but that runs full that if it serves anyone and today's operating systems leave much to be desired for that as users what we need is speed, security and compatibility
in any operating system that is and when saying linux is excellent it is only a matter of getting used to it ... if linux maybe had something similar to win in graphics since it is what people are used to, surely many would change to linux
Well, put it to raving, since it was NETBOKS and Windows in XP or 7 flavor, now I leave my pearl.
My MacBook Pro goes like a shot with MAC OS X Leopard.
There it is.
PS: My HP Mini goes smoothly, better than with the 7 Starter that came from home with Ubuntu 10.04.
It's a pity that there are things that when you mess up "you load up" and there is no way to rebuild it other than in the windows = reinstalling way.
Pfff I think you have a mac just because it's nice and you don't even know how its OS works, because surely for the money you paid for your mac, you would have bought a much better PC in hardware, anyway
It all depends on what you use your pc for
Windows XP is better pork:
1. It is more efficient, the games ask you for double the RAM in the 7k in the windows xp
2. It is compatible with all software, even old ones and new programmers do it.
3. we do not enter the chain of consumerism k sells us a new product every 3 years.
Windoows 7 is acceptable but does not equal XP, the view is a slime
What loqueras are read.
Windows 7 starter may be (is) limited compared to windows ultimate, but it works a thousand times better than XP.
THE only way that widnows XP works fine with 128MB (not 64MB) as the writing says, is that you never update it.
I have installed W7 Ultimate on N amount of netbooks with ATOM 270 cpu (cpu garbage) and it works perfect.
That you prefer to use linux is not a reason for people to be misinformed.
I hate using linux and I don't tell people it's rubbish (only those I trust or fools who think they are SO wise)
I started reading confident that it would clear my doubts, I have finished reading and I am practically the same. Too bad of wasted time.
Windows 7 is good at graphics and simple performance (listen to music, msn, email and facebook and view photos) But when you ask it to run heavy applications:
AutoCad slows down if you don't have at least 3gb of ram and 512mb of video.
Burn a DVD, it still requires a minimum of 3gb so that it takes 45MIN to create dvd with 1gb it takes up to 2 hrs.
When in XP the autocad, only asks: 1.7GH 1gb of ram
128 video (common today)
Those who say that windows XP does not recognize 6 cores and more than 4gb of ram ... they are silly I have a 2 pcs:
Intel Core I7 (6 cores) 8mb cache at 2.8ghz 8gb ram, 500hdd, 1Tb video
and it does not run… it flies….
leave the win7 on the street
Phenom II X6 1055T at 3.2ghz BE
So first test all the machines before you come to offend XP.
P.S. 7 is a combination of the XP system with the view graphics, but its programming base is XP.
It can be said that they continue to use XP but view graphics, with another name ... ha ha ha
The 8 is worse than the view, but they are going to force us
Dec 8, 2011 ...
XP will never die, that's why 74% of users continue with XP, even Microsoft knows it, which is why it continues to sell the XP license until 2020.
1.- that your machine "flies" does not mean that it recognizes all the processor cores.
2.- The windows 7 kernel is not based on xp at all (or nt2k)
"Testing" is not only to see if your program runs faster, but also to show it with figures for disk swap, memory usage, etc.
for me the xp porke:
1. I don't give a damn about graphics
2. I only use the REASON4 rewired with the REAPER and the xp never fails me.
3. my pc came with the realtek driver but in xp I changed it to beringher's ASIO to have less latency.
4. Windows 7 has everything else that I don't need, like my Samsung upstage cell ... so much and I can't use it on another continent
I think a lot of people have misconceptions about xp and seven. First, there is no doubt that seven occupies more resources than xp, on average seven asks for 2 times more resources than xp. If you don't believe me, use a benchmark and you will see. Second, many say that the xp does not recognize multi-cores and it is not true. They also believe that the xp does not recognize more than 4 gigs of ram. If you go to properties you will see that in xp it does not show you more than 4 gigs of ram even if you have 6 gigs. But again do a benchmark test and you will see that xp runs faster with 6 gigs than with 4 gigs. Likewise, when it comes to working with heavy programs xp performs better. Try using photoshop, listening to music and connected to the internet with firefox, messenger and skype ... With xp there is no problem, but with seven you will have to have a strong machine to do the same.
Now if it comes to graphics there are a lot of themes for xp that transform it into something similar to seven spending less resources. I am personally surrounded by computers. At work there are xp and seven and most end up returning to xp. To get a look and be comfortable I love the snow leopard. For every day I use xp because of the number of applications available and the compatibility. When I audit networks I use BT 3 or 4 (those who understand the subject know what it is for hahaha). If I had to choose a single computer it would be an xp with the disk partitioned with the BT 4, for reasons of price and compatibility and efficiency.
Greetings and respect to all
MMM, have there, a lot of blah blah blah and cheers and criticisms for both SO, the question here is that there is not one better than the other if not rather who suits which one ... It is not only which one works better by itself, if not in which computer works best, the performance of a pc depends on both the software and the hardware, it is a "package" to call it somehow. Obviously one will work better than the other but it depends a lot on the resources you have, There are processors made especially for xp and others for W7, the same with graphics cards or other things, some things work here and others there, but not for that one it is better than another, if not that each thing was designated for a system. There is no doubt that for many years xp was the best microsoft system, but it is also a fact that w7 improved enormously with respect to vista and became a strong rival for xp, something that vista could never do and is not even the shadow of its predecessor.
Aki the good thing is that there is already a variety and 2 systems to choose from depending on the resources you have is which one suits you best. Both are very good but not 100% compatible in all user needs, which in the end I think is the most important thing.
The best is the one that best suits you, period.
They bought me a net book and it brought the windows 7 starter and the truth is that it was slow to the limit, the audio was jamming, the video too, you went to you tube and it was impossible, the games were still 10 years old. old they were unplayable, even with 1 gb of ram and 2-thread atom processor they were full, in a cyber they put XP and the truth is that it improved a lot, where I did not like it is that many programs like the new messenger, the office 2010 , etc. They didn't work so I had to use linux-like programs, so one day I got up my courage and installed linux ubuntu from a usb memory and the truth is that with this I am not complaining, it was the best I could do, now I bring my super customized net book with effects, docks, I use the same messenger that I used in xp that was now linux, for high school homework it is enough for me and I have plenty of open office, there are very good games and some online like Urban Terror, I watch YouTube videos without problems sometimes up to HD, there is no antivirus because there is no virus and the main thing I need a program I look for it in the included manager and where there are thousands of programs, games, etc. Completely free and I install it in two clicks, I don't have to spend hours looking for the program on the internet to download it, looking for the crack or keygen etc. in the end, the computer won't even run it.
They cannot recommend an OS like linux denigrating windows for the simple reason that linux for more new versions that it has is still a prehistoric OS, I do not understand how in 2011 the console is still used in linux to install something that in windows it you do with 3 clicks. It is not that I defend windows tooth and nail but I have tried to switch to linux with ubunto with the promises of speed but in what windows it takes me only seconds to do some nonsense in linux it takes me hours for the simple fact of opening firefox to enter to google and search HOW THE HELL DOES THIS THING IN LINUX and read a long tutorial to finally do another search to find out something else to do something so simple. In my personal experience for example it was impossible for me to use pen drives and external hard drives in Ubuntu, which is deadly since I use them constantly. Linux is not recommended, better slow but working pc to have a fast pc and not be able to do anything or spend years until you learn to do something
@Alejandro «I don't understand how in 2011 the console is still used in Linux to install something that you do in Windows with 3 clicks»
It shows that you have not used Linux in your life. And in windows it is not true that you install something with 3 clicks: actually you do like 20 and you have to pray that it does not infect your computer. Have you installed Office? Photoshop? haven't you dealt with license activations? serial? cracks? restart your machine? plus half an hour of installation with plugins and all that? In addition, you have to search thousands of sites on the internet to find the correct application at the risk of running into a fake that turns out to be a Trojan.
On the other hand, in Ubuntu it only takes 2 clicks in the Ubuntu Software Center, and you install OpenOffice and Gimp in less than 20 seconds. You can find everything in one place: the official repositories.
People, you did not read the title »Windows XP vs Windows 7 on netbooks«… I see that there are people who understand more than I do and that several of the users, I say to those people… please let's focus on the topic to be discussed, it really interests me move my eee pc 1000ha netbook to Windows 7, I am only interested because I am about to format and I would like to move to a newer OS. The use that I give to the netbook is only internet, music and office.
I appreciate all the information that you can provide me.
Hello, I have a mini lap aspire one 1.6 with 2 GB of RAM that originally came with Windows XP Home Edition. It was good, but when installing and uninstalling programs, it sometimes generated errors and left residues of them, orphan folders, registry data and things like that. I took it to format with Windows 7 Professional.
I am not a master in this, but the truth is that it was quite slow with Windows 7 Professional in terms of opening folders, windows explorer or entering the control panel and windows options, copying data between folders or between usb drives.
Although his internet browser was faster, in general it was slower, so they formatted it again and I put Windows 7 Starter and it improved a lot in terms of data transfer speed. It installs the programs faster than the professional one, at least in a mini one, but it is quite limited, it does not even allow the background to change.
The battery was spent in 30 minutes on average, with all the brightness down and only surfing the internet, without playing music or things like that. The audio was suddenly blocked, it was fractions of seconds, as if stuttering, quite annoying when listening to music. It was practically XP but with 7 graphics, only there were no problems.
When installing and uninstalling programs it did not leave residues or generate errors and things like that, but it still slowed me down, so they formatted it again to XP Professional, which is the current one and the truth is I have no problem, it runs very well.
One detail is that in Windows 7, both in the professional and starter versions, the use of the cpu remained between 70% and 100%, and the use of ram in 1.2 GB and 1.5 GB and in the XP Professional it remained at CPU usage by an average of 20%, doing the same things as in the 7 starter and with a CPU usage of 50% and in the professional of 70% and constantly raising it to 100%.
In conclusion, I think that if you don't have an athom 1.6 with 1 or 2 GB of RAM, XP would run very well and any version of 7 would run slow and it would cycle if you open several applications simultaneously.
If you have a core duo with at least 2 GB of RAM, you could use a Windows 7 starter. It is limited compared to the professional or ultimate version, which is the most complete, then the Professional follows, but it would run you without problems.
If you have a core duo at least and 4 GB of RAM, any edition of Windows 7 would run without problems, even the Ultimate, which is the best of Windows 7.
In conclusion, depending on the Hardware of your machine, choose a system that runs well.
Well first of all, I have used almost all Microsoft OS, I agree that the much loved Windows XP is an excellent option with not very new or new hardware but limited such in the case of netbooks. Well, my laptop originally came with Windows Vista Home Edition, at first glance they highlighted its sharper effects, its vector graphics and its greater fidelity and firmness of the system, as well as its defects, slower and consumed almost 100% of my memory, I decided to downgrade to Windows XP, my laptop now seemed current ... it ran excellent, the games started fast, I even did dual boot with Ubuntu 9.10 (good system currently discontinued) in short, over the years Windows 7 arrived, it always entered In doubt whether to migrate or not, one day I decided to migrate my laptop, my Windows XP was slow in terms of turning on, Windows 7 installed it took me approximately 30 min or less, much less than a Windows XP. In the end I verified that this system is as seen previously, but with the advantage of being much faster. Another section or disadvantage is that Windows XP 32 bits does not support more than 3 gigabytes of RAM, for obvious reasons of the binary system and the number of instructions supported by this technology (I do not get the XP x64 version because it is crap without drivers) anyway, I installed Windows 7 x64, at least I recommend if you have a laptop a little above the standard it will go great for you, because Directx 10 and 11 for gamers like me is very necessary, personally I like Internet Explorer and 9 is exclusive to Vista and 7, as well as Windows Live Messenger, the new version is exclusive. In conclusion, if you have a micro of at least 1 GHz and more than 2 GB of RAM install Windows 7, you will not regret it. Otherwise, less than 1 GB, try to migrate to XP so your computer will not suffer from deficiencies in terms of Linux. Not that you hate it, but it strives to be a system for geeks, a home user does not have time to learn sudo-apt-get install, or how to use that console, much less to use Open Office (good tool, you need to mature). Those who used Microsoft and Open Office office automation and really WORK LIKE ME IN BOTH will know that Microsoft's is far superior. Also GIMP is for Windows, a lot of Linux software is migrating to Windows, I myself changed Alchol 120 for Daemontools, why? simply because it is free, when Linux their GUI takes things as they should be for home users while preserving their security for the more advanced, then I will migrate, as long as they remain engrossed in their controversy of "linux is better, because it is better" they will never achieve that, ¿ does not have virus? if there are few, but why make viruses for a platform with few users? And with hundreds of distros that each one works as it wants, on the other hand, making viruses for the fashionable Windows is easier. As the phrase "To Caesar what is Caesar's" says. Use the system that suits you best, in the end it is your computers and you decide what to use.
That Linux is a platform with few users? Ha ha ha!!! You are a pesao and you only speak nonsense ...
Hello @Vhas, I will point out 3 things that you have commented on regarding Linux:
· You say that OpenOffice is behind Microsoft ... I will tell you that currently LibreOffice is more widely used and is currently far above OpenOffice, and also has nothing to envy Microsoft office automation. You are a little out of date there, I think.
· You comment that a lot of Linux software is migrating to Windows and it is not. What happens is that a lot of Free Software is 'multiplatform', which means that it can be used both in Linux, as in Windows, as well as in Mac OS X. Without a doubt, a point in favor of Free Software.
· Lastly, you say that Linux is still for geeks and not for home users. You are somewhat wrong, because currently there are distributions, such as Linux Mint, which is also the most used at the moment, which maintains the security and robustness that you claim, and can also be used perfectly by someone who comes from Windows and had never used Linux above (in fact the visual appearance is very similar). You can even install almost any application you can imagine (there are thousands available) from the official repositories with just 1 click (easier than in Windows, mind you!).
Thanks for your comment @Vhas, greetings!
Lxa I think you edited my xP post, thank you, it was sent to me by accident and I didn't have time to remove my spelling horrors and inconsistencies.
I know OpenOffice, it does have quite a few things to envy, for example the "migration" of documents. For example, in my work we use "templates", documents already defined with images, some tables and information. When opening it with OpenOffice. These documents "very many" were out of square, it was what I noticed at first glance, many will say, it was the size of the sheet, margins, etc etc, many solutions were sought, we never found the appropriate one other than to redo that work. When redoing it, accommodating images became almost a way of the cross, since the images behave in a different way, very different from the office automation that everyone already knows, in short, fighting they managed to put the texts where they should go and the images as well. Perhaps it would have been faster if I had had more experience, but that does not mean that OpenOffice is not as intuitive as Microsoft's. How many of us in our life have perhaps never touched a Word but a Windows? and we knew that probably with a double click more options of an object are accessed, the strongest point is "Excel". Many of us have surely seen it work, according to I read there was one that said that it supported 5200 or something like that of cells, asked who uses them? ... Believe it or not I have seen 3000 full cells in a document, if they are used, the best of that Excel is that if you want you can "program" in it, this helps a lot to the "pseudo databases that many companies handle in it" because its syntax varies very little to Visual, in short, personally I prefer Office Maybe not with the $ 5000 Mexican enterprise version, but with the Student, which is more than enough for me.
Migrating Free Software did not give me to understand "migrate" I meant that they finally deigned to release versions for Windows users, There is very good Software and other very garbage, as I said GIMP, daemontools, Amsn, and I do not remember any other For the moment that comes to mind, they are excellent and have versions for us Windows = D, It is convenient not to use Crack Key Gen, or rar files of doubtful origin. That Software is appreciated, even Mozilla (personally I do not use it) I do not use it out of mere habit of using the filthy Internet Explorer xD. Today if it is on par with the others, not like before, and at the moment the only one with GPU acceleration (I don't know if there is a Mozilla plugin)
Regarding the Linux Mint distribution, I had not heard it mentioned, I will investigate about it, I also installed it for my father, who as a home user he uses the computer for little more than chatting, many times he downloads viruses and I have to repair it, also check the requirements of the distro, I will have to investigate.
Most of the "linuxers" stuck with the idea of Windows = "blue screen". Wake up, that Windows 95 and 98 are already left behind, Microsoft also evolved, although their systems surely have a lot of "marketing" for their requirements, it is true, but we are not going to live in a console with 4 MB of RAM 12k of video and 480 hard disk drive, let the first stone be cast by those who do not save MP3s on their computers, who do not like their system to look nice, call it Gnome KDE or Windows. In addition, many of the games that run under "OpenGL" vs "directX" the truth is that they leave too much to be desired, an abysmal performance gap, they will say ... is that the programmers do not optimize them, Ok. That they program for their system, I do not intend to change EVERYONE FROM THE FORUM TO WINDOWS I only pretend that no one is fanatical about any system, only to be objective and know how to determine where to apply a Linux, where a Windows.
Thanks, I haven't been entertained in a blog for a long time =) I will continue here as a spectator only.
@vhas, thanks again for your comments.
I refer you to my previous message, where I said that currently more LibreOffice is used, and not OpenOffice as you insist in your message.
LibreOffice (not OpenOffice) has nothing to envy Microsoft's office automation.
Hello, I was interested in the forum.
I wanted to tell you that I have a government netbook (Argentina) an EXO X352 which is released and everything, since they never activated them hehe. It originally came with Win XP SP3, which is packed with programs. I installed Windows XP Colossus Edition 2 Reload, which works very, very well, now, I bought a 2Gb RAM, with it I changed my OS to WIN 7 ultimate 64 bits, which I see is much better than Windows XP , plus thousands of useful tools and updated drivers. I tell you that it has more video quality, in this little screen now, I was honestly surprised and wanted to leave my experience. Greetings.
Hello, look, I also have that Netbook and the truth is I tell you that you will be excited the first time you put Win 7 on it, because you will see that everything is lighter, at first, but then it will go slower and slower ... I defragment the disk and everything but it did not work for me, I remember that a Prof. from the Technical School who was studying told us that it is better to have Win XP on the Government Net because its Technology, its Architecture is created for that said OS not for nothing comes from manufactures Windows XP and yes, I think it is true that they try to put Win into us. 7 on all Intel Atom Netbooks, and that's wrong. EYE! I mean a Netbook not a Desktop or Notebook PC since its technology is created to support Win 7 and not XP. I also recommend that you put a 32 bit OS so that it works better ... Since the micro is 32 bit and the RAM is a good buy. Greetings.
Hello, I have win7 on a 1 Gb ram compac netbook. It was factory win7 but after a few years it is very slow. I formatted it for a virus and now it is too slow, can someone give me a solution please. Thanks.
hello, have you installed all the pc drivers?
Greetings to all. Great discussion. My point goes:
I have tried XP for many years, Vista for a few and now Windows 7. Ubuntu from 6 ... And I must say that they are all very different.
I like XP, I am a gamer and it runs on any PC. Windows 7 feels fast, but not as fast as XP. (Nothing that can alarm). Where I agree a lot is in Ubuntu vs. Windows.
It is true that Linux is fast, beautiful, and has hundreds of free programs. But ... (and I don't know why) I have never felt "at home" with it ... I feel better in XP and 7. The console takes time away from me (it is not impossible to use at all) but in XP I do everything fast, I know how to move and I'm not in a world that can get lost so "beautiful", as in Linux.
I stick with XP and 7, and Linux when I want (and can) immerse myself in a different world ...
Greetings and respects.
In any Linux distribution aimed at inexperienced users you can do everything graphically, as in Windows, most of the time with menus that are conceptually clearer, ordered and transparent. The console allows us to save time in these tasks, since if we have experience in its use, we can operate our computer simply by typing words instead of searching and clicking after click on menus that take time to load and waste time.
I prefer windows xp xq it is more complete than windows 7 which is very incomplete
Salu2: I have: Intel Atom 2.0Gb RAM 1,66ghz with the original W7 Starter. (Forget HD on this netbook.)
Evaluation: 1) the first 2 months flies. 2) the 3rd and 4th month is a slow wagon. 3) on the sixth a formatting is necessary otherwise it becomes impossible given the slowness.
The pros is that it has a recovery type function that at startup I give it F5 and leave it to you at the factory (format and installation you lose all your data from the hard disk) which comes with the Samsung net.
I would like to know if I install XP, do I lose the Samsung recovery function? Other features I lose? Is the experience with XP faster after 6 months or is it the same? Which version of XP is right for me? And what browser and antivirus (free) do you recommend if I make the change?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALREADY…
June 22, 2016, Windows XP Died in a Slow and Painful Way Before Windows 7 ...
A Penalty, They even advanced the Depletion Eliminating Technical Support and Licenses ...
If You Have A PC With 1GB of RAM and 1.6GHZ Use Wnidows 7 Home Premium, The Best of the Best, and Disable the Effects in »Advanced Options»
If you have a Carbon PC and want to see more FPS than what the Human Eye can see and with defects go to More than 87 FPS Use Widows XP, Now it is a Pandora's Box of Viruses, Trojans and Even the Games give it their Back Before Windows 10 ...