Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 10:45 PM

The problem is that there has been so much development of the 'upmarket' versions that old things break. The manufacturers also pull new stunts, so that the new Toshiba V20s won't install either.

There are specific designed low resources versions, and you can always build any non supplied extras, but you need to know the line between the minimal 'extras' and the luxury 'extras' which need a whole bundle more resources.

The more recent builds of Ubuntu and Fedora are fairly high end, intended more for modern machines, and becoming less capable of use on very old machines. Anything below a P5 is now in the 'very old' class.

I've still got a full height 10 Mb drive in my cupboard... :-)

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 10:17 PM

You may be right about the specs but we come down to the definition of "older." The machines which have not accepted Ubuntu are all Pentium 4's with speeds of greater than 1.5 ghz. Memory has been 500mb or greater.

As people have, in the past, talked about the wonderful adaptability of Linux, especially Ubuntu, to older machines I find the endorsement lacks credibility when the sytem fails to install and we are then told that the instructions are not user friendly.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: Tootler
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 03:24 PM

I have not been satisfied with Ubuntu as it seems to resist loading on my computers.

If you are trying to install a recent version of Ubuntu on an old machine, that's not surprising.

When I first installed Ubuntu it was Ubuntu 8.10 and it installed and ran fine on a PC with 384 MB of RAM. The last upgrade on that computer was to 10.04 and although the upgrade when through alright the computer started to slow down, not a lot but noticeable.

Although minimum CPU spec and memory requirements given here are pretty low, Ubuntu 8.10 refused to install on my old laptop which had just 128 MB of RAM. There are versions of Ubuntu for low spec machines but you may need to hunt a round a bit as they seem to have hidden them somewhat. Alternatively if you are able to go the Linux way, then there are Linux distros designed specifically for low spec computers.

I am very happy with Ubuntu overall. It is not perfect; as Joe Offer said earlier no OS is but I would not go back to Windows now.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:59 AM

Funny, when I bought my 386 machine a while back, we thought a 40 mb hard drive was big. Now, we're talking RAM that's 100,000 times as large--and needed to handle the programs.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 04:27 AM

That's called 'Marketing Placement' Jon ...

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 04:12 AM

Have just looked at a table on Wikipedia. It seems all 32 bit versions of Windows 7 are limited to 4GB.

64 bit versions are interesting memory ranges from 8G in Home Basic to 192 in Ultimate pro. I find it hard to imagine that the lower ones are not wilful clobbering rather than the higher one being an enhancement...

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 03:56 AM

I'm really not sure whether it's worth running 64 bit versions. I've got a 32 bit version of OpenSuse running on Pip's machine for compatibility with the scanner. Her PC is a similar spec to mine which runs 64 bit and I don't notice any difference in performance running the programs we use.

I understand there was a problem with Windows and trying to access more than 4GB RAM (Linux has had good PAE support for years, allowing 64Gb RAb RAM on 32Bit) but I don't know if that is still a problem and personally, I've never had or needed more than 4Gb.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 11:27 PM

I have not been satisfied with Ubuntu as it seems to resist loading on my computers. I have used Explorer, Firefox and Google search engines, as well as a variety of word processors.

Otherwise I agree with youse guys.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 10:24 PM

"offers the ability to run a "true virtual OS" emulating one of the older versions and that compatibility with older software is much better in the Win7 virtual machine than with prior similar trickery. ("true" may have a different meaning at Microsoft than in the real world?)"

My old games, especially the Microsoft ones bought for Win 9x will not work on Win 7 Home Premium. After much fartsing around, the only info I could find is that you need the 'Professional' versions.

A Machine that will run Win2000 will probably not like Win 7 - too old hardware.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:49 PM

I have to say that I enjoy using Win 7 more than XP, but I really don't mind Win 7, Vista, or XP, or Ubuntu. All seem to be pretty good operating systems. All have some flaws.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:37 PM

I had the opportunity yesterday to use a laptop with W7, home edition. The user of the machine had been fighting another laptop that I had provided for him with XP Pro for over two years. He needed to have a computer to access files for his art work.

He finally gave it up and bought a new machine. This machine seems compatible with both his cable provider and him. He has suddenly gone from being a computer resister to a low level user. One more rescued from trogdom.

I believe this seamlessness is by design. As I commented elsewhere, even in my hands, 7 feels friendlier than XP.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:25 PM

It's only the expensive "Professional" versions of Windows 7 that include emulators of Windows XP. There is a "compativility mode" setting that accommodates software designed for some (not all) operating systems.
I have 64-bit Windows 7, and it won't run some software designed for 32-bit systems. I think that's what causes me more problems, the difference between 32 and 64 bits. I lost a favorite scanner because of that. It won't run on a 64-bit system.
I've heard that there are problems upgrading to Windows 7 on systems earlier than Windows XP, but that you can do a "clean install."
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:36 PM

Reports are that Win7 offers the ability to run a "true virtual OS" emulating one of the older versions and that compatibility with older software is much better in the Win7 virtual machine than with prior similar trickery. ("true" may have a different meaning at Microsoft than in the real world?)

What is not revealed in the advertising is which version(s) of Win7 include that capability. I haven't dug deeply, since it's not likely to be a concern in any near term, but haven't seen any clarification from Microsoft. One apparently knowledgeable advisor (non-Microsoft, if that's not redundant with knowledgeable) stated that only "Win7 Ultimate" (the highest priced one) actually includes the virtual machine capability.

If you have programs that may be questionable with respect to Win7 compatibility you might want to study the VM possibility a bit while deciding which version to get.

While the VM capability has be touted as a good solution for legacy software, I haven't seen anything claiming that it will save incompatible hardware. It might, but nobody I've seen has said it in print.

Beginning with Vista, all installation disks are claimed to include all versions of the OS they install, so that you can upgrade by paying the money to get an "unlock code" without having to get new disks (It's called "Instant Upgrade" I believe); but it's probably a little cheaper to get the version that's best for your needs at first purchase if possible.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:33 PM

Joe, two special applications I need for my work don't operate in the Linux universe. And I can't change vendors of those applications or go to "equivalent applications", for economic and/or practical reasons too great to go into here.

And GUEST,Jon, I thank you, thank you, thank you. Even though it will be more expensive to buy Windows 7, and the change will be greatly involved, I see now that I MUST change the OS.

My question is answered.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM

I'd probably change the OS. Win 2000 does not even have security updates now (wikepedia says it ended July 2010) and driver support will get harder and harder.

Subject: RE: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:19 PM

Gee, Dave, I think I'd be tempted to put Ubuntu or some other iteration of Linux on the Win 2000 NT computer. You're going to run into more and more things that are incompatible with NT.

-Joe-

Subject: Tech: New wireless adapter or new OS?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:06 PM

I'm installing a wireless local area network at home, and I'm faced with a problem.

One computer is a Dell Inspiron 560 desktop, running Windows 7. I have installed a refurbished Linksys E1000 N router. So far, so good.

Yesterday I received a refurbished Linksys AE1000-RM wireless adapter, which seems an ideal partner for the router. HOWEVER . . .

Per instructions, I ran the CD for the adapter before connecting cables. But I immediately got a window telling me that my OS was incompatible with the adapter. I had Windows 2000 NT, and the adapter had to have XP with SP3, or Windows 7, or (you should pardon the expression) VISTA.

Economically, it would seem to be best to buy a different adapter, one that is compatible with Windows 2000, and that would avoid the massive job of copying off all the data on that computer,installing a new OS (probably Windows 7), copying back the data, and reinstalling all the programs. Those that would run on Windows 7.

Howsomever, though looking through Amazon and Tiger Direct and other sites shows me a plethora of adapters in reasonable price ranges, nowhere have I found information about the respective adapters' ability to work with Windows 2000 NT, nor whether they are on the G or N protocol.

Does someone have (hopefully) wise words of advice for me?

Dave Oesterreich