Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Usb 2.0

  1. #11
    Multiple User ChuckE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    289
    Version
    IrfanView 4.37
    OS
    64-bit Win 7 Professional SP1
    CPU Cores
    8

    Default

    Although I have ALWAYS said that whatever MS states as the minimum configuration, that you should double that, (IE. xMHz speed, better make that 2xMHz; yMB of memory, better make that 2yMB) I believe that the numbers coming from MS in regards to Win7 are in error. The reason I believe they have their inflated numbers (something no less than what they stated for Vista) is that they are trying to avoid the "egg on their face" that Win7 is not requiring a step-up in all hardware departments.

    I am pretty sure that Win7 will work just hunky-dory of your laptop. Else I would not have suggested it.
    I wish to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather.
    Not like those passengers, in his car, when he drove over that cliff.

  2. #12
    Professional User Skippybox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit, MI USA
    Posts
    2,030
    Version
    IrfanView 4.25
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Home SP2
    CPU Cores
    1

    Default

    Well, I decided against the upgrade for a couple of reasons. For one, MS actually did not recommend XP users to upgrade. Two, the space requirement was still too steep 16GB+15GB (for WindowsXP mode), which is beyond my 20GB HDD. Even barely running it at 16GB would have been pretty useless, unless I bought a new drive for my programs.

    Considering I already needed RAM upgrades (which were still insufficient), probably graphics upgrades (which were impossible), and processor upgrades, it just looked better to stay with my fine system and buy a new computer later that would work way better for the price. I need to find a replacement anyway, since I'm sure the other parts won't last forever, even if I upgraded. Besides, I need better video performance anyway for my files.

    I also would have had a problem with the download, since it would take all day to get, even on basic DSL. And the ISO is for a DVD, but my computer can't burn DVDs, only read them. So, someone else would have had to do that for me.

    All in all, it would have been a great effort, without much guarantee of a reward.

  3. #13
    Advanced User matera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    3 miles below poverty level
    Posts
    1,383
    Version
    IrfanView 4.44
    OS
    64-bit Linux Distribution
    CPU Cores
    4

    Default

    If all you can get into it is 512MB RAM, get the 2x256 and stick with XP for now. It's a good OS. The realistic minimum for Vista is 2G. It would probably crawl like a stomped worm with 512 or less, though your processor makes mine look puny. I'm sure 7 is no sparer of memory; every new version of Windwoes wants twice what the last demanded. My now-retired XP machine sailed over everthing except manipulation of large images with 512. It's headed for a new job -- part-time office work -- for which it is moderately overqualified.
    Its: Belongs to "It"
    It's: Shortened form of "It is"
    ---------------------
    Lose: Fail to keep
    Loose: Not tight

    ---------------------
    Plurals do not require apostrophes

  4. #14
    Multiple User WellOiledPC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    380
    Version
    IrfanView 4.30
    OS
    64-bit Win 7 Ultimate/Enterprise SP1
    CPU Cores
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckE View Post
    Although I have ALWAYS said that whatever MS states as the minimum configuration, that you should double that, (IE. xMHz speed, better make that 2xMHz; yMB of memory, better make that 2yMB) I believe that the numbers coming from MS in regards to Win7 are in error. The reason I believe they have their inflated numbers (something no less than what they stated for Vista) is that they are trying to avoid the "egg on their face" that Win7 is not requiring a step-up in all hardware departments.

    I am pretty sure that Win7 will work just hunky-dory of your laptop. Else I would not have suggested it.
    Windows 7 does work very well with 1 GB RAM. 20 GB HDD is cutting it too fine though - my installed Windows 7 Folder alone is a little over 10 GB. Not much you can add, by way of essential software, in the remaining space!

    The debacle that was Windows Vista is only ONE of half a dozen reasons for Windows 7 being named so. Yes, Windows 7 is being written so that it can run reasonably well on Netbooks: with Windows XP being phased out, MS MUST have a suitable OS for the Netbook and Vista simply cannot be the chosen one, thanks to its (resource) drinking habits!

    BTW ChuckE, another hijacked thread?
    Last edited by WellOiledPC; 30.08.2009 at 07:36 AM.

  5. #15
    Multiple User ChuckE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    289
    Version
    IrfanView 4.37
    OS
    64-bit Win 7 Professional SP1
    CPU Cores
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WellOiledPC View Post
    ...BTW ChuckE, another hijacked thread?
    no, not at all. I was conversing with the originator of the thread, Skippybox, and his original problem was his experience with his slow experience with USB 2.0. I mentioned that Sony laptops are not rated in my "fast column" but I suggested that if he goes to the Win7 he might get a better experience. Even though Win7 requirements, from MS, are high, I dispute them. It is my impression that Win7 will work on PCs that are very much under the suggestions from MS.

    So, hijacking this thread? not even, not when talking to the originator of the thread, when going the direction that the originator steers you to.

    What's your point? Are we good?
    I wish to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather.
    Not like those passengers, in his car, when he drove over that cliff.

  6. #16
    Professional User Mij's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Camberley, Surrey, UK
    Posts
    2,763
    Version
    IrfanView 4.51
    OS
    32-bit Win 10
    CPU Cores
    3

    Default

    Well I don't like to break in on your nice little discussion of the latest operating systems but I doubt that it has much to do with the original question.
    The issue was about why an elderly computer designed to handle USB1 could not achieve USB2 speeds, even though a USB2 interface board had been fitted.

    The speed of any transfer is always limited by the slowest part of the data path which could be a function of either hardware or software. Just because the path between interface board and accessory can achieve USB2 speeds does not mean that you will achieve that speed all the way from the computer internal memory. To achieve USB2 throughput there were major speed improvements to the bridge architecture within the processor and the chips that handle the PCI bus. There were probably changes to the BIOS too to support the 2 DMA interrupts of USB2 rather than the single one that USB1 needed. Remember that computer hardware speeds were doubling every 18 months, and that is not just the processor. It is all the chips in there.

    I would imagine that the necessary upgrades to the operating system for USB2 were already in place in kernel 5.0 (windows 2000) and definitely by 5.1 (Windows XP). So the idea that the changes from 6.0 to 6.1, Vista to Windows 7, will have much effect on USB2 speed does seem pretty unlikely to me.

    I think you need to upgrade the computer not the operating system.

  7. #17
    Professional User Skippybox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit, MI USA
    Posts
    2,030
    Version
    IrfanView 4.25
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Home SP2
    CPU Cores
    1

    Default

    I don't think anyone has to worry about hijacking a thread. This is what I wanted, a diverse response on the topic. Any and all responses are welcome towards solving this problem. I am appreciative of the advice regardless of whether it delivers or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by matera View Post
    The realistic minimum for Vista is 2G. It would probably crawl like a stomped worm with 512 or less, though your processor makes mine look puny.
    What processor is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mij View Post
    I think you need to upgrade the computer not the operating system.
    I probably have to agree with Mij. Hardware may be great at the time, but is still no match for the pace of technology advancement. Upgrading single components is a far-fetched thought nowadays, especially with prices dropping so much.

    So maybe a new computer is in order, even if mine isn't crawling yet. I just wonder if I don't actually need Windows 7, should I install the slimmer XP on a new machine? With its overwhelming popularity, it doesn't look like it will be eliminated for quite awhile.

    Can anyone recommend which notebook I should try this time to get faster performance, rather than a new Sony?

  8. #18
    Multiple User WellOiledPC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    380
    Version
    IrfanView 4.30
    OS
    64-bit Win 7 Ultimate/Enterprise SP1
    CPU Cores
    6

    Default

    So its settled that Skippybox does not consider this thread hijacked.

    If you are looking at a Notebook (as opposed to a Netbook), HP still sells the maximum numbers worldwide, at about 20%. Dell follows, with around 15%. Here is a quick link to some Market Research findings by an Austin, Texas-based MR firm called DisplaySearch, with the tag line, "the worldwide leader in display market research and consulting"... http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde...QNB_SFR_PR.asp I would have preferred IDC's figures, but knowing IDC (I wrote over 250 MR Reports for them, over the 5 years I worked with them!), its not like them to give away free information over the web, in person, over the phone, or any other manner of communication!

    My experience with HP has been very, very good too - bettered only by IBM, but then IBM is now Lenovo and the difference definitely shows!!!

    Dell is pretty good too - I am currently on a 2 1/2 year-old Dell Latitude, it has never required the services of their Service Center...

    None of these will look as good as a Sony, they will not cost as much too! However, I suggest you wait till Windows 7 begins shipping with Notebooks, before getting your new Notebook!
    Last edited by WellOiledPC; 01.09.2009 at 06:32 PM.

  9. #19
    Professional User Skippybox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit, MI USA
    Posts
    2,030
    Version
    IrfanView 4.25
    OS
    32-bit Win XP Home SP2
    CPU Cores
    1

    Default

    Any particular reason to wait? If I buy now, I can try Vista and get a Win7 disc for free when it comes out from the manufacturer.

    Actually, I am worried about durability. All the notebooks (even many Sonys) I've looked at seem really flimsy now, whereas my Sony is quite solid from 8 years ago. Part of this is due to cost, but also bigger screen sizes. The Apples have a metal casing which really helps, but obviously I don't want an Apple. Panasonic makes ToughBooks for business, but they are expensive! Am I overreacting, or has anyone broken one of these things?

    I know someone who had a Dell, but it died after only 2 1/2 years. Someone else still has a Sony older than mine!

    Price may drive sales, so I don't know if that really is something to go on. I would like performance, but does that mean I will have to sacrifice reliability to get it? I guess another brand would be worth it, if I get the same cost/year of ownership out of it, even if didn't last as long.

  10. #20
    Multiple User ChuckE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    289
    Version
    IrfanView 4.37
    OS
    64-bit Win 7 Professional SP1
    CPU Cores
    8

    Default

    I lean toward a particular brand, Dell, and I have had very good luck with them. I have a 3 Dell laptops and at least a half dozen Dell desktops. I have also had Gateway, Sony, HP, and at least a few no-names. Dell no longer has particular good support (they used to be the best ... but, no more) I suppose it is good that I have had very few Dell problems.

    For prettiness and what appears to be a very featured laptop I like the HP (which is also Compaq now) and the Sony, but in my experience (I support a number of home users in my area) I have never been happy with the strange issues that seem to happen on those two brands. As for Gateway, I am really dissatisfied with their support and their hardware.

    When people ask me what to get, I try to steer them toward Dell, but I also tell them that almost any known brand computer you buy will probably be good, and it is the luck of the draw if it dies early. Also usually, if it lives through the standard warranty period it will probably last as long as you'll need (and I don't suggest extended warranties unless it is, or almost, free). But my biggest recommendation I have, for those people, is to just buy the brand that seems to have all the bells and whistles that you are looking for, for the price you are willing to pay.

    Suggestions for bargain, deal, and coupon code discounts - I really recommend gotapex.com and bensbargains.net. Those websites do not sell items, them only give you a "heads up" on currently available deals. (Check often, because many deals are just there for a couple days, then they're gone. In that case, just check tomorrow..

    Good luck on anything you buy. By the way, there are deals around, like Skippybox mentioned, that will include a free upgrade to Win7 when it comes out. Dell even has a deal where you buy Vista, and they give you a free "downgrade" for WinXP, PLUS, when Win7 comes out you will get that DVD at that time. So you get 3 operating systems. This is very useful for the small business person who may not know if the apps they're running right now on WinXP will run on Vista, or even Win7 when it come out.
    I wish to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather.
    Not like those passengers, in his car, when he drove over that cliff.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •