If you hardware does not have full Win7 support then it is "ancient" enough not to run 7 on it. Plain & simple. Use whatever works fo you But do not say X1200 does not work, because it works perfectly under 7 (true, with a bit of tweaking) sebus
Problem is, those tweaks aren't enough to get it to work right. I have S-Video out on my laptop, and for it to work on my TV to where I can actually see anything, I need 640 x 480 resolution. Windows 7 won't let it go that far unless you use the actual ATi drivers. Problem is, you need older versions of the driver to do that. Trust me, I wouldn't have posted a comment on this if I hadn't gone round after round with this thing trying to get it to run just right. Not to mention, it doesn't play well with my wireless card either. In both XP and Vista, you can shut it off using the actual physical switch, or Fn+F8, but not in 7. Neither of those work. You actually have to go in and disable the wireless card. I don't like that. It makes me wonder what other hardware or software it's taken over like that. Yes, Windows 7 can work on my laptop. (and no, it doesn't work perfectly. No way.) No, it doesn't work as well as it needs to, and for my needs. Yes, I've spent countless hours researching the information I require. And really, it's not that big of a deal. If I go back to Vista SP2, big whoop. I was going to be putting a larger processor and maxed out RAM in this beast anyway.
Nonsense! Aspire 5920G is by no means "ancient". But there is just one plain and simple thing in all this: you do sound full of yourself. As if you know everything. You obviously don't. And a bit of humility would do you good, it seems...
Can I get some of what you are on? Seems to be good stuff, but ... I was not even replying to your post gorski (because I did not even read it!), so please chill out! The PC hardware is only as good as the software written for it. So you might have GREAT hardware with non-existing software for a particular OS. In that respect it is "ancient" (note the qutes?) And to use s-video? 640 x 480? Why? Use RGB/HDMI sebus
Sometimes one must use the S-Video - what will one use HDMI with if one is stuck with an old telly? As before: no thinking allowed, hence no qualification in one's statements... Mine is quite new, thank you very much, if you'd care to check... But W7 is newer. And then of course - problems... Always!
*sighs* Thank you, Gorski. At least someone understands. It's amazing how many people just make an assumption and go with it. And you're exactly right. I have an old TV (that still works!) and there's no point in throwing out a perfectly good TV until I have to. Sure, Sebus, I could get rid of it and spend $200+ on a new TV set, $200+ that I don't have right now, but why would I do that? Not everyone can have cutting edge in an instant. And I'm loyal to my laptop. It was well worth the $600.00 I paid for it, and now that I have the chance to upgrade it and still get some more use out of it, why should I kick it to the curb? HDMI/DVI/RGB is great if you can use it, but I can't. And because Toshiba and Microsoft deemed my perfectly good hardware as being obsolete, I (like many others) have been left out. Sure, I can use 7, but some of the features are crippled on it and what good is a media center if you can't even watch video on it? The drivers force the screen to be overscanned and because the ATi Catalyst Control Center doesn't have full functionality in 7 (without those tweaks you mentioned earlier), I can't fix the overscan and I can't see the full screen. Not to mention, there's the LCD overdrive setting for when I'm mobile (can't access that either), and the resolutions only go where 7 want them to go. (800 x 600, 1024 x 768, and 1280 x 800) Windows 7 is supposed to be user friendly, it's supposed to run on Vista qualified hardware, and when it does what it's doing now, there's nothing friendly about it. It took me THREE hours to find a driver that worked, not the correct driver, one that simply worked. I shouldn't have to do that. This is supposed to be Windows for the people, by the people. The commercials all say "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea." well, if that's true, why are people like me being left behind? I understand where you're coming from Sebus, I do, but it's not as simple as just opening your wallet and say "Oooh. Bought." I can't drop that kind of money in an instant, and I know that close to 90% (if not more) of the people here couldn't do it either. Just because we can upgrade doesn't mean we have to, and if we have to jump through hoops to do it, is it really worth it? I'm not angry, I'm not yelling at you, I'm not ranting, so please don't get the wrong idea here. I'm frustrated, in general, and this is me thinking "out loud" while addressing your comments. I love Windows 7, I do, but right now....it's just not the right fit for me, when it comes to this laptop. Fortunately, the HTPC in the living room is brand new and works with 7 just fine (shipped with it) so it's still not a total loss. EDIT: Before you get the wrong idea, my Dad bought the HTPC as a gift, not me. So my statement of not being able to drop dough in an instant still holds true. That's part of the reason why I still have a 566 Celeron powered eMachine from 2000.
Just to add: I had probs with finding some drivers even for Vista - as you read, let alone newest OS on the block, as is always the case, since the newest drivers for Vista, never mind W7, haven't worked... Btw, can you write as much as poss about your HTPC, please? Maybe a new thread? Ta!
Interesting thread. To add my two or three cents: As a person who often uses his PC for actual work (as in more than gaming, chatting and browsing etc.) i must say that from a functional point of view XPSP3 is definitely the best NT-based OS there is. Now when i say 'functional' i do of course not mean the features the OS comes with, (or compatibility, etc.), what i mean is how the OS and its underlying core operates and behaves both 'behind the scenes' and when you as a user interact with it. Obviously this is the most important factor when it comes to OSs, because all the eye-candy and stuff helps you little if the underlying system is so bugridden and so badly programmed that it causes you trouble with your work. And the latter is precisely the case with Win7. The core setup of VSP2 however is still very close to that of XPSP3. In fact i would even go so far as to say that Vista basically is XP, only with a partially rearranged GUI with a new skin plus a new graphic and sound subsystem. (Which of course entailed other changes such as no hardware accelleration, etc.) This close similarity to XP is why when it comes to doing work VSP2 is clearly a way better choice than Win7. Because the composite desktop of Win7, the very heart of the user interface and thus your main workspace, is plain unreliable. Because they have changed and rearranged and added and scrapped so many things in Win7 without even testing whether everything really works that way. Meeting the GA deadline was probably more important. The result is definitely not what a person using their PC for work would call an improvement. On the contrary, you may well end up redoing work for nothing only because Win7 gave you false informations. And this, quite obviously, sucks big time. I know this from experience because it happened to me many times already. So far i have found precisely 2 things in Win7 that were actually better than in previous Windows: 1) When you set Explorer to use single-click there is no delay when you open a folder 2) If you have a 'Computer' toolbar on the taskbar, and you bring a volume online, (like an USB drive or a TrueCrypt volume), there no longer appears a second button for that volume which is then left dead I could, however, list dozens of things that are actually worse than in previous Windows. IMO this just goes to show that they are not concentrating on whats really important, while most of whatever efforts they do make to 'improve' the OS actually have the exact opposite effect...
There's really not much to tell, but I can post the info on it. Where would I do that? ...that actually makes a great deal of sense. Once you explained it that way, it really does make more sense to me. Sadly, because I like Windows 7, I have to say you're right. I went ahead and reinstalled Vista (SP2 and all current updates), and all of my hardware works as it's supposed to and while it's a bit slower than 7, it's actually stable. I've had no crashes either. So, Vista it is for me.
Please do it in W7 section, as - for instance - "HTPC under W7" and let's see as much as possible, please...
I had used the both vista sp2 and windows 7 but I felt that I am very much comfortable with windows 7 rather then vista version. Vista is having a lot of security question even if you just open up a word document. I felt little bit hard to use it. Windows 7 is very smooth, very easy and their is more flexibility in it. I like its new feature and its look.
W7 would be great but for micro-freezes everysooften and then one loses parts of what one types, some drivers are non-existant, some apps are not written for it, Win Explorer has bugs etc. etc. In my case, the only way to get a fully functional laptop was V SP2, sadly...
I currently have a fully updated Windows Vista, SP2 installation on my laptop. All of my peripherals and internal hardware work as they're supposed to. I'll admit, the difference in speed between Vista and 7 is noticeable, but with Winbubbles tweaking the system, the computer's gained a large increase in speed and stability. I do know that I'll end up having to go back to 7 sooner or later, however. Because they'll drop support for Vista, even with Service Packs, sooner than we realize. I don't want to be left out in the cold. As of right now, Vista's working for me (though once I upgrade the processor and the rest of the RAM, it should run even faster and better) and I'm going to stick with it. I wanted to test a theory I had, so me and my Dad spent the afternoon yesterday, installing Vista on our Compaq HTPC. The results were not what we expected. -Vista installed blazing fast (first time I had ever had that happen). -The Diamond/C-Media 7.1 surround sound card did not function fully in Vista, even though we had the correct drivers (and there were several revisions we had downloaded.) -The GT220 worked remarkably well and without any hiccups or problems. -The USB transfer rates were terribly slow. (My Maxtor external hard drive took close to an hour to transfer about 30 GBs of data to the internal, whereas it only took about 15-20 minutes in 7.) -The overall system performance (even with tweaks in place) just plummeted like a rock as the hours went on. So, we went back to 7, reinstalled everything, and the difference was like night and day. I really don't get it. It's amazing how one PC can jump through hoops with it, while the other just kinda tries to be 7 ready.
no difference between Vista SP2 and Windows 7 performance-wise.But I think that a fair comparison would have had to involve Windows XP RTM and Windows Vista RTM, not the evolved versions of the two operating systems.
Lucky you, the only few times I tried Vista it was just a pain, never had such problems with 7 on any hardware (at least 8 different ones) I put it on so far sebus
Could not DISagree more, the best NT-based OS was with no doubt Server 2003 R2! (also used as workstation) sebus
If you don't know the history behind it then I'll tell you the story. Vista is failed version of the Microsoft and for the resolving all the problem Microsoft made a revised version of the vista which is Windows 7 and it is lighter then vista and more powerful. So now you can decide what should you choose for you. Still my vote is for windows 7.
Mine, too. As soon as the proper drivers and apps are written for it, so our machines would be fully functional with W7, as I described above, from the keyboard onwards...