What others think of your Laptop? :: Operating system on a new Dell Latitude


	Operating system on a new Dell Latitude Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or Vista? BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough for Vista? ;-) Am Sat, 12 May 2007 09:56:05 +0200 schrieb Enrico C: > Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or > Vista? I would personally go for Win XP Pro, as I do not really see the advantages of Vista over XP. Vista might work fine, but I read a couple of reports that the running time of laptops can be significantly lower with Vista compared to XP. Partly this might be because drivers have to be adjusted and optimised to the new OS in the coming months, partly it might be because the 3D-chipset has more work to do on a Vista machine with Aero enabled. > BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough > for Vista? ;-) It depends on what you intend to use the laptop for. Yet for most applications that's sufficient, I would say. Andreas -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- xp would be the choice, Vista may work on the laptop but you could have problems with other devices like printers, pda's, ipod etc... "Enrico C" <use_replyto_addr@devils.com> wrote in message news:1iycgwsj6tb3f.dlg@news.lillathedog.net... - Hide quoted text - > Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro > or > Vista? > BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be > enough > for Vista? ;-) 1. Personal choice 2. Yes, that's fine for Vista; if any of that is borderline short, it's the CPU (you need to specify the CPU type also, e.g. Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, Celeron, etc.) - Hide quoted text - Enrico C wrote: > Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or > Vista? > BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough > for Vista? ;-) Enrico C wrote: > Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or > Vista? > BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough > for Vista? ;-) It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months with a Service Pack. As for equipment and software that won't work, when I (reluctantly) switched, it happened. However, everything is now fully functional, and Canon gave me a deep discount on a replacement multifunction machine that wouldn't migrate to Vista. We make jokes about being beta testers for Microsoft, but Vista is here to stay and eventually virtually all of us will use it. -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- - Hide quoted text - Ike wrote: > Enrico C wrote: >> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp >> Pro or >> Vista? >> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be >> enough >> for Vista? ;-) > It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new > computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious > advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there > now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months with > a Service Pack. Exactly what "serious advantage?" -- Notan -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- - Hide quoted text - Notan wrote: > Ike wrote: >> Enrico C wrote: >>> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp >>> Pro or >>> Vista? >>> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be >>> enough >>> for Vista? ;-) >> It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new >> computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious >> advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there >> now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months >> with a Service Pack. > Exactly what "serious advantage?" Good question, and I can provide only a partial answer. There are more complete answers on the net, and most experts agree that Vista is (1) better and (2) here to stay. 1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since 3.1, Mac back to Lisa). I find it easier to move things around, find what I want, etc., and far prefer the visuals of Vista, even over Mac. 2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is intrinsically more secure. 3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible. XP compatibility will fade. 4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using the same processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly configured, and that's personal experience. -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- - Hide quoted text - Ike wrote: > Notan wrote: >> Ike wrote: >>> Enrico C wrote: >>>> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp >>>> Pro or >>>> Vista? >>>> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be >>>> enough >>>> for Vista? ;-) >>> It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new >>> computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious >>> advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there >>> now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months >>> with a Service Pack. >> Exactly what "serious advantage?" > Good question, and I can provide only a partial answer. There are more > complete answers on the net, and most experts agree that Vista is (1) > better and (2) here to stay. > 1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since 3.1, Mac > back to Lisa). I find it easier to move things around, find what I want, > etc., and far prefer the visuals of Vista, even over Mac. > 2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is intrinsically > more secure. > 3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible. XP compatibility will > fade. > 4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at > multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using the same > processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly configured, and that's > personal experience. I just got a Dell D520 Latitude Core 2,SXGA video, 1.66MHz, 2 GB (1GB from Dell (single DIMM) and 1GB from online source because it was much cheaper than DELL. I selected XP because I was use to it. It is plenty fast for XP. I have played with 1.66MHz dual 2 core platforms with 1GB and VISTA for word processing, excel, Access Data Base, music, web and photo browsing. Plenty fast. This was with the Intel graphics platform using standard DRAM (533MHz). I have always found that more memory gives better performance than clock speed and memory is WAY cheaper. Check out what options Dell offers and their DRAM prices. I paid $10 extra to get their 1GB as 1 DIMM rather than two 512MB DIMMS. Memory is alway cheaper via other sources (Mine was DDR2, 633MHz). It takes about 5 minutes to install the DIMM memory. Very easy. I got a 120GB drive but it runs only at 5400 rpm. It should be cooler and use less power. I had a 7200 rpm drive on my old Gateway laptop vs its original 80GB 5400 rpm drive. I can't say I noticed much difference with it running under XP with 1GB. If money is an issue I would go for more memory first, then a dedicated video card, then a faster processor and last a faster HD. I don't do games on my laptop. Just my opinion. Multitasking is not a big deal but Vista is better than XP for this and the more memory the better. So what to do? If you intend to keep the laptop for a couple years I would go with VISTA, that is the trend, and for sure get 2GB memory. I must say I have VISTA on my 2.66MHz P4 w/1GB desktop and it works fine. I may get another GB for it. As people get use to VISTA it will become mainstream. I will be getting a new laptop in 6 months and by then the Santa Rosa Intel platform will be offered by all PC vendors and off course Apple. -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- Notan said: > Exactly what "serious advantage?" Yeah, it LOOKS prettier. Don't you know most people will choose on that basis! Why choose XP, after all it doesn't have 3-D bubbles nor the 'beautiful' shiny spherical look!!! Isn't it amazing how BIG corporations have learned to give 'treats' to ADULTS, treat them like children and the suckers will buy it! Use lots of primary colors, make interfaces cartoon like, splash with 3-D bubbles and you'll have a smash hit!! We've turned into a nation of fools. ___ "Notan" <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in message news:brednR0668UWYtjbnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@giganews.com... - Hide quoted text - > Ike wrote: > > Enrico C wrote: > >> Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp > >> Pro or > >> Vista? > >> BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be > >> enough > >> for Vista? ;-) > > It will eventually be Vista, so why not get it "free" with the new > > computer? Vista is stable and works very well, and has serious > > advantages over XP. There are many million Vista computers out there > > now, and whatever bugs they found will be resolved in a few months with > > a Service Pack. > Exactly what "serious advantage?" > -- > Notan On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:06:49 -0700, David wrote: > I have always found that more memory gives better performance than clock > speed and memory is WAY cheaper. I think a 7200 rpm HD, rather than 5400 rpm, is a better-for-the-buck upgrade too. A slow HD can be the real bottleneck, IMHO. -- "And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech". (Genesis 11,1) -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:38:03 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote: > 2. Yes, that's fine for Vista; if any of that is borderline short, it's > the CPU (you need to specify the CPU type also, e.g. Core Duo, Core 2 > Duo, Celeron, etc.) Let's say a "D820 Intel Core Duo T5500 (1.66GHzm 667 MHz) with integrated Intel GMA 950" (whatever an "integrated GMA" is! :-) -- "And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech". (Genesis 11,1) -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:28:56 -0700, Ike wrote: > 1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users tipically think the best interface is the one they are used to ;D > 2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is > intrinsically more secure. That might be a good point, especially for new users, who are not experienced and risk the most. > 3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible. Tipically old users have "old" (not brand new, at least) software and hardware, and they are not eager to pay for an upgrade just to make their old software or hardware "Vista-compatible". > XP compatibility will fade. In how many years? I guess no less than four yrs. > 4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at > multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using > the same processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly > configured, and that's personal experience. That's interesting, thanks for sharing! -- "And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech". (Genesis 11,1) -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- I don't know that I agree with that. Certainly a 7200 rpm drive is faster than a 5,400 rpm drive. But there is a huge cost premium. 5400 rpm drives are made up to 200GB, while I'm not even sure that you can get a 160GB 7200 rpm drive. And while a 5400 rpm 160GB drive is under $100, a 160GB drive with a 7200 rpm speed is almost $300. So you need to think long and hard about going for a 7200 rpm drive, because it's really going to cost you. - Hide quoted text - Enrico C wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:06:49 -0700, David wrote: >> I have always found that more memory gives better performance than clock >> speed and memory is WAY cheaper. > I think a 7200 rpm HD, rather than 5400 rpm, is a better-for-the-buck > upgrade too. A slow HD can be the real bottleneck, IMHO. I *think* that T5500 is a Core 2 Duo and not a Core Duo (different processor families ... Core 2 Duo is somewhat better (about 15%)). GMA is "Graphics Media Accelerator" ... it's Intel's integrated chipset video. GMA 950 is actually pretty good for anything other than gaming, although GMA X3000 is better (this only exists in the brand new, just released this week "Santa Rosa" chipset, aka "Centrino Pro"). - Hide quoted text - Enrico C wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:38:03 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote: >> 2. Yes, that's fine for Vista; if any of that is borderline short, it's >> the CPU (you need to specify the CPU type also, e.g. Core Duo, Core 2 >> Duo, Celeron, etc.) > Let's say a "D820 Intel Core Duo T5500 (1.66GHzm 667 MHz) with integrated > Intel GMA 950" (whatever an "integrated GMA" is! :-) Re: "That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users typically think the best interface is the one they are used to" Right click on the Vista "Start" button, and select "Classic Start Menu" (which also gives you "Classic Desktop"). Suddenly, you will like Vista a *LOT* more, it looks functionally more like Windows 98SE (with all of the eye candy ....). It is a LOT more friendly, and a lot more useable. There are even more settings to make it's interface even more XP/98SE like buried a bit deeper and in control panel and Tools/Folder Options, but I don't remember where all of them were. - Hide quoted text - Enrico C wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:28:56 -0700, Ike wrote: >> 1. To me, the Vista human interface is superior (Windows since > That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users tipically think the best > interface is the one they are used to ;D >> 2. The guru articles that I've read claim that Vista is >> intrinsically more secure. > That might be a good point, especially for new users, who are not > experienced and risk the most. >> 3. Virtually all new software is Vista-compatible. > Tipically old users have "old" (not brand new, at least) software and > hardware, and they are not eager to pay for an upgrade just to make their > old software or hardware "Vista-compatible". >> XP compatibility will fade. > In how many years? I guess no less than four yrs. >> 4. RAM is now cheap, and Vista on a 2GB machine is far better at >> multi-tasking than XP on a 2GB machine, assuming both are using >> the same processor. I have both on my desktop, similarly >> configured, and that's personal experience. > That's interesting, thanks for sharing! Enrico C wrote: > Which OS would you ask for on a new Latitude (possibly D820), Win Xp Pro or > Vista? > BTW, would a 1,66GHz processor + 2 GB ram + 100GB 7200rpm SATA HD be enough > for Vista? ;-) I just got a Dell D620 for a relative, and helped set it up, and I reluctantly decided to go for Vista. There are pros and cons. The con is that for some of the hardware devices there are no Vista drivers, so they use XP drivers. Vista gets very upset about this. I spent about an hour on the phone with Dell Tech support last night trying to get the Bluetooth working. It actually worked out of the box, until I tried to do file transfers to another Bluetooth PC, then it went spastic and insisted that the drivers were not loaded. I downloaded the drivers, went through the installation, it said they were loaded fine, then immediately went back to telling me that the drivers were not loaded. Dell took remote control of the notebook, and essentially did the same thing I did. There is still a yellow bang in device manager for Bluetooth, but it seems to be working. Dell says that the yellow bang is because Vista sees a non-Vista driver. The first pro that I've noticed is that searching for files is much faster. -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOS@neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:464729d3$0$4890$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... - Hide quoted text - >I don't know that I agree with that. > Certainly a 7200 rpm drive is faster than a 5,400 rpm drive. But there is > a huge cost premium. 5400 rpm drives are made up to 200GB, while I'm not > even sure that you can get a 160GB 7200 rpm drive. And while a 5400 rpm > 160GB drive is under $100, a 160GB drive with a 7200 rpm speed is almost > $300. So you need to think long and hard about going for a 7200 rpm > drive, because it's really going to cost you. > Enrico C wrote: >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:06:49 -0700, David wrote: >>> I have always found that more memory gives better performance than clock >>> speed and memory is WAY cheaper. >> I think a 7200 rpm HD, rather than 5400 rpm, is a better-for-the-buck >> upgrade too. A slow HD can be the real bottleneck, IMHO. One thing I would like to see numbers on for systems that will support it is VISTA with 4Gbyte DDR2 vs 2Gbyte DDR2 memory system performance. -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- Barry Watzman wrote: > Re: "That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users typically think the > best interface is the one they are used to" > Right click on the Vista "Start" button, and select "Classic Start Menu" > (which also gives you "Classic Desktop"). > Suddenly, you will like Vista a *LOT* more, it looks functionally > more like Windows 98SE (with all of the eye candy ....). It is a LOT > more friendly, and a lot more useable. > There are even more settings to make it's interface even more XP/98SE > like buried a bit deeper and in control panel and Tools/Folder Options, > but I don't remember where all of them were. Barry -- this is terrific!!! Do you know where someone has posted a reponsitory of "even more settings"? -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- On Sun, 13 May 2007 11:11:39 -0400, Barry Watzman wrote: > I *think* that T5500 is a Core 2 Duo and not a Core Duo (different Right you are: "Core 2 Duo". It was a slip-up of mine. -- "And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech". (Genesis 11,1) -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- On Sun, 13 May 2007 15:02:56 +0200, Enrico C wrote: > Let's say a "D820 Intel Core Duo T5500 Sorry, I meant "Core 2 Duo T5500". -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- I found them on my own poking around in Control Panel. - Hide quoted text - Ike wrote: > Barry Watzman wrote: >> Re: "That may fine for "new" users, but "old" users typically think >> the best interface is the one they are used to" >> Right click on the Vista "Start" button, and select "Classic Start >> Menu" (which also gives you "Classic Desktop"). >> Suddenly, you will like Vista a *LOT* more, it looks functionally >> more like Windows 98SE (with all of the eye candy ....). It is a LOT >> more friendly, and a lot more useable. >> There are even more settings to make it's interface even more XP/98SE >> like buried a bit deeper and in control panel and Tools/Folder >> Options, but I don't remember where all of them were. > Barry -- this is terrific!!! > Do you know where someone has posted a reponsitory of "even more settings"? none wrote: > Isn't it amazing how BIG corporations have learned to give 'treats' to > ADULTS, treat them like children and the suckers will buy it! Use lots > of primary colors, make interfaces cartoon like, splash with 3-D bubbles > and you'll have a smash hit!! > We've turned into a nation of fools. Goes some way to explaining how certain Prime Ministers and Presidents (now including France) get elected. -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- "Ike" <binarydot@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4645cb2e$0$4693$4c368faf@roadrunner.com [snip] > We make jokes about being beta testers for Microsoft, but Vista > is here to stay and eventually virtually all of us will use it. Hardly! I give Vista 4 years at best and it will be in the same boat as the rest of the other Microsoft OS has-beens. And for me personally, I wait until years after a MS OS is released before I will run it. Like just last year, I moved from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. The reason being is that the bugs are mostly gone and the hardware caught up to run it well. Thus I don't see myself running Vista until 2010 or 2011. ;) -- Bill -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- "none" <nos@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message news:RTD1i.8401$B25.4044@news01.roc.ny > Notan said: > Exactly what "serious advantage?" > Yeah, it LOOKS prettier. Don't you know most people will choose on > that basis! Why choose XP, after all it doesn't have 3-D bubbles nor > the 'beautiful' shiny spherical look!!! > Isn't it amazing how BIG corporations have learned to give 'treats' to > ADULTS, treat them like children and the suckers will buy it! Use lots > of primary colors, make interfaces cartoon like, splash with 3-D > bubbles and you'll have a smash hit!! > We've turned into a nation of fools. You don't need Vista for this. Just something like Aston Shell will give you this under Windows XP. http://www.astonshell.com/aston/ And then slap on a Vista theme http://themes.astonshell.com/495/ -- Bill -----------------------------------------------Reply----------------------------------------------- On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:12:57 -0500, BillW50 wrote: > wait until years after a MS OS is released before I will run it. Like My rule of thumb is: wait SP2. :-) -- "And the whole Earth was of one language, and of one speech". (Genesis 11,1)