What happened to Microsoft?
- Thread starter twall
- Start date
Mini Motors
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Threads
- 8
- Messages
- 226
I wouldn't consider the Atom processor low spec, although it is much slower than a full sized laptop with an Intel, Celeron, or AMD processor. Most netbooks don't get over 2 ghz, so by a strict definition, it is probably low spec as computers go, but probably not by netbook standards.
The laptop I referred to is a Centrino Duo 2.5 ghz, certainly not low spec in it's day, and no slouch today. It's funny how quickly technology advances so quickly.
RobertBrown
Lawn Addict
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Threads
- 33
- Messages
- 1,279
That was my laff 4 2 day
Makes sense and it struck me as funny, I'll send you my wheat pennies......
Mini Motors
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Threads
- 8
- Messages
- 226
twall
Lawn Addict
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
- Threads
- 78
- Messages
- 1,628
Probably just the way you worded it - but the Atom is an Intel processor. :laughing:
My little Sylvania has an Intel Atom running @ 1.67 GHz, with 512 MB RAM. (whereas my laptop with Win 7 has a 64-bit AMD C-50 1GHz with 3 gigs RAM) Where it's bottlenecked is no doubt in the RAM. These specs are right in XP's comfort zone, so it should run fine, but it's still a tad Win 98 sluggish. I'm going to see if I can double the RAM - that'd help, it IS upgradeable. What is making it seem so sluggish is the fact Win 7 is so fast and clean, to my original point.
To the defense of what Slater was saying, these computers were XP spec'd, yet the manufacurers insisted on puting Vista in them, just so they could say they had it (since netbooks got really popular about the time Vista came out).
However, a 'memory hog' does not a good OS make, Slater. I wouldn't call them inferior or low-performance machines, they just didn't upgrade the hardware to match the software. They cheaped out. My netbook is XP-spec'd, and they USED XP! :wink:
More to my point, XP is downright ANTIQUE compared to Win7. I'm wondering, Mini, how much RAM is in your netbook? If it spec'd out like a typical one, should be around 512MB -1 Gig. If you can run Win7 with 512 MB RAM/1.67GHz 32-bit (or 1 Gig RAM with a 2GHz 32-bit, if you have a really sexy one), I am further impressed - which was my original point. :biggrin:
Mini Motors
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Threads
- 8
- Messages
- 226
Without booting it up and looking, I think it has 2 gb. It is a Sony with just about everything. Even GPS. And that's the one thing I'm having trouble getting to reliably work since the 7 upgrade. I found a forum for, among other small computing devices, these netbooks, even broken down by brand. Pocketables.net. Great resource. It was there that I learned of the bad mix of Vista and the Atom processor.
But let's face it, Vista was just a bad O/S. I had 3 machines with Vista, and truth be told, I never experienced what many have, the "blue screen of death"(a phrase BTW, which came about because of Vista). Just before Vista graced my front door, I had heard about driver issues, so I took steps to get the right drivers for my add-ons and never had an issue. The desktop fried a motherboard from a power supply issue. It was replaced under warranty, and the replacement had XP!
I don't know if this is true, but the story I heard was that there was a race between 2 teams at MS, started about the same time, for what we now know as Vista and 7. Obviously Vista won, but it would seem at a cost. Makes sense to me.
But let's face it, Vista was just a bad O/S. I had 3 machines with Vista, and truth be told, I never experienced what many have, the "blue screen of death"(a phrase BTW, which came about because of Vista). Just before Vista graced my front door, I had heard about driver issues, so I took steps to get the right drivers for my add-ons and never had an issue. The desktop fried a motherboard from a power supply issue. It was replaced under warranty, and the replacement had XP!
I don't know if this is true, but the story I heard was that there was a race between 2 teams at MS, started about the same time, for what we now know as Vista and 7. Obviously Vista won, but it would seem at a cost. Makes sense to me.
Not sure where you are getting all your information but first about the Atom. The Atom processor is low spec and has always been low spec no matter which way you look at it and which iteration you have. I have had 2 netbooks and one media center and the whole tech industry (except those trying to sell it to you :laughing
will tell you that it is a low spec processor. The only way that they can be relatively useful is paired with a SSD and your always maxed at 2-4GB of RAM. Celeron processors were junk back in the day giving them a bad name, but they have gotten better. Processor speed is not everything, not by any stretch. The processor manufacturers want us to believe that but when it comes down to it, there are many more important specs that GHz. My 1.2Ghz Pentium 4 runs Vista better than my 1.6Ghz Atom will. Vista was NOT a bad O/S. It was before its time for the hardware industry in terms of what people wanted to pay. Consumers needed to pay closer to $1k for a good machine to run Vista properly and manufacturers were selling $400 computers with the bare minimum require to run Vista. Vista was also built from the ground up so it was expected to have some setbacks and was in coding development for a long time. The BSOD was around way before Vista and 95% of the time it is user error or hardware malfunction, NOT Windows Software.
Vista was built in a sequence the same way that just about every manufacturer and software developer operates. While Vista was in production, a team was working on W7 and actually on W8. While W7 was being finalized, a team was already working on W8 and on whatever comes next. Intel does this with all of their processors. They have teams that are continually collaborating but working on the next thing.