Installing windows xp on core i5 430m system

[shuresh]

Hello All,

I would like to know if I can install Windows XP on a laptop which has core i5 450m processor (Dell Inspiron 15R).

Thanks in advance.

Manju P.

 

[FALC0N]

You might as well say that to XP. It has something that was the start of super fetch in vista and the improved version in 7. Called prefetcher.

Seems XP waste as much memory as much vista and 7 :lol:

The prefetcher actually had impressive performance. Superfetch, not so much.

And your arguing that XP had the prefetcher, Vista/7 have superfetch, therefore XP is bloatware too? Doesn't work that way.

Now your saying just XP is the best ever. No, Ubuntu the best ever.

Anyways, as stated before. thats a personal option. Not a fact.

Xp is certainly the most popular but not the best. So no, people will not admit XP is the best. Get it though your head.

Sorry, I was non-specific. I meant best MS OS ever.

No its not a "personal opinion". Microsoft has been trying to kill XP and it just wouldn't die. Thats because users love it. That speaks for itself.

 

[FALC0N]

I can place two factors for XPs popularity that are hard to ignore:
1. It was the best MS operating system for the home user for half a decade.
2. It was released in a boom time.

Once again there are many OS candidates with as good or better circumstances and none developed XP's following. It is the fundamental weakness in every one of these arguments. None of these issues is unique to XP and yet none of the others experience XP's following.

 

[FALC0N]

As for running XP, I guess if someone wants to run a dinosaur OS and claim its the best ever, that's his privilege. I ran XP32 and XP64 for many years on my office computers, but I upgraded the XP64 to Vista and gave away my XP32 computer a week ago. I need lots of power, ram, versatility, etc, and XP doesn't provide for the my needs......

XP represents 50% of the current OS installs. Did I miss a T-REX running around somewhere? I didn't think so. Therefore your analogy in invalid.

Needed lots of power, ram, veratility, etc, and XP didn't provide? Really? Perhaps who would care to share exactly what 7 gives you that XP doesn't.

This what everyone here does. They say "7 is sooo much better" or "it makes me sooo much more productive" or they spew off a bunch of MS marketing gibberish. But nobody seems able to actually explain what it is they couldn't do with XP but can do with Vista/7. "I like shinny string" is a perfectly valid reason to switch, but it doesn't make for a better OS.

 

[FALC0N]

Windows XP is still so popular because Windows 7 has been on the market for only around six months, and Vista was launched with numerous bugs that took some time for them to sort out. Windows Vista never really recovered from the poor reputation it gained at launch from the bugs present in the OS not to mention all the buggy drivers that were out at the time (Nvidia and Creative spring to mind).

Vista had a poor rep because it wasn't as good as its predecessor. Why everyone feels the need to sugar coat this is beyond me.

Better multicore support resulting in better system performance with multicore and mutlithreaded CPUs. We've got six core CPUs here now for desktop machines, and with HyperThreading that's support for up to twelve threads. We've got machines with more than 4GB ram, Windows will use Superfetch to further improve system responsiveness and performance. We've got SSDs that dramatically improve system performance and Windows 7 has been optimised for SSDs, right out of the box.

Yet anther paragraph that looks like it was yanked straight out of MS marketing.

I know this all sounded great when you posted it, but XP is STILL faster. What good is all this if its still outrun by a 9 year old OS?

The start menu, having a small search bar down there is incredibly useful too. In XP if I wanted to hunt for an application I only occasionally used (rather than something I use regularly, which would have a shortcut handy) I'd go into the programs section and search it down. In Windows 7 I just type the first few characters of that application's title and the system finds it for me instantly. The same if I need to quickly find a document. It's a simple addition that makes a big difference.

The new taskbar in Win7 also allows me to work with multiple apps a lot easier as well. If I'm listening to music in WMP for instance, and I want to access the controls I just hover the cursor over the WMP icon and I can access the controls right from there. If I want to access more sophisticated controls for WMP, or for another program like Word, or IE or any other application that has been coded to support the feature then I can just right click the icon. I can perform many simple tasks in programs this way, without actually having to bring the program up. It's just done from the taskbar. I can rearrange the icons on the taskbar if I want to. Positioning the cursor over an icon gives me a thumbnail display of that application, allowing me to more easily find what I'm after. If I have multiple windows of a single application open then I just put my cursor over the icon and it'll show me a thumbnail for all the windows for that application allowing me to easily select the one I want.

This user interface stuff is a matter of personal preference. I don't need programs and files spoon fed to me, so I don't use features like that. But many do, and I am glad you like the new interface. But that is not a core OS function. Its bells and whistles. It works for you, and thats fine.

 

[runswindows95]

The main reasons I'm ditching XP, and going to 7 on my new system:

1) Way better 64-bit support. XP-64 WAS a beta because it never made it to the OEM market, i.e. the general public. It was a way for Microsoft to test a 64-bit OS.
2) 7 handles multi-core processors way better. I can even tell a difference between XP and Vista. When XP was written, the CPU market was all about Ghz, not cores.
3) Built-in support for SATA III, SSD's, and DX 11. I don't know about the rest, but Vista/7 is way easier to install on a SATA drive than XP. I always end up making SATA run on IDE mode to get XP to install without any headaches, especially on laptops. How many people have a floppy anyway? I do, but I haven't used it in ages.

As much as I love 98, 2KPro, and XP, even I know when it's time to move on to a new OS. Far as XP and netbooks, the ONLY reason Microsoft did that was so they could sell their OS on a netbook, and not have Linux take over the netbook market. No way people would buy a netbook with Vista on it.

 

[coastie65]

Hello All,

I would like to know if I can install Windows XP on a laptop which has core i5 450m processor (Dell Inspiron 15R).

Thanks in advance.

Manju P.

It is highly unlikely. You may find some graphics drivers for XP and maybe others, but it is very very unlikely you'll find any chipset drivers for XP. That also goes for the desktop motherboards with the P55 and X58 chipsets. Once you step into the Core i world, XP is history.

 

[FALC0N]

The main reasons I'm ditching XP, and going to 7 on my new system:

1) Way better 64-bit support. XP-64 WAS a beta because it never made it to the OEM market, i.e. the general public. It was a way for Microsoft to test a 64-bit OS.

No it doesn't. What can you do with 7/vista 64 that you cant do with XP 64? Notice how everyone who says this garbage, and there are a lot of them just like you, heard about it or used it 5 years ago. Why don't you guys stop repeating 3rd hand rumors as fact.

I use it and I know people who use it, and not one of them/me agrees that these are issues anymore. I'm not saying go buy XP 64. But if you have it, you really don't need to waste $100-300 to upgrade.

2) 7 handles multi-core processors way better. I can even tell a difference between XP and Vista. When XP was written, the CPU market was all about Ghz, not cores.

This is the type of statement that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Yes Vista/7 make more efficient use of multiple cores, but its still slower. Its like the Phenom vs the core 2 quad. Yes the Phenom was more multi-core efficient, but in the end it was still inferior.

And yes, multicore did exist at XP's launch. It just involved multiple sockets.

3) Built-in support for SATA III, SSD's, and DX 11. I don't know about the rest, but Vista/7 is way easier to install on a SATA drive than XP. I always end up making SATA run on IDE mode to get XP to install without any headaches, especially on laptops. How many people have a floppy anyway? I do, but I haven't used it in ages.

These issues are expected in an older OS as MS is always loading the latest drivers in their OS of choice. This is not an issue with the OS per se. And quite frankly, they are not a problem if you know what your doing. Which is a theme I keep running across here. Maybe I'm just better than I give myself credit for.

As much as I love 98, 2KPro, and XP, even I know when it's time to move on to a new OS. Far as XP and netbooks, the ONLY reason Microsoft did that was so they could sell their OS on a netbook, and not have Linux take over the netbook market. No way people would buy a netbook with Vista on it.

In other words, XP was up to the task and Vista wasn't.

Its just amazing how you guys post stuff like this that SUPPORTS my positon and you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas.

 

[FALC0N]

It is highly unlikely. You may find some graphics drivers for XP and maybe others, but it is very very unlikely you'll find any chipset drivers for XP. That also goes for the desktop motherboards with the P55 and X58 chipsets. Once you step into the Core i world, XP is history.

I decided to time how long it would take me to find the XP drivers for the stated chipsets (rounded to the nearest 15 sec).

For his laptop: 2 minutes 45 - that includes finding what chipset he had to begin with.

For the X58: 3 munutes 30 sec

For the p55: 1 munute, 20 sec

This included XP 64 drivers also.

Yes coastie65, its really unlikelly :lol:

And people wonder why I get frustrated at people for posting garbage. What are you doing? Just making stuff up?

 

[coastie65]

I believe XP Pro had an OEM Version 64 bit out and possibly retail. It was definitely beyond Beta 7 had been released. Anyway, I have a desktop running XP MCE 2005, a Laptop Running Vista Home Premium ( 32 bit ) and this Desktop running Vista Home Premium ( 64 bit ) and I said I would never run Vista. I am actually liking it. Lots of stuff in it that I like, and yes, some changes I don't like.

 

[FALC0N]

I don't remember seeing an XP 64 retail and I wouldn't get it new now unless your getting a low resource system. But it developed into a very stable and usable system once Vista 64 showed up. I would use it over Vista 64, but not 7 64. Not if I was buying now anyways.

 

[coastie65]

I decided to time how long it would take me to find the XP drivers for the stated chipsets (rounded to the nearest 15 sec).

For his laptop: 2 minutes 45 - that includes finding what chipset he had to begin with.

For the X58: 3 munutes 30 sec

For the p55: 1 munute, 20 sec

This included XP 64 drivers also.

Yes coastie65, its really unlikelly :lol:

And people wonder why I get frustrated at people for posting garbage. What are you doing? Just making stuff up?

Nope, just a bad assumption on my part. Wouldn't think they'd waste time on XP drivers for the P55 & X58 Chipsets. I have two unused XP installations ( Home w/SP3 & MCE 2005 w/ SP2b ) maybe I'll set up a dual boot in this thing. Only use 3 Gb of memory though because of the 32 bit factor. Guess it isn't so unlikely.

 

[FALC0N]

Nope, just a bad assumption on my part. Wouldn't think they'd waste time on XP drivers for the P55 & X58 Chipsets. I have two unused XP installations ( Home w/SP3 & MCE 2005 w/ SP2b ) maybe I'll set up a dual boot in this thing. Only use 3 Gb of memory though because of the 32 bit factor. Guess it isn't so unlikely.

Sorry, that was frustration more targeted at others. You were just a target of opportunity.

You will see XP drivers for a long time. The install base is huge and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. As long as people use it, there will be support for it. All bets are off after 2014 (the date MS ends security updates), but until then...........

 

[warmon6]

The prefetcher actually had impressive performance. Superfetch, not so much.

And your arguing that XP had the prefetcher, Vista/7 have superfetch, therefore XP is bloatware too? Doesn't work that way.

Um 2 things:

1 you do know what prefetcher does right? practically same exact thing as Superfetch does. Preload boot files and frequently used apps in the ram. Making the system feel snappier and faster.

2. i never argued about xp had prefetcher and vista/7 had superfetch, Im saying there practically one and the same. Prefetcher was the start of superfetch.

Sense you were saying windows vista and 7 are bloatware because of memory usage, and Xp has this same basic feature, so it has to be bloatware as well. So it does work that way.

No its not a "personal opinion". Microsoft has been trying to kill XP and it just wouldn't die.

Saying "what is best" is a personal option. If it is best OS MS produced then why is some people saying other wise? Hmmm because it not the best? Bingo! If it is the best for a fact, they wouldn't bother arguing with you but it not fact. It's an option thats like saying,

SAAIELLO has the best knowledge of computers, Mousemonkey is the best mod on the forums, or that crysis is the best game ever made.

All of those are not fact, There an option. (not true options of mine. just need examples )

Thats the same logic your saying with XP. There no 2 ways around it.

Now if you were saying XP is the most widely used, no one can oppose that. it is true that there are more people are using XP than any other OS atm.



Yeah microsoft been "trying" to kill xp. Not really. If they really wanted to kill xp, they would of stopped support a long time ago. Now if they really wanted to get nasty, they could send a patch that you couldn't stop and it would cause your wonderful experience with xp to drop like a rock.

Now that would lead to lawsuits, but im just saying. If they really wanted to, they would of done it.

Thats because users love it. That speaks for itself.

Are you sure that everyone that has windows XP loves it? I think not....

Most people dont really care whats on there computer whether is xp, vista, 7, OS X, Ubuntu, DSL (linux, not internet), ect . As long as it's a functioning PC that they can check there email or use word like programs. thats what the majority of people i know think of computers. there what make up most of the sales in computers, whether it's hardware, software, or an OS.

Vista had a poor rep because it wasn't as good as its predecessor. Why everyone feels the need to sugar coat this is beyond me.

We been talking about mainly 7...... not vista. While it is true xp was better than vista, it's not the case with 7.

I know this all sounded great when you posted it, but XP is STILL faster. What good is all this if its still outrun by a 9 year old OS?

You got proof of that? Seams like to me (at least the feel) 7 much faster on the same system than xp.

This user interface stuff is a matter of personal preference. I don't need programs and files spoon fed to me, so I don't use features like that. But many do, and I am glad you like the new interface. But that is not a core OS function. Its bells and whistles. It works for you, and thats fine.

I think it's good for people that are less technical to have an Easier to use UI.

For me, i dont really care for either. I adapt easily and quickly to a something new . Like how i was trying out Ubuntu 10.04 LTS like 2 weeks ago. Learning how things worked and also tested how well or better F@H worked in ubuntu (which was a pain in the butt to set up as Ubuntu removed a paticular code that's required to run F@H on 10.04. At least a user on the F@H forums had solve the problem. ) it's just fun to learn new stuff.

 

[coastie65]

I don't remember seeing an XP 64 retail and I wouldn't get it new now unless your getting a low resource system. But it developed into a very stable and usable system once Vista 64 showed up. I would use it over Vista 64, but not 7 64. Not if I was buying now anyways.

I have seen OEM, but not retail. The Vista Home Premium 64 bit I have in here is pretty darned stable ( guess they've had time to get the bugs out ). For the most Part, Win 7 64 is sounding good from what I've seen. May run it in dual boot in here. I have a desktop running XP MCE 2005 and that is enough XP around here.

 

[coastie65]

Sorry, that was frustration more targeted at others. You were just a target of opportunity.

You will see XP drivers for a long time. The install base is huge and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. As long as people use it, there will be support for it. All bets are off after 2014 (the date MS ends security updates), but until then...........

No problem. It can get frustrating when people like me don't do their homework and I usually do. As I always say, never assume. Don't know why anyone would want to install XP on a machine with a P55 ( LGA 1156 Socket ) or X58 ( LGA 1366 socket ) anyway. Probably would have searched as you did, but I didn't take the time as I was chasing spammers on another site that I mod ( PCWorld.com ).

 

[FALC0N]

Um 2 things:

1 you do know what prefetcher does right? practically same exact thing as Superfetch does. Preload boot files and frequently used apps in the ram. Making the system feel snappier and faster.

2. i never argued about xp had prefetcher and vista/7 had superfetch, Im saying there practically one and the same. Prefetcher was the start of superfetch.

Sense you were saying windows vista and 7 are bloatware because of memory usage, and Xp has this same basic feature, so it has to be bloatware as well. So it does work that way.

Thats like saying Windows 98 and XP both access Hard Drives at boot, therefore they must be the same. Common principles does not equal common application or results.

And yes I know what the prefetcher does. And it works well. But it limits itself to boot processes. Superfetch extends this function to applications, and does so poorly. I can toggle Superfetch with no noticeable difference. I notice when I turn off the prefetcher, and so does anyone who uses windows 2000 which does not have the prefetcher.

Saying "what is best" is a personal option. If it is best OS MS produced then why is some people saying other wise? Hmmm because it not the best? Bingo! If it is the best for a fact, they wouldn't bother arguing with you but it not fact. It's an option thats like saying,

SAAIELLO has the best knowledge of computers, Mousemonkey is the best mod on the forums, or that crysis is the best game ever made.

All of those are not fact, There an option. (not true options of mine. just need examples )

Thats the same logic your saying with XP. There no 2 ways around it.

Now if you were saying XP is the most widely used, no one can oppose that. it is true that there are more people are using XP than any other OS atm.

XP as the best OS can be empirically measured. Its best liked, its commonly "downgraded" to by businesses and users alike, its considered the most stable or second to windows 2000 which is the same basic OS, it has lasted longest, it actually usurped its successor on netbooks which is a MS first, it remains the most used OS 3 1/2 years after the release of TWO successors, Its both measurably faster AND less resource intensive despite common core features than TWO successors which has never happened before, and the mere fact that this type of debate, which is surprisingly common, was a complete non-issue with every OS prior to XP.

The point is, by any reasonable historic measure, XP is Microsofts greatest OS to date. This is undeniable. Merely dismissing all of this to user complacency or unwillingness to buy or try something new just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Now maybe Win 7 or some other future OS will change that down the line, but for now its pretty clearly at the top of the heap.

Yeah microsoft been "trying" to kill xp. Not really. If they really wanted to kill xp, they would of stopped support a long time ago. Now if they really wanted to get nasty, they could send a patch that you couldn't stop and it would cause your wonderful experience with xp to drop like a rock.

Now that would lead to lawsuits, but im just saying. If they really wanted to, they would of done it.

Microsoft is not in the business of pissing off customers. But the fact is, they would not have ended mainstream support when they did if they didn't want to move on. There is little money in continuing support for XP. But there is clearly a market for it. If this was a market decision and not financial, they would not be in extended support right now.

Are you sure that everyone that has windows XP loves it? I think not....

Most people dont really care whats on there computer whether is xp, vista, 7, OS X, Ubuntu, DSL (linux, not internet), ect . As long as it's a functioning PC that they can check there email or use word like programs. thats what the majority of people i know think of computers. there what make up most of the sales in computers, whether it's hardware, software, or an OS.

There is truth to what you say here. But like I said, compare to XP's predecessors or even its successor under the same circumstances and the standing of XP becomes clear. It is the best liked OS in MS history over time. Thats a fact.

You got proof of that? Seams like to me (at least the feel) 7 much faster on the same system than xp.

7 saw lots of tests head to head against both XP and Vista and yes XP was faster. Not huge, but it was there. Was much better than Vista though.

I think it's good for people that are less technical to have an Easier to use UI.

For me, i dont really care for either. I adapt easily and quickly to a something new . Like how i was trying out Ubuntu 10.04 LTS like 2 weeks ago. Learning how things worked and also tested how well or better F@H worked in ubuntu (which was a pain in the butt to set up as Ubuntu removed a paticular code that's required to run F@H on 10.04. At least a user on the F@H forums had solve the problem. ) it's just fun to learn new stuff.

I'm not saying 7 is bad by any means. There are some really cool features there. Its more of a compliment to XP that it merits comparison to 7. Just that if you already have XP, you don't really need to drop $100-300 on an upgrade.

And yes, a fresh look is a perfectly good reason to upgrade as well. I just take issue with people who drool over 7 like they were upgrading from DOS 4.

 

[kg4icg]

Thats like saying Windows 98 and XP both access Hard Drives at boot, therefore they must be the same. Common principles does not equal common application or results.

And yes I know what the prefetcher does. And it works well. But it limits itself to boot processes. Superfetch extends this function to applications, and does so poorly. I can toggle Superfetch with no noticeable difference. I notice when I turn off the prefetcher, and so does anyone who uses windows 2000 which does not have the prefetcher.

Saying "what is best" is a personal option. If it is best OS MS produced then why is some people saying other wise? Hmmm because it not the best? Bingo! If it is the best for a fact, they wouldn't bother arguing with you but it not fact. It's an option thats like saying,

SAAIELLO has the best knowledge of computers, Mousemonkey is the best mod on the forums, or that crysis is the best game ever made.

All of those are not fact, There an option. (not true options of mine. just need examples )

Thats the same logic your saying with XP. There no 2 ways around it.

Now if you were saying XP is the most widely used, no one can oppose that. it is true that there are more people are using XP than any other OS atm.

XP as the best OS can be empirically measured. Its best liked, its commonly "downgraded" to by businesses and users alike, its considered the most stable or second to windows 2000 which is the same basic OS, it has lasted longest, it actually usurped its successor on netbooks which is a MS first, it remains the most used OS 3 1/2 years after the release of TWO successors, Its both measurably faster AND less resource intensive despite common core features than TWO successors which has never happened before, and the mere fact that this type of debate, which is surprisingly common, was a complete non-issue with every OS prior to XP.

The point is, by any reasonable historic measure, XP is Microsofts greatest OS to date. This is undeniable. Merely dismissing all of this to user complacency or unwillingness to buy or try something new just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Now maybe Win 7 or some other future OS will change that down the line, but for now its pretty clearly at the top of the heap.

Yeah microsoft been "trying" to kill xp. Not really. If they really wanted to kill xp, they would of stopped support a long time ago. Now if they really wanted to get nasty, they could send a patch that you couldn't stop and it would cause your wonderful experience with xp to drop like a rock.

Now that would lead to lawsuits, but im just saying. If they really wanted to, they would of done it.

Microsoft is not in the business of pissing off customers. But the fact is, they would not have ended mainstream support when they did if they didn't want to move on. There is little money in continuing support for XP. But there is clearly a market for it. If this was a market decision and not financial, they would not be in extended support right now.

Are you sure that everyone that has windows XP loves it? I think not....

Most people dont really care whats on there computer whether is xp, vista, 7, OS X, Ubuntu, DSL (linux, not internet), ect . As long as it's a functioning PC that they can check there email or use word like programs. thats what the majority of people i know think of computers. there what make up most of the sales in computers, whether it's hardware, software, or an OS.

There is truth to what you say here. But like I said, compare to XP's predecessors or even its successor under the same circumstances and the standing of XP becomes clear. It is the best liked OS in MS history over time. Thats a fact.

You got proof of that? Seams like to me (at least the feel) 7 much faster on the same system than xp.

7 saw lots of tests head to head against both XP and Vista and yes XP was faster. Not huge, but it was there. Was much better than Vista though.

I think it's good for people that are less technical to have an Easier to use UI.

For me, i dont really care for either. I adapt easily and quickly to a something new . Like how i was trying out Ubuntu 10.04 LTS like 2 weeks ago. Learning how things worked and also tested how well or better F@H worked in ubuntu (which was a pain in the butt to set up as Ubuntu removed a paticular code that's required to run F@H on 10.04. At least a user on the F@H forums had solve the problem. ) it's just fun to learn new stuff.

I'm not saying 7 is bad by any means. There are some really cool features there. Its more of a compliment to XP that it merits comparison to 7. Just that if you already have XP, you don't really need to drop $100-300 on an upgrade.

And yes, a fresh look is a perfectly good reason to upgrade as well. I just take issue with people who drool over 7 like they were upgrading from DOS 4.

Alright Elmo, it's time to stop egging people on, this has gone far enough.

 

[coastie65]

:lol: I guess it doesn't matter what board you happen to be looking at, you get some pretty lively discussions on this matter. I remember the XP vs Vista wars over at PCW ( actually more Vista bashing than anything ). I was running XP MCE 2005 and it was serving me well. I said I would never run Vista. Well I still have my XP machine, but have two more both running Vista Home Premium ( 1 is 64 bit ) and actually like it. Win7 seems to be getting some good comments from users so far. although at the beginning, there was some not so good stuff ( mostly driver related ).

 

[MarkG]

Win7 seems to be getting some good comments from users so far. although at the beginning, there was some not so good stuff ( mostly driver related ).

I just got my new laptop so I've only been using Windows 7 (aka Vista++) for a couple of hours, but I already hate UAC. It's a good idea, but a lousy implementation; it doesn't really tell you enough to figure out what application is trying to do what, and on several occasions I've had an application just stop and then realised that there was a minimised UAC window on the task bar... in fact that probably explains why I had to abort a game install part-way through when it stopped installing anything.

On the plus side I haven't seen it take two minutes to copy a 2MB file as I did on my friend's Vista system, and after more than a decade it's finally got a 'no to all' for overwriting files when copying. But you _still_ can't specify that when you start copying, so when you copy 150GB from one PC to another you have to wait an hour until it finds a file it's going to overwrite before you can actually say 'no, don't overwrite any files'... I left it copying overnight and got up this morning to find it sitting at the 'do you want to overwrite this file' dialog with 7,500 files still to go.

Not as horrible as my experiences with the original Vista, but I still don't see much benefit over XP.

 

[coastie65]

I just got my new laptop so I've only been using Windows 7 (aka Vista++) for a couple of hours, but I already hate UAC. It's a good idea, but a lousy implementation; it doesn't really tell you enough to figure out what application is trying to do what, and on several occasions I've had an application just stop and then realised that there was a minimised UAC window on the task bar... in fact that probably explains why I had to abort a game install part-way through when it stopped installing anything.

On the plus side I haven't seen it take two minutes to copy a 2MB file as I did on my friend's Vista system, and after more than a decade it's finally got a 'no to all' for overwriting files when copying. But you _still_ can't specify that when you start copying, so when you copy 150GB from one PC to another you have to wait an hour until it finds a file it's going to overwrite before you can actually say 'no, don't overwrite any files'... I left it copying overnight and got up this morning to find it sitting at the 'do you want to overwrite this file' dialog with 7,500 files still to go.

Not as horrible as my experiences with the original Vista, but I still don't see much benefit over XP.

I have UAC enabled, but so far it hasn't proven to be all that intrusive and behaves itself for the most part. I joke over on another forum that I'll be stepping up to Win7 about the tiome they are coming out with Win9. :lol:

 

[MarkG]

I have UAC enabled, but so far it hasn't proven to be all that intrusive and behaves itself for the most part.

The odd thing is that I think it should be more intrusive, so instead of minimising the UAC window so you don't realise it's there, it wouldn't let you continue until you answer the question .

Though I guess there are issues either way, doing that wouldn't allow you to check what processes are running to see whether you should let it do whatever it's trying to do, etc.

The other thing is that it's incredibly ugly after I do answer the question: the whole screen seems to go black for a split second before I get the desktop back.

(BTW, this is kind of on topic as the laptop is an i5 430M; so far I'm quite impressed as in my brief tests it seems to run Conan and Fallout 3 pretty well with a Geforce 330M card).

 

[coastie65]

The odd thing is that I think it should be more intrusive, so instead of minimising the UAC window so you don't realise it's there, it wouldn't let you continue until you answer the question .

Though I guess there are issues either way, doing that wouldn't allow you to check what processes are running to see whether you should let it do whatever it's trying to do, etc.

The other thing is that it's incredibly ugly after I do answer the question: the whole screen seems to go black for a split second before I get the desktop back.

(BTW, this is kind of on topic as the laptop is an i5 430M; so far I'm quite impressed as in my brief tests it seems to run Conan and Fallout 3 pretty well with a Geforce 330M card).

Nice Lappy. I bought a Gateway refurb a year ago primarily for my mother to use. It is "P" series ( not FX; P6318u ). Does fine for she uses it for. Installed the 1 TB Hdd in here and am in the process of formatting the thing. Man that takes a while. No black screen with UAC, do get the allow don't allow thing at times and it is kinda ugly. I couldn't Play Fallout 3 on the FX6800-01e. For some reason, the stuff out out of Bethesda doesn't play well with Intel Quads. Everybody I know put it in Dual Core mode in order to play the thing. The i7 920 is a quad core, but with an addtional 4 threads that act as quasi cores. Getting back to the UAC, it does get annoying to have to answer the question, but for the most part, I pretty much don't pay it much mind. I get the same stuff from my Anti Spyware app, when something tries to install something. Usually, I know what it is and allow it. Again, nice lappy, sounds like a good one.

 

[Mandrake_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTUfd_ENYSo

 

[FALC0N]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTUfd_ENYSo

I found this amusing. But I have to agree with the guy to appears to be Alfred Jodl. Windows XP is microsoft's best OS ever.

 

[warmon6]

I found this amusing. But I have to agree with the guy to appears to be Alfred Jodl. Windows XP is microsoft's best OS ever.

there you go with your personal option again