Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Mahlon Wagner

unread,
Jun 25, 2009, 7:13:37 PM6/25/09
to
Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
and with Windows XP?

I understand that many models will accomodate 2GB RAM, and also run
either Vista or Windows 7.

Curiious
Mahl

BillW50

unread,
Jun 25, 2009, 7:51:25 PM6/25/09
to
In news:b21845155m8iecr04...@4ax.com,
Mahlon Wagner typed on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:13:37 -0400:

> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
> and with Windows XP?

Hi Mahl! Well I find 1GB is the sweet spot for XP. Anymore seems like a
waste (even without a swapfile)unless you run EWF and/or a huge RAMDisk.
And in the early days, netbooks only came with Linux. Later Microsoft
offered the manufactures a deal they couldn't refuse on OEM copies. 40
bucks a copy is what I have heard.

> I understand that many models will accomodate 2GB RAM, and also run
> either Vista or Windows 7.

One website claimed that Asus can handle 4GB of RAM. But I haven't heard
of anybody trying this yet. And Vista usually requires something more
powerful than a netbook. Windows 7 sounds like it will work, but it
isn't out yet officially.

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC


Larry

unread,
Jun 25, 2009, 10:42:52 PM6/25/09
to
Mahlon Wagner <mwag...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
news:b21845155m8iecr04...@4ax.com:

> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
> and with Windows XP?
>
>

I was told by netbook manufacturers that only 1GB of RAM was allowed to get
a license from Micro$oft to use WinXP, instead of the hated Vista. So, the
manufacturers installed 1GB and made it exceptionally easy to upgrade to
2GB by simply swapping out the stick.

It's Micro$oft's fault.....


--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

AJL

unread,
Jun 25, 2009, 11:20:39 PM6/25/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>Vista usually requires something more powerful than a netbook.

Something more powerful than a netbook or a more powerful netbook?
2G RAM and Vista just as the OP ordered. Course you gotta be willing
to pay for it... ;)

http://www.mobilecomputermag.co.uk/20081001949/asus-n10.html

BillW50

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 1:28:10 AM6/26/09
to
In news:k3f845pee9lhenvdg...@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:20:39 -0700:

Sounds like they have Vista and Windows 7 running on an EeePC 701 4G.

http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=70516

Pete D

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 1:51:28 AM6/26/09
to

"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C35E70FE20...@74.209.131.13...

> Mahlon Wagner <mwag...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
> news:b21845155m8iecr04...@4ax.com:
>
>> Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
>> and with Windows XP?
>>
>>
>
> I was told by netbook manufacturers that only 1GB of RAM was allowed to
> get
> a license from Micro$oft to use WinXP, instead of the hated Vista. So,
> the
> manufacturers installed 1GB and made it exceptionally easy to upgrade to
> 2GB by simply swapping out the stick.
>
> It's Micro$oft's fault.....
>
>
I doubt it, XP only needs 1Gb to run fine why would the manufacturers spend
more putting 2Gb in?


AJL

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 2:08:29 AM6/26/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>Sounds like they have Vista and Windows 7 running on an EeePC 701 4G.
>http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=70516

Very interesting. Here are the prices for W7. Apparently I can buy my
new 17" laptop anytime starting tomorrow (Friday 6-26) and get the
free W7 upgrade...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10272259-56.html

Ralph Mowery

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 10:35:58 AM6/26/09
to

"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4a4461ee$0$2600$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> I doubt it, XP only needs 1Gb to run fine why would the manufacturers
> spend more putting 2Gb in?
>
I am not a real power user when it comes to computers, but it seems to me
that unless you are doing some picture editing or maybe a very few other
programs (which is not usually done on the netbooks anyway) that 1 gb of
memory should be plenty. I guess that with memory being inexpensive, many
want more even if they do not use it or need it.
Guess that I am saying that you match the computer system to the job and the
netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for . Then there
are people that may want ot do video editing on the netbook and will
complain about how slow it is.


Larry

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 12:18:49 PM6/26/09
to
"Ralph Mowery" <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:B6Gdnd04qML6U9nX...@earthlink.com:

1GB would be just fine if the netbook were an iphone that will only run
one program at a time, but the 1GB isn't quite enough for my
multitasking email, streaming radio or video, webpages watching my stock
crash and keeping an eye on the satellite and radar weather pages.
There's too many large gif movie spams running at once, loading who
knows what crapware as javascript, to run in 1GB doing other
things.....before the swapping starts.

My Samsung NC10"T", with the touchscreen, also uses more memory with the
touchscreen drivers. Add a bunch of addons running, too, for Firefox to
filter out some of the crap off webpages.

2GB works great for $20 a stick!

AJL

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 12:56:43 PM6/26/09
to
"Ralph Mowery" <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>you match the computer system to the job and the
>netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for .

More AJL predictions:

Current netbooks will continue to morph into cheap tiny powerful full
service laptops. (The horsepower race.)

But the *real* 'net' books are coming soon. They will be much cheaper
than current netbooks. They will be instant on, wireless, and have a
simple non-MS OS. They will have basic applications but rely more on
cloud computing. They will have no separate drives but rather use a
working and flash RAM. And perhaps one proprietary port with dongle
adaptors for current peripherals.

Something like my Palm TX on steroids.... ;)

ggwillikers

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 4:45:31 PM6/26/09
to

I do all of that plus run CorelDraw and CorelPaint, average 12 open tabs
in firefox, run Openoffice and Thunderbird, and a separate window for
for video camera monitoring and 1 Gb is more than adequate,

that Samsung must be a slow POS....

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 6:57:43 PM6/26/09
to
Vista does not work well on Netbooks (it works, agreed ... but not
well), it's more expensive than XP and more people actually prefer XP.
So XP is the right answer. The mfgrs are trying to achieve the absolute
lowest cost, under $300. That means the minimum amount of memory that
will provide reasonable performance. In that regard, be glad that you
get 1GB and not 512MB.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 7:02:46 PM6/26/09
to
I have not heard that one (about the 1GB being a MS imposed limit)
although it might be true. But I'm more inclined to believe it's just a
cost issue. 512MB gives MUCH worse performance but, for XP, going up
from 1GB doesn't provide that much of a benefit.

Upgrading the memory isn't that easy. On quite a number of the popular
netbooks, there is no "door" in the case; if you want to change a memory
module, you have to do a TOTAL disassembly, and actually remove the
motherboard from the case. I know that is the case with my Acer Aspire
One and also with some models (but not all models) of the Asus Eee.
[Also, on the Aspire One, 512MB is soldered on the motherboard; you
can't get to 2MB, you can only go to 1.5MB].

Larry

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 9:36:22 PM6/26/09
to
AJL <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in news:kss945p94v9ibdf996quhfe4vgetuu4gm4@
4ax.com:

> But the *real* 'net' books are coming soon. They will be much cheaper
> than current netbooks. They will be instant on, wireless, and have a
> simple non-MS OS. They will have basic applications but rely more on
> cloud computing. They will have no separate drives but rather use a
> working and flash RAM. And perhaps one proprietary port with dongle
> adaptors for current peripherals.
>
>

That sounds more like WebTV or iPhone...(c;

Larry

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 9:44:11 PM6/26/09
to
Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> I have not heard that one (about the 1GB being a MS imposed limit)
> although it might be true. But I'm more inclined to believe it's just a
> cost issue. 512MB gives MUCH worse performance but, for XP, going up
> from 1GB doesn't provide that much of a benefit.
>

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_hobbles_xp_mininotes_with_1gb_ram_limit.htm

http://www.techspot.com/news/31996-microsoft-retains-1gb-ram-limit-on-
netbooks.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-windows-netbook-hardware-
limits,7889.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/0049044840.shtml

It's time to move on to Ubuntu and leave DOS 7 to die a natural death....

Ubuntu's current release runs like a scalded dog on a Samsung NC10
netbook....(c;]

Larry

unread,
Jun 26, 2009, 9:50:20 PM6/26/09
to
Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> I have not heard that one (about the 1GB being a MS imposed limit)

> although it might be true. But I'm more inclined to believe it's just a
> cost issue. 512MB gives MUCH worse performance but, for XP, going up
> from 1GB doesn't provide that much of a benefit.
>

http://www.techspot.com/news/35144-samsung-unveils-first-32gb-ddr3-memory-
module.html

Samsung's new 32GB DDR3 beast....

2GB isn't too much, now, is it?....(c;]

Soon, we'll just leave everything running with all data files in RAM,
eliminating the slow SSD and HDD latency.

HDD will just be for backup, in case the onboard UPS battery fails.

Imagine how fast everything would be......(c;]

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 2:10:00 AM6/27/09
to
Some of us ... like probably most of the computer users in the world ...
actually LIKE Windows and have as much distaste for Linux as you do for
Windows.

AJL

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 2:56:17 PM6/27/09
to
Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>probably most of the computer users in the world ...
>actually LIKE Windows

Judging from the constant barrage of Windows complaints I read I'm not
sure that Windows (especially Vista) is universally well liked.
However there's no denying that because off its monopoly it's pretty
much the only game in town as to availability of software.

>and have as much distaste for Linux...

Having both Linux (Ubuntu) and Windows (XP) on this netbook (Eee PC
1000HD using dual boot) I find both to work quite well. Each has it's
advantages, and on balance both do most everything the average netbook
user would need.

Bottom line: I think OS hating is a religious thing. Many people seem
to either hate Windows or hate Linux. Either position seems a bit
silly this agnostic... ;)

olfart

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 2:56:34 PM6/27/09
to

"AJL" <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:djpc459ve087tt1t5...@4ax.com...

if you gave most people a $1000 bill...they would bitch because it wasn't in
tens and twenties. They always think there is something better somewhere
than what they already have. And so they BITCH


Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 11:06:51 PM6/27/09
to
There are over a billion PCs in use in the world, about 90% running some
version of Windows. The complaints that you hear represent an
insignificant number of those users.

Larry

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 11:32:58 PM6/27/09
to
Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h24d45$ipe$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Some of us ... like probably most of the computer users in the world ...
> actually LIKE Windows and have as much distaste for Linux as you do for
> Windows.
>
>

I don't distaste Windows. I've been using Micro$oft's products since DOS
1.0 was released on 8086 hardware! I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message
because it's convenient and familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.

I'm sorry you got that impression that my post placing the 1GB limit on
Micro$oft was simply reporting all the thousands of articles written on the
subject.

One of my friends wants to install Win7 on his box. I've asked him to wait
until 2010 for SP2 or 3 until a significant number of major bugs users find
are ironed out. He failed to listen and upgraded to Vista 1.0 on day one,
paying dearly for his transgression.....(c;]

I missed several horrible "upgrades" like ME, Vista, some NT flavors here.
I've never been much of a "retail beta tester" for any software.....

WinXPSP3 is a very stable product. I just wish its company wasn't so hell
bent on destroying it.

Larry

unread,
Jun 27, 2009, 11:34:42 PM6/27/09
to
AJL <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in news:djpc459ve087tt1t5end0p3q12jmd8s826@
4ax.com:

> Bottom line: I think OS hating is a religious thing. Many people seem
> to either hate Windows or hate Linux. Either position seems a bit
> silly this agnostic... ;)
>
>

I'm still not much of a fan of TRSDOS, no matter what "they" say...(c;]

CP/M or OS-65/U are much better OSes

AJL

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:38:37 AM6/28/09
to
Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>There are over a billion PCs in use in the world, about 90% running some
>version of Windows. The complaints that you hear represent an
>insignificant number of those users.

Even if I heard 1000 Windows OS complaints every day for the next 100
years that would still be an "insignificant number" of complaints when
compared to those 900,000,000 users. Your statement doesn't make much
sense Barry.

But as long as we're being silly here is some *real* data: I Googled
"Microsoft Windows complaints" and I got 1,710,000 hits. Then I
Googled "Microsoft Windows compliments" and got 233,000 hits.
The Windows complaints have it 7 to 1... ;)

PeteD

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:10:06 AM6/28/09
to

"AJL" <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message

news:d62e45dbeogln59a1...@4ax.com...

> Googled "Microsoft Windows compliments" and got 23 3,000 hits.


> The Windows complaints have it 7 to 1... ;)

Those that are having a reasonable enough experience are hardly likely to
feel a need to tell everyone able it now are they.

Cheers.

Pete

PeteD

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:12:29 AM6/28/09
to

"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF...@74.209.131.13...


> Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h24d45$ipe$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Some of us ... like probably most of the computer users in the world ...
>> actually LIKE Windows and have as much distaste for Linux as you do for
>> Windows.
>>
>>
>
> I don't distaste Windows. I've been using Micro$oft's products since DOS
> 1.0 was released on 8086 hardware! I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message
> because it's convenient and familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>
> I'm sorry you got that impression that my post placing the 1GB limit on
> Micro$oft was simply reporting all the thousands of articles written on
> the
> subject.
>
> One of my friends wants to install Win7 on his box. I've asked him to
> wait
> until 2010 for SP2 or 3 until a significant number of major bugs users
> find
> are ironed out. He failed to listen and upgraded to Vista 1.0 on day one,
> paying dearly for his transgression.....(c;]

I am running Win7 fine on my ASUS 1000H, 2Gb of RAM that took about 15
seconds to install.

AJL

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 3:34:15 AM6/28/09
to
"PeteD" <n...@email.thanks_doug.biz> wrote:

>Those that are having a reasonable enough experience [with Windows]
>are hardly likely to feel a need to tell everyone about it now are they.

Barry felt the need. That's what started this silly exchange... ;)

>>Barry previously wrote:
>>>Some of us ... like probably most of the computer users in the world ...
>>>actually LIKE Windows and have as much distaste for Linux as
>>> you [Larry} do for Windows.

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 9:02:52 AM6/28/09
to
In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF...@74.209.131.13,
Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:

> I don't distaste Windows. I've been using Micro$oft's products since
> DOS 1.0 was released on 8086 hardware!

I don't remember any DOS v1.0 except QDOS v1.0. And Tim Patterson wrote
it because Gary Kildall failed to write CP/M-86 like he promised he
would. Gary did what he wanted, not what others wanted. Which later
destroyed him.

> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient and
> familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.

I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2 and
SP3.

> I'm sorry you got that impression that my post placing the 1GB limit
> on Micro$oft was simply reporting all the thousands of articles
> written on the subject.

It is truly rare for any of my XP machines to ever need 900MB of more of
memory for the OS and all of my running applications. Windows 2000 uses
half of this figure.

And I have a hard time believing that Microsoft made such a rule. As
what would stop manufactures from taking Vista laptops and dropping the
RAM down to 1GB and then asking Microsoft for XP licenses so they could
sell more computers because people wanted XP instead of Vista?

> One of my friends wants to install Win7 on his box. I've asked him
> to wait until 2010 for SP2 or 3 until a significant number of major
> bugs users find are ironed out. He failed to listen and upgraded to
> Vista 1.0 on day one, paying dearly for his transgression.....(c;]

That is always the smart move on your main machine anyway. Spare
machines you can do whatever you want to since it doesn't matter if they
work or not.

> I missed several horrible "upgrades" like ME, Vista, some NT flavors
> here. I've never been much of a "retail beta tester" for any
> software.....

I used to in the 80's, but it got old very quickly. Now I let the young
kids to be the guinea pigs. <grin>

> WinXPSP3 is a very stable product. I just wish its company wasn't so
> hell bent on destroying it.

It doesn't matter what Microsoft wants to do with it. They are still
licensing new copies today because they didn't have a choice. It isn't
because they want too. Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan of any OS
before or after it. <grin>

--
Bill
Windows XP Pro SP2 (5.1.2600)

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 9:21:03 AM6/28/09
to
In news:h27pun$ho4$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:

> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF...@74.209.131.13,
> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient and
>> familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>
> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
> haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2 and
> SP3.

Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6 auto-compacing
mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And Microsoft doesn't support
OE at all anymore, so there will never be a Microsoft fix for it. Which
might be one reason to stick with SP2. <grin>

ggwillikers

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 11:13:55 AM6/28/09
to
I always found that to be a good reason to chuck OE, but that's just me.

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 11:59:03 AM6/28/09
to
In news:h281h4$3aq$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
ggwillikers typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:13:55 -0400:

I would except for the following:

1) I love the interface. <grin>

2) OE Quote-Fix makes the OE interface modern.

3) OE was created back in the days when hard drives were small, so it
compacts your messages. Well today it is also perfect for smaller SSDs
and flash drives.

4) Only OE (and LiveMail) has the find replies to your posts hotkey.
This is the most disturbing complaint I have about all other newsreaders
out there. I have no idea how you other people find anything in high
volume newsgroups. As in a blink of an eye, OE pulls right up. <grin>

--
Bill
Gateway Celeron M 370 (1.5GHZ)
MX6124 (laptop) w/2GB
Windows XP Home SP2 (60GB HD)
Intel(r) 910GML (64MB shared)

AJL

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 12:22:02 PM6/28/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>I don't remember any DOS v1.0

DOS is a generic term. There were many variations of DOS. MS-DOS, PC
DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS, JM-OS, and several others.
There was a V1.0 for MS-DOS which is probably what the author intended
to say.

>Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
>Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan
>of any OS before or after it. <grin>

Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
your XP window... 8-O

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 1:35:41 PM6/28/09
to
In news:cj3f451hj8qirkc51...@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:22:02 -0700:

> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I don't remember any DOS v1.0
>
> DOS is a generic term. There were many variations of DOS. MS-DOS, PC
> DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, ROM-DOS, JM-OS, and several others.
> There was a V1.0 for MS-DOS which is probably what the author intended
> to say.

PC-DOS v1.0 was the same as QDOS v1.0. I don't believe there was a
MS-DOS v1.0 ever. And I don't believe PC-DOS v1.0 was ever released. As
IBM reworked much of the original and I don't believe they called the
reworked version 1.0.

The first MS-DOS version I used was v2.11. I was using DEC RT-11 and
CP/M before that. I can't recall the earliest version of PC-DOS I used,
but I know I had PC-DOS v3.3 and I liked MS-DOS v2.21 much better.

>> Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
>> Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan
>> of any OS before or after it. <grin>
>
> Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
> your XP window... 8-O

Naw... DOS was great but it never had the followers that XP did. Not
even close. And XP is the standard that will haunt Microsoft for many
years to come. And which all OS now and in the future will be measured
against.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 1:56:56 PM6/28/09
to
I do not agree with your views on the wisdom of waiting for "SP1"

There was nothing "Horrible" about Vista (SP0 ... original).

There was nothing "Horrible" about XP (SP0 ... original).

Sure, there were a few issues; there will ALWAYS be issues.

Sure, there WAS a service pack; there will almost always be service
packs (although I'm not sure that there was a service pack for ME).

Windows 7 is really not much more than a service pack of Vista. For
that reason, I expect far less issues with Win 7 than there have been
with other OS'; and I don't necessarily accept the common (but not
necessarily correct) Wisdom that one should wait for SP1. Although I
can accept the wisdom to wait for a few weeks to a month or two for web
reports of experiences .... there is certainly nothing wrong with
letting other people be the "guinea pigs". But in the past few
operating systems ... indeed I'd go back all the way to 95 ... the
changes from SP0 to SP1 have not been SO great that waiting was really
justified, for most people (ME was just plain bad, period; and was never
fixed, the SP for ME was XP).

Also, we have a tendency to judge OS' not in terms of the environments
in which they were developed and released, but in terms of today's
environment, or, looking at older discussions, the environment(s) (still
subsequent to release) in which they were discussed. That is wrong and
is not fair or appropriate. If one operated in that manner, we would
all wait for the "next" version ... forever.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:05:12 PM6/28/09
to
No, Bill, there was MS-DOS version 1. It shipped with the original
IBM-PC (version 2 shipped with the PC-XT, and introduced support for
hard drives and folders).

Re: XP SP2 vs. SP3; there is almost no OBVIOUS difference. But there
are a lot of internal differences, almost all of them related to
security. SP3 is simply the collection of all of the security updates
that occurred over a roughly 3 year period. It plugs a lot of holes,
but makes very few outward changes. If you had run "windows upgrade"
religiously, you have most of it. But are you SURE that you didn't miss
anything?

Microsoft has imposed some limits on the "power" of a system for it to
be eligible for a "netbook" OS. I don't think that 1GB max memory is
one of those limits; I recall that a 12" or smaller screen size was one
of them. I have seen the list, and it's available online but I don't
remember all of it's items.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:12:13 PM6/28/09
to
The Win7 XP Mode is Virtual PC with a bundled copy of XP (you could
obtain Virtual PC and then install a copy of XP under it and you would
have essentially the same thing, but that would "blow" a valuable ($100
to $300) XP product key; XP mode essentially gives you the copy of XP free).

XP mode will not work under Windows 7 Home premium; it requires Business
or Ultimate.

XP mode also requires a CPU with [I want to say "Intel"; but some AMD
CPUs have it also] "virtualization technology"; amazingly, some Intel
CPUs have this and some don't, and no one ever paid any attention to it
until now, so now it's a real "surprise" when it's missing, since it is
a feature whose implementation was so "hit or miss" that in some cases
more expensive CPUs lack it and less expensive CPUs have it. I have a
Core 2 Duo laptop that does not have it.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:14:49 PM6/28/09
to
Yes there was an MS-DOS 1.0; I have it, because I bought [NOT "Q-DOS"
but rather] "86-DOS" from SCP and I was sent MS-DOS 1.0 as an update (on
8-inch diskettes !!] And, anyway, MS-DOS and PC-DOS are the same thing
except for the basic interpreter that was included (PC-DOS' basic
required the IBM-PC's basic-in-ROM).

There were versions much earlier than you used.

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 2:46:40 PM6/28/09
to
In news:h28bva$fcj$2...@news.motzarella.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:14:49 -0400:

> Yes there was an MS-DOS 1.0; I have it, because I bought [NOT "Q-DOS"
> but rather] "86-DOS" from SCP and I was sent MS-DOS 1.0 as an update
> (on 8-inch diskettes !!] And, anyway, MS-DOS and PC-DOS are the same
> thing except for the basic interpreter that was included (PC-DOS'
> basic required the IBM-PC's basic-in-ROM).

For starters, the first IBM-PC came with PC-DOS and not MS-DOS. As IBM
bought the rights to it for $80,000 and they could make and sell as many
copies as they wanted. They was no reason for a MS-DOS v1, since there
was no other computers that it would run on, besides the ones that came
with PC-DOS and you already have that.

Yes Tim Patterson did work for SCP when he created QDOS. Which Bill
Gates bought from SCP for $50,000. And later Microsoft hired Tim
himself.

And no, the version numbers were different between PC-DOS and MS-DOS.
They did this on purpose so you wouldn't get the two confused. For
example, any DOS version (meaning MS-DOS or PC-DOS) v3.30 was just
PC-DOS and no MS-DOS version by that name.

Yes the early PC-DOS did not include Basic, while MS-DOS did and it was
called GWBasic. That reason was the real IBM-PC had Basic in ROM built
into the computer. As the BIOS tried to boot up from floppy first and if
that failed, booted Basic from ROM. MS-DOS didn't have this feature. But
it still had Basic on boot floppy.

I never heard of 86-DOS.

> There were versions much earlier than you used.

You mean earlier than I remember. Which is a big difference. As I
remember the first IBM-PC and it was a dog. It came with PC-DOS and not
MS-DOS. And it had no idea what a folder (aka subdirectory) was.

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 3:24:07 PM6/28/09
to
In news:h28bda$dik$1...@news.motzarella.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:05:12 -0400:

> No, Bill, there was MS-DOS version 1. It shipped with the original
> IBM-PC (version 2 shipped with the PC-XT, and introduced support for
> hard drives and folders).

Nope the original IBM-PC came with PC-DOS and not MS-DOS. As there was
no reason for MS-DOS anything since the IBM-PCs already came with
PC-DOS. That is until Compaq first reversed engineered the first IBM
clone by reverse engineering the only proprietary part called the IBM
BIOS. Then the whole clone market opened up and Bill Gates finally got
rich by selling MS-DOS versions.

> Re: XP SP2 vs. SP3; there is almost no OBVIOUS difference. But there
> are a lot of internal differences, almost all of them related to
> security. SP3 is simply the collection of all of the security updates
> that occurred over a roughly 3 year period. It plugs a lot of holes,
> but makes very few outward changes. If you had run "windows upgrade"
> religiously, you have most of it. But are you SURE that you didn't
> miss anything?

Well an updated SP2 doesn't break OE6 auto-compress mode for starters.
While SP3 does for one. And at least two of my SP2 systems has never
missed an update (well they skipped the SP3, IE7 and 8 and the .Net
updates). Neither has my SP3 system missed an update come to think about
it (just the .Net and IE updates).

> Microsoft has imposed some limits on the "power" of a system for it to
> be eligible for a "netbook" OS. I don't think that 1GB max memory is
> one of those limits; I recall that a 12" or smaller screen size was
> one of them. I have seen the list, and it's available online but I
> don't remember all of it's items.

Yeah well... I serious doubt Larry's claim that 1GB was one of them. As
if that is all it takes, I would be building 1GB machines and getting XP
licenses myself. <grin>

Pete D

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 3:59:38 PM6/28/09
to

"AJL" <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:kss945p94v9ibdf99...@4ax.com...
> "Ralph Mowery" <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>you match the computer system to the job and the
>>netbooks just dont need much for what they are designed for .
>
> More AJL predictions:
>
> Current netbooks will continue to morph into cheap tiny powerful full
> service laptops. (The horsepower race.)

>
> But the *real* 'net' books are coming soon. They will be much cheaper
> than current netbooks. They will be instant on, wireless, and have a
> simple non-MS OS. They will have basic applications but rely more on
> cloud computing. They will have no separate drives but rather use a
> working and flash RAM. And perhaps one proprietary port with dongle
> adaptors for current peripherals.
>
> Something like my Palm TX on steroids.... ;)

Then I will not be buying one thats for sure. To be able to run normal
mainstream software is a must for me.

Pete


BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 4:02:51 PM6/28/09
to
In news:4a47cbac$0$2610$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au,
Pete D typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:59:38 +1000:

> Then I will not be buying one thats for sure. To be able to run normal
> mainstream software is a must for me.

But Pete, they do this right now. At least the XP ones anyway. Those
Linux ones are a totally different story.

Pete D

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 4:01:43 PM6/28/09
to

"AJL" <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:lp6e45trgbjesh6qe...@4ax.com...

> "PeteD" <n...@email.thanks_doug.biz> wrote:
>
>>Those that are having a reasonable enough experience [with Windows]
>>are hardly likely to feel a need to tell everyone about it now are they.
>
> Barry felt the need. That's what started this silly exchange... ;)
>


Doh!!!!

Actually my ASUS 1000H took about 12 seconds to install a 2Gb stick of RAM,
I am guessing he is buying the wrong product, I checked first and made sure
it also had a nice matte screen.

Pete


T.C.

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 4:39:21 PM6/28/09
to
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:44:11 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:

> Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > I have not heard that one (about the 1GB being a MS imposed limit)
> > although it might be true. But I'm more inclined to believe it's just a
> > cost issue. 512MB gives MUCH worse performance but, for XP, going up
> > from 1GB doesn't provide that much of a benefit.
> >
>
> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_hobbles_xp_mininotes_with_1gb_ram_limit.htm
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/31996-microsoft-retains-1gb-ram-limit-on-
> netbooks.html
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-windows-netbook-hardware-
> limits,7889.html
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/0049044840.shtml
>
> It's time to move on to Ubuntu and leave DOS 7 to die a natural death....

Actually for all practical purposes (MS-)DOS 7 died with Win9x - in
this specific case recommending Ubuntu or any other Linux-Distro is
like giving an answer to a question you couldn't know 'cause it hasn't
been asked... as long as you don't have much of clue what the OP plans
to do with his hardware, it doesn't make much sense to recommend the
software, for it might very well be that the OP has certain demands
that are better met by Windows (maybe he's used to MS-Office, loves to
play Diablo II, uses printer XYZ not supported by Linux yet) - an
unconditional recommendation like that is doing the more serious Linux
advocates a disservice...
...and before you jump to conclusions: my main OS is XP Pro (for
pragmatic reasons) but I have installations of Vista and Ubuntu in use
too and thanks to VBox superficially sampled Windows 7 RC, Kubuntu,
OpenSUSE, Fedora, Debian too...

>
> Ubuntu's current release runs like a scalded dog on a Samsung NC10
> netbook....(c;]

Maybe, but would the applications the OP might wish to use run under
Ubuntu too?

T.C.

AJL

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 4:44:14 PM6/28/09
to

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 5:21:08 PM6/28/09
to
In news:qnkf45hr4j89u2i0g...@4ax.com,
AJL typed on :

First of all, show me a picture of MS-DOS v1.0. They called QDOS as
MS-DOS 1.0, but I never seen any MS-DOS v1.0 copies ever and I don't
know what good they were for anyway if they did exists. As they were
only good on the original IBM-PC anyway and they already had PC-DOS
anyway.

I and others wanted Gary Kildall to get off his butt to write CPM-86 for
the Intel 8086 chipset. Gary didn't care and luckily Tim Patterson did
so instead. Gary didn't care until the PC had taken off and then Gary
cared. Then he finally wrote CPM-86 and sold it for over 200 bucks a
piece. Almost nobody bought it of course since PC-DOS was far cheaper
and easier to use. Later CPM-86 became DR-DOS.

And I don't recall any versions of MS-DOS at least commercially before
Compaq created the first IBM clone. And that didn't happen until DOS v2
something from what I recall. Also I don't know if I would trust those
links. As some of them are wrong. I know, since I was there.

AJL

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 6:50:34 PM6/28/09
to
BillW50 wrote:

> First of all, show me a picture of MS-DOS v1.0.

Ok here's the picture: 111000011000011000100... ;)

BillW50

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 7:06:35 PM6/28/09
to
In news:c4ednfWkgbIhbtrX...@giganews.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:50:34 -0600:

> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> First of all, show me a picture of MS-DOS v1.0.
>
> Ok here's the picture: 111000011000011000100... ;)

1,847,492 (dec)? lol

I actually did a search for images on Google for MS-DOS v1.0 and it
didn't have anything doing with MS-DOS v1.0. Tried the new Bing.com by
Microsoft and I didn't see any images either. You would think if it
really existed, somebody would have at least a picture of the floppies.
Seems kind of like little green men, eh?

AJL

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 9:16:06 PM6/28/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>You would think if it [MS-DOS V1.0] really existed,


>somebody would have at least a picture of the floppies.

So a picture is the only thing that will make you believe?

>Seems kind of like little green men, eh?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2371182738_25a878d3b0.jpg

So now do you believe in little green men? ;)

Larry

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 8:40:02 PM6/28/09
to
AJL <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in news:cj3f451hj8qirkc51t1hu27qfkuo7jggs7@
4ax.com:

Remember DoubleDOS that let you run two programs at once on an 8088?....
(c;]

That's pretty radical since iPhone doesn't support multitasking....hee hee.

Larry

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 8:42:21 PM6/28/09
to
Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h28bva$fcj$2
@news.motzarella.org:

> 8-inch diskettes !!]

Hard or soft sectored??

Larry

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 8:51:08 PM6/28/09
to
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in news:4a47cbac$0$2610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-
newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

> To be able to run normal
> mainstream software is a must for me.
>

Precisely the reason I usually carry my Samsung NC10, even if I'm pocketing
the Nokia N800 Linux tablet, too.

Larry

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 8:57:51 PM6/28/09
to
T.C. <Devi...@spamfence.net> wrote in
news:oajf45dq0jrjj7e8t...@4ax.com:

> Maybe, but would the applications the OP might wish to use run under
> Ubuntu too?
>
>

Probably not. Lots of software, especially free/shareware, seems to be
coming ported more and more to multiple OSes, so it pays to have a look.

We're not quite locked into Windows like we used to be. Many Linux
programs, such as Open Office, have been ported to Windows, which greatly
expands their popularity and support. Running Abiword, for instance, on
all the boxes makes using it on any box without retraining lots more
pleasant.

ggwillikers

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 10:43:39 PM6/28/09
to
Barry Watzman wrote:
> I do not agree with your views on the wisdom of waiting for "SP1"
>
> There was nothing "Horrible" about Vista (SP0 ... original).

Piece of crap that should have never gone to market. Period. Name me one
single corp that is running it internally. The networking and playing
well with others is atrocious. Besides a resource intensive cartoon GUI,
it shows me no improvement on what was already offered by XP.
Vista did not enhance my experience, but it sure made me a lot of money
downgrading it.

>
> There was nothing "Horrible" about XP (SP0 ... original).

This is correct for the most part.

>
> Sure, there were a few issues; there will ALWAYS be issues.
>
> Sure, there WAS a service pack; there will almost always be service
> packs (although I'm not sure that there was a service pack for ME).
>
> Windows 7 is really not much more than a service pack of Vista. For
> that reason, I expect far less issues with Win 7 than there have been
> with other OS'; and I don't necessarily accept the common (but not
> necessarily correct) Wisdom that one should wait for SP1. Although I
> can accept the wisdom to wait for a few weeks to a month or two for web
> reports of experiences .... there is certainly nothing wrong with
> letting other people be the "guinea pigs". But in the past few
> operating systems ... indeed I'd go back all the way to 95 ... the
> changes from SP0 to SP1 have not been SO great that waiting was really
> justified, for most people (ME was just plain bad, period; and was never
> fixed, the SP for ME was XP).

ME was serviceable if you knew what to turn off. This was another Vista
moment. The so called enhancements from WIN95 weren't enough to make it
the next sliced white bread.


>
> Also, we have a tendency to judge OS' not in terms of the environments
> in which they were developed and released, but in terms of today's
> environment, or, looking at older discussions, the environment(s) (still
> subsequent to release) in which they were discussed. That is wrong and
> is not fair or appropriate. If one operated in that manner, we would
> all wait for the "next" version ... forever.

Development is development. Technology inherently begs for the next
version. The problem is, a lot of of what is advertised as an
enhancement or improvement is just the same old shit in a different
wrapper. That's just the way it is.

That said, I love XP for what is, and what it has become, a sturdy
workhorse. W2K as well. It works plain and simple.

Vista has shown me what bloat is. I don't need most of what it contains
and the extra resources needed to run it could be used for more
productive applications.

Linux has shown me both innovation on the tiny and useful scale and what
is possible when innovation isn't strictly precipitated buy making a buck.

Perhaps, just maybe W7 get's it right. Where the trade off between
resources and utility make it addition to the toolshed, otherwise I'll
stick with my old shovel.

~misfit~

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 9:47:03 PM6/28/09
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Barry Watzman wrote:
> The Win7 XP Mode is Virtual PC with a bundled copy of XP (you could
> obtain Virtual PC and then install a copy of XP under it and you would
> have essentially the same thing, but that would "blow" a valuable
> ($100 to $300) XP product key; XP mode essentially gives you the copy of
> XP
> free).
> XP mode will not work under Windows 7 Home premium; it requires
> Business or Ultimate.
>
> XP mode also requires a CPU with [I want to say "Intel"; but some AMD
> CPUs have it also] "virtualization technology"; amazingly, some Intel
> CPUs have this and some don't, and no one ever paid any attention to
> it until now, so now it's a real "surprise" when it's missing, since
> it is a feature whose implementation was so "hit or miss" that in some
> cases
> more expensive CPUs lack it and less expensive CPUs have it. I have a
> Core 2 Duo laptop that does not have it.

Yeah, it seems that only the 'premium' C2Ds have it. Oddly my home-built
desktop CPU doesn't (E7300) but my ThinkPad T60 does (T7400) even though the
desktop CPU is a a couple of years newer than the laptop CPU and is a
die-shrink (45nm) of the original C2D. <shrug>

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.


~misfit~

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 9:11:57 PM6/28/09
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
[snipped]

> Micro$oft's products
>
> Micro$oft

Eeek! The sign of the OS warrior! The inability to spell Microsoft without
prejudice.

After years of usenetting in general and in comp groups in particular I've
learned to ignore everything written about OSes by such a person. All you
get is one-eyed biggotry.

~misfit~

unread,
Jun 28, 2009, 9:19:37 PM6/28/09
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h27pun$ho4$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF...@74.209.131.13,
>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:

>>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient and
>>> familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>>
>> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
>> haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2 and
>> SP3.
>
> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6 auto-compacing
> mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And Microsoft doesn't support
> OE at all anymore, so there will never be a Microsoft fix for it.
> Which might be one reason to stick with SP2. <grin>

Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.

Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just fine.

Cheers,

BillW50

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 9:16:31 AM6/29/09
to
In news:h2950g$jim$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:37 +1200:

> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:h27pun$ho4$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
>> BillW50 typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500:
>>> In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF...@74.209.131.13,
>>> Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
>>>> I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient and
>>>> familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
>>>
>>> I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
>>> haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2
>>> and SP3.
>>
>> Oh wait! There is one small difference. SP3 breaks OE6 auto-compacing
>> mode. As it usually hangs on folder.dbx. And Microsoft doesn't
>> support OE at all anymore, so there will never be a Microsoft fix
>> for it. Which might be one reason to stick with SP2. <grin>
>
> Thanks Bill, I was going to ask why, if there was no difference with
> stability or usability, only one of your machines was sp3.
>
> Oh, I find my XP Pro sp3 machines still auto-compact OE files just
> fine.

Hi Shaun. Well I don't see the big deal of having SP3 installed anyway.
And the big plus of only staying with SP2 is that it is much smaller.
Which is nice on small SSD drives. And I can't even install SP3 on my 4G
SSD machines because there isn't even enough room. Even if I use the
recovery disc to start over, that only leaves 400MB worth of room. SP3
claims it needs at least 450MB. Although I believe it actually needs at
least double this amount when I installed it on one of my 8G machines.

I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE newsgroup.

Want to see something odd? My machines report:

SP2 v5.1.2600
SP3 v5.1.2600

SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange to
you?

BillW50

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 9:32:00 AM6/29/09
to
In news:8r3g45tpluvs2qfvb...@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:16:06 -0700:

A picture would help a great deal. As I have no idea what one would use
MS-DOS v1.0 for, since the only machines it would run on was IBM-PCs
anyway. And they already have PC-DOS. So who would want to buy MS-DOS
v1.0? See my point? There is no reason for MS-DOS v1.0 at all. There was
no market for it. Not until Compaq created the first clone anyway.

Also thanks for the fake picture of a green alien. I was actually
expecting a fake picture of MS-DOS v1.0 on a CD or a 3.5 inch floppy.
lol

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 9:36:40 AM6/29/09
to
Re: "There was no reason for a MS-DOS v1, since there was no other
computers (besides the IBM-PC) that it would run on"

Not correct; MS-DOS was running on the S-100 hardware sold by SCP
(Seattle Computer Products; the authors of 86-DOS). They sold hardware
(computers and boards) as well as the OS. Orderable versions also ran
on other systems; there was a version for a complete CompuPro (Godbout)
system, and for generally almost any S-100 system with an 8086 (or 8088)
CPU and either a Tarbell or a Cromemco disk controller.

Also, I still have a retail boxed copy of MS-DOS 3.30 right here. So
the statement that there was no such creature is incorrect (if anyone
wants a photo of the box, contact me by E-Mail).

Both PC-DOS and MS-DOS included Basic, but they were different Basics.
The PC-DOS basic made calls to the Basic in ROM of the IBM-PC, and thus
would not run on non-IBM hardware.

86-DOS is the preferred name for what you call Q-DOS; it is the name on
the diskettes and all of the documentation. Q-DOS (or is it QDOS?) was
only used internally during development. It had been abandoned even by
version 0.33, and possibly by version 0.10 or earlier.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 10:02:17 AM6/29/09
to
A lot of what you are posting is simply wrong.

From 1978 to 1983 I was with Heathkit and Zenith Data Systems and was
the product line director for all computers and their operating systems.
We had contracts with both Digitial Research and Microsoft for all of
their products, the same contracts that other OEMs had, and I personally
knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates. And, as a
hobbyist, on my own, I bought 86-DOS and the hardware to run it on
directly from Seattle Computer Products (this was a personal purchase,
not directly related to my employment, and I still have both that
hardware and the software).

In all of that, I had NEVER heard of QDOS until recently. The product
was always referred to as 86-DOS. QDOS (Q-DOS?) (Quick and Dirty
Operating System, I believe) was the initial name that was used
internally, but that name was abandoned early ... before I bought the
product (from an ad in BYTE magazine), and I have version 0.33 and
possibly version 0.10 (up through version 2.0 .... all supplied on
8-inch diskettes). There was a version 1.0 of the product, although it
might have still been called 86-DOS and not MS-DOS. I know that I have
an MS-DOS version 1.25 which was supplied as the "crossover" to SCP
customers to transition them to being "Microsoft" customers.

Digital Research had CP/M-86 out at approximately the same time if not
earlier (my recollection is that CP/M-86 was available in 1980 or,
absolutely definitely by 1981). However, DR did not initially offer
CP/M-86 preconfigured for the IBM-PC, in order to not be competing with
IBM. But when IBM refused to price CP/M-86 and PC-DOS the same, that
eventually forced DR to release a boxed retail CP/M-86 preconfigured for
the IBM-PC at a reasonable price (I don't recall the exact price, but it
was something like $40; I still have a couple of those here).

I was there also. And probably closer to the situation and the
principals then you were.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 10:17:22 AM6/29/09
to
Standard IBM 8-inch SSSD diskettes, the kind the whole world was using
at the time, the kind commonly used by CP/M. Soft sector, 77 tracks of
26 sectors per track (128-byte sectors).

ggwillikers

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 12:12:39 PM6/29/09
to
your original Windows build is the same as it ever was = v5.1.2600

SP3 is just a benchmark position that identifies it has the been applied
as far a security patches as concerned.

Barry Watzman

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 12:15:41 PM6/29/09
to
You used on an Intel MDS development system with an 8086 CPU.

OR ...

You used it on a CompuPro (Godbout) system with either an 8086 CPU or
with the CompuPro 85/88 CPU card (which was extremely popular at the time).

OR ...

You used it in an S-100 system with the SCP 8086 board set (available as
individual S-100 cards or sold as a complete system called the "Gazelle")

I have version 1.0, but I do think that it's still labeled 86-DOS; I
think that the first version labeled as MS-DOS was 1.25 (this is from
memory, I'd have to hunt up the diskettes to be sure).

~misfit~

unread,
Jun 29, 2009, 7:45:52 PM6/29/09
to

Hi Bill. Even though I'm behind a hardware firewall and practice safe hex I
still like my machines to be up-to-date with patches so have sp3 on all of
them. I take an Acronis partition image of the boot partition immediately
before install, then delete the uninstall files (which I put in my own
folder so I can find them easilly). Or I should say I did do that with my
first few sp3 installs. As I haven't had a problem with it and I image my
boot partitions regularly anyway it's no longer SOP.

It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all that extra
room.

> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
> experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE
> newsgroup.

Ok, I don't use tiny little SSDs so space has never been an issue for me.
<grin>

> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>
> SP2 v5.1.2600
> SP3 v5.1.2600
>
> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange
> to you?

No, not really. I think 1.2600 was the final build of XP, which doesn't
change with a service pack added, hence the service pack status is indicated
at the start of the report. (At least that's how I understand it.)

Larry

unread,
Jun 30, 2009, 11:57:19 PM6/30/09
to
Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> One and also with some models (but not all models) of the Asus Eee.
>

One of my old friends is going blind from way too many visits to optical
doctors who've ruined his sight with injections of chemicals and drugs. He
gave me a eeePC 701 Linux little netbook with the 4GB SSD he was using as a
Skype phone. I noted it only had 512M of RAM in it so I mistakenly ordered
a 2GB stick for it when I ordered them for my other netbooks.

The 701 Linux box doesn't support 2GB of RAM, but supports the 1GB I took
out of the Samsung NC10 just fine and it did improve its speed, especially
when playing large movies in various formats.

Sure wish I could take the speakers out of the ASUS and swap them with the
crap speakers in the NC10.

The stick I took out of the 701 says it's an SiS Module DDR2 512M-667Mhz
200 pin stick. It needs a home. Memory is so cheap.

I just got a 32GB SDHC card for media storage on the 701. There's no room
on the 4GB drive for anything, much, rendering it quite useless as a media
player, except at home where it can logon to my 4TB of network drives over
wifi or Ethernet and play them directly. The 701 is a cute toy, though.

BillW50

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 10:15:53 AM7/2/09
to
In news:Xns9C3AF3AF03D...@74.209.131.13,
Larry typed on Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:57:19 +0000:

> Barry Watzman <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:h23k34$r8v$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> One and also with some models (but not all models) of the Asus Eee.
>>
>
> One of my old friends is going blind from way too many visits to
> optical doctors who've ruined his sight with injections of chemicals
> and drugs. He gave me a eeePC 701 Linux little netbook with the 4GB
> SSD he was using as a Skype phone. I noted it only had 512M of RAM
> in it so I mistakenly ordered a 2GB stick for it when I ordered them
> for my other netbooks.
>
> The 701 Linux box doesn't support 2GB of RAM, but supports the 1GB I
> took out of the Samsung NC10 just fine and it did improve its speed,
> especially when playing large movies in various formats.

Actually Larry, it *can* support 2GB if you want to edit some scripts. I
haven't done it myself yet. But like you, I just threw a 1GB in that
machine too. And if you think Xandros plays media files well, wait until
you try Windows XP on that machine. Media files flies even if you hook
them up to a large external monitor like I do. Linux doing the same
falls flat on its face.

> Sure wish I could take the speakers out of the ASUS and swap them
> with the crap speakers in the NC10.

Well actually, I believe you can. And why do you think I own five of
these Asus 700 series EeePCs? I love the sound from the speakers.

> The stick I took out of the 701 says it's an SiS Module DDR2
> 512M-667Mhz 200 pin stick. It needs a home. Memory is so cheap.

I have those and now a bunch of 1GB ones in my junk drawer.

> I just got a 32GB SDHC card for media storage on the 701. There's no
> room on the 4GB drive for anything, much, rendering it quite useless
> as a media player, except at home where it can logon to my 4TB of
> network drives over wifi or Ethernet and play them directly. The 701
> is a cute toy, though.

I see the 4G SSD as just for the OS and some applications. As for
storing data, SDHC is a handy way to go. I have three 16G SDHC myself.
And I have one 16G SSD coming in to try Windows 7 running on it.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP Home SP2


BillW50

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 12:40:09 PM7/2/09
to
In news:h2bjt1$3pj$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:45:52 +1200:

Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any major
changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC bootable
cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to another drive,
is this true? Ghost is okay with this.

I don't know about you, but after doing these updates and fixes for
about 15 years have noticed something. That is sometimes they break
things. IBM's OS/2 was the worst for this. As most of the FixPac
actually broke more than they fixed. And OS/2 was one of the most
unstable OS I ever ran in my life. Well v3 anyway, v2.1 was much better.

And while not as bad, but Windows updates also can break things as well.
I remember one HP machine I had with Windows 2000 on it. Every other
update would either fix or break Windows Explorer. This when on for
years and then one day one update finally fixed it for good.

Today I have one Windows XP Pro that is very slow to shutdown if I don't
close two programs running in the System Tray first. This started after
one of those bloody updates. Then the next one broke it again. Next one
fixed it, and this continues on even today. It is all updated and it is
broke once again.

> It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all
> that extra room.

Yes they can take up a lot of room. Although that "$hf_mig$" one is the
worst offender. And that one is required to make sure an older hotfix
doesn't write over a newer one that was installed earlier. This folder
on this 4G XP SP2 is taking up 200MB right now.

>> I don't know what to say about why yours works. As I have no personal
>> experience with the problem, just what I have read on the OE
>> newsgroup.
>
> Ok, I don't use tiny little SSDs so space has never been an issue for
> me. <grin>

Well it was desktop users who was complaining about it actually. Two of
my XP machines has SP3 on them and I am thinking about doing it for
another one. Although one is on a 4G SSD and I don't see that one of
ever having SP3 on it. At least not with the Asus Windows XP SP2 OEM
version anyway.

As for that OE6 autocompacking problem with SP3. I have to wait until
the counter hits on one of them to 100 and then I'll see if I am
effected. Well I guess I can edit the registry to make it 100. <grin>

>> Want to see something odd? My machines report:
>>
>> SP2 v5.1.2600
>> SP3 v5.1.2600
>>
>> SP2 and SP3 report the same version number. Doesn't that seem strange
>> to you?
>
> No, not really. I think 1.2600 was the final build of XP, which
> doesn't change with a service pack added, hence the service pack
> status is indicated at the start of the report. (At least that's how
> I understand it.)

That is pretty strange to me. That isn't how I remember it. For example,
I just did this for one Office 2000 machine. Here is the build record.

Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.2720)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.3821 SR-1)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.6926 SP-3)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.8968 SP-3) after 13 more updates

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP Home SP2


~misfit~

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 7:29:19 PM7/2/09
to

Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged the boot
and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external USB drive,
swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from the Acronis CD and
restored the images off the USB drive to the new drive. (I prefer to do that
rather than the 'clone' option, although that works fine too.)

It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I then
simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition, put the old
internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB to the new drive. To
use the machine you wouldn't notice any difference (except it's a bit faster
to respond and there's lots more room).

I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.

> I don't know about you, but after doing these updates and fixes for
> about 15 years have noticed something. That is sometimes they break
> things. IBM's OS/2 was the worst for this. As most of the FixPac
> actually broke more than they fixed. And OS/2 was one of the most
> unstable OS I ever ran in my life. Well v3 anyway, v2.1 was much
> better.
> And while not as bad, but Windows updates also can break things as
> well. I remember one HP machine I had with Windows 2000 on it. Every
> other update would either fix or break Windows Explorer. This when on
> for years and then one day one update finally fixed it for good.
>
> Today I have one Windows XP Pro that is very slow to shutdown if I
> don't close two programs running in the System Tray first. This
> started after one of those bloody updates. Then the next one broke it
> again. Next one fixed it, and this continues on even today. It is all
> updated and it is broke once again.

I've found that MS have got better at this. It used to occur often but now I
find it rare.

>> It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all
>> that extra room.
>
> Yes they can take up a lot of room. Although that "$hf_mig$" one is
> the worst offender. And that one is required to make sure an older
> hotfix doesn't write over a newer one that was installed earlier.
> This folder on this 4G XP SP2 is taking up 200MB right now.

I've always deleted the "$hf_mig$" folder and have never had a problem.

I have XP Powertoys and Tweak UI installed and have chosen the option to
show my Windows version on the desktop. I've installed every update offered
and currently, in the bottom right of my desktop there is written:

"Windows XP Professional
Build 2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090206-1234 (Service Pack 3)"

BillW50

unread,
Jul 5, 2009, 6:18:42 PM7/5/09
to
In news:h2jg32$ale$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:19 +1200:

Hi Shaun! Oh I meant where ever you save it to, if you move that copy to
somewhere else, it won't work is what I have heard. Just the later
versions of Acronis is supposed to have this problem.

>> I don't know about you, but after doing these updates and fixes for
>> about 15 years have noticed something. That is sometimes they break
>> things. IBM's OS/2 was the worst for this. As most of the FixPac
>> actually broke more than they fixed. And OS/2 was one of the most
>> unstable OS I ever ran in my life. Well v3 anyway, v2.1 was much
>> better.
>> And while not as bad, but Windows updates also can break things as
>> well. I remember one HP machine I had with Windows 2000 on it. Every
>> other update would either fix or break Windows Explorer. This when on
>> for years and then one day one update finally fixed it for good.
>>
>> Today I have one Windows XP Pro that is very slow to shutdown if I
>> don't close two programs running in the System Tray first. This
>> started after one of those bloody updates. Then the next one broke it
>> again. Next one fixed it, and this continues on even today. It is all
>> updated and it is broke once again.
>
> I've found that MS have got better at this. It used to occur often
> but now I find it rare.

Yes they normally do get better at this. Although they are still
breaking stuff. But it isn't just Microsoft, everybody else has the same
problem. Although Microsoft is usually easier to deal with. <grin>

>>> It's my experience that it's the uninstall files that take up all
>>> that extra room.
>>
>> Yes they can take up a lot of room. Although that "$hf_mig$" one is
>> the worst offender. And that one is required to make sure an older
>> hotfix doesn't write over a newer one that was installed earlier.
>> This folder on this 4G XP SP2 is taking up 200MB right now.
>
> I've always deleted the "$hf_mig$" folder and have never had a
> problem.

If you only install updates in order only, it should be okay that way.
Although if you install an older hotfix for something, it might be very
bad.

I too use TweakUI, but not that option. Previous versions of Windows
changed after updates. Keeping the same build after updates doesn't tell
anybody anything. And thus I have no idea why reporting anything at all
is worthwhile under XP. So what good is it? It used to be a sign if you
were up-to-date or not. Now it means nothing at all.

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC


~misfit~

unread,
Jul 5, 2009, 7:20:31 PM7/5/09
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h2jg32$ale$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:29:19 +1200:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
[snip]

>>> Hi Shaun. I too image my OS and applications whenever I make any
>>> major changes. Although I use Ghost v11 that I have on BartPE SDHC
>>> bootable cards. Acronis is said to break if you move the images to
>>> another drive, is this true? Ghost is okay with this.
>>
>> Hi Bill. No, that's not true with Acronis. Just yesterday I imaged
>> the boot and programme partitions on the 160GB drive to an external
>> USB drive, swapped the 160GB out for a new 320GB drive, booted from
>> the Acronis CD and restored the images off the USB drive to the new
>> drive. (I prefer to do that rather than the 'clone' option, although
>> that works fine too.)
>> It worked perfectly. I even re-sized the partitions as I did it. I
>> then simply used the rest of the space to make a data partition, put
>> the old internal drive in a dock and copied my data over USB to the
>> new drive. To use the machine you wouldn't notice any difference
>> (except it's a bit faster to respond and there's lots more room).
>>
>> I'm using Acronis True Image Home version 11.
>
> Hi Shaun! Oh I meant where ever you save it to, if you move that copy
> to somewhere else, it won't work is what I have heard. Just the later
> versions of Acronis is supposed to have this problem.

Hey Bill. Later than ver. 11? I've had no problem with moving images around
between HDDs, USB flash drives and even DVDRs. They still work just fine. I
have a library of images for all my machines on my server and have often
copied them from there to whatever media suits the occasion and restored
them just fine.

TI Home ver. 11 has *never* let me down so I've never wanted to upgrade or
patch it. No point 'fixing' something that isn't broken right?

BillW50

unread,
Jul 5, 2009, 7:26:02 PM7/5/09
to
In news:h2rcni$55b$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:20:31 +1200:

Hi Shaun. I don't recall what the latest version of Acronis is, but I
seem to recall the latest and the one before has this problem from what
I read. There was a version just before this that worked just fine. Is
that v11?

~misfit~

unread,
Jul 6, 2009, 2:25:03 AM7/6/09
to

I don't know. I've just checked Acronis' web page and they now seem to name
their products after the year (e.g. Acronis True Image Home 2009). So I'm
not sure how old my version 11 is, I've been using it maybe two years?

T.C.

unread,
Jul 8, 2009, 1:21:39 PM7/8/09
to
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:57:51 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:

> T.C. <Devi...@spamfence.net> wrote in
> news:oajf45dq0jrjj7e8t...@4ax.com:
>
> > Maybe, but would the applications the OP might wish to use run under
> > Ubuntu too?
> >
> >
>
> Probably not. Lots of software, especially free/shareware, seems to be
> coming ported more and more to multiple OSes, so it pays to have a look.
>
> We're not quite locked into Windows like we used to be. Many Linux
> programs, such as Open Office, have been ported to Windows, which greatly
> expands their popularity and support. Running Abiword, for instance, on
> all the boxes makes using it on any box without retraining lots more
> pleasant.

I'm all happy about alternatives to the big and common products
getting more mature and competitive - even if it quite often just
means that the pressure on the companies providing the software I
actually use increases to improve their products - it gets on my
nerves though when someone feels inclined to answer a question like
"how do I do XYZ under Windows" with "install Linux", especially when
the one answering doesn't have much of a clue about the specific needs
in respect of software or the demands in respect of the hardware of
the one asking...

What people who answer that way only too often forget is that many
people don't consider soft- or hardware as a hobby and are
(understandably so) not willing or able to spend the required time and
effort into trying to reacquire the same level of proficiency with
alternative software as complex as Office or an operating system...

...not to mention that the hardware support of most Linux distros
still is considerably more restrictive than that of most recent
Windows versions, nor the fact that some people prefer for
compatibility reasons to privately use the same specific software they
use at work, their buddies use or that's simply considered common in
their field...

If an alternative actually is a valid one for the person in question
is something that usually requires to know some more specifics about
the working environment and demands of that person - in my experience
the simple advice "install Linux" more often than not is a ridiculous
one for the reasons mentioned above - from a serious advocate of
alternatives (like Linux, Mac OS, Open Office, Gimp etc...) I'd expect
more than just such a statement...

T.C.

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 8, 2009, 1:08:20 PM8/8/09
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:34:42 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:

>CP/M or OS-65/U are much better OSes

Yes!
####

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 8, 2009, 1:09:53 PM8/8/09
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:22:02 -0700, AJL <5...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>Naw, DOS will still be king. You will just have to run a DOS window in
>your XP window... 8-O

Give it the first partition!

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 8, 2009, 1:13:13 PM8/8/09
to
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:57 +1200, "~misfit~" <sore_n...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

>Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>[snipped]
>
>> Micro$oft's products
>>
>> Micro$oft
>
>Eeek! The sign of the OS warrior! The inability to spell Microsoft without
>prejudice.
>
>After years of usenetting in general and in comp groups in particular I've
>learned to ignore everything written about OSes by such a person. All you
>get is one-eyed biggotry.

Why would the wish of having a REALLY working OS biggotry?

BillW50

unread,
Aug 8, 2009, 5:29:36 PM8/8/09
to
In news:m7cr755htdafanr6l...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:08:20 +0100:

> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:34:42 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> CP/M or OS-65/U are much better OSes
>
> Yes!
> ####

Blame the late Gary Kildall for killing off his own product! Gary never
cared when it came to supporting customers. Which turned out to be a 100
billion dollar mistake.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC


BillW50

unread,
Aug 8, 2009, 5:34:49 PM8/8/09
to
In news:ifcr751ntun21cgsd...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:13:13 +0100:

> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:57 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <sore_n...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>> [snipped]
>>
>>> Micro$oft's products
>>>
>>> Micro$oft
>>
>> Eeek! The sign of the OS warrior! The inability to spell Microsoft
>> without prejudice.
>>
>> After years of usenetting in general and in comp groups in
>> particular I've learned to ignore everything written about OSes by
>> such a person. All you get is one-eyed biggotry.
>
> Why would the wish of having a REALLY working OS biggotry?

You are right misfit. I have known Aribert Deckers for over 10 years
now. And you seen it right off of the bat. <grin>

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 9, 2009, 2:40:58 PM8/9/09
to
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:13:37 -0400, Mahlon Wagner <mwag...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>Is there any reason why netbooks seem to come OEM with only 1 GB RAM,
>and with Windows XP?
>
>I understand that many models will accomodate 2GB RAM, and also run
>either Vista or Windows 7.
>
>Curiious
>Mahl

Hi, Mahlon,

it is a pity that the netbooks in many cases do not have the sockets for more
RAM. The LG X110 even has the RAM soldered in. It even cannot be repaired
easily. That is a mess.

I do not argue that the industry sells cheap machines, but to spoil the possible
value of such wonderful machines by putting so strong and wrong limits on them
really is a mess.

Another problem is with the air cooling. A German company offers netbooks as
second hand, but repaired - came in with customer complaints for replacement +
repair. I was interested and - to my astonishment - found defective ventilator
fans inhalf of the cases as the cause for the complaints. So a part which I had
thought to be good and secure obviously is endagering the lifetime of these
computers. Fans are very cheap things and they are easy to build. So that THEY
are they cause for failure is a very bad sign.

I tried to find a netbook with no fans. There really are some offered. On broad
range - has a price tag of several thousand Dollars... Dell has a cheap one and
a strange Chines company has some cheap ones.

Dell, of course, is not cheap. Their netbook with no fans is much too expensive
- but at least it does not cost 2000 Dollars...

The Chinese company sells via distributors which use their own brand names, so
the Chinese do not appear in open. A distributor here in Germany just went
bankrupt the time that I looked for these netbooks. All the prople who then
bought such a netbook will have an interesting time if their computer needs
repair...

So there actually is NO netbook with no fans one could buy. The expensive ones
are too over-priced and the other ones are a risk to buy.


It is claimed that the customer is king. When will industry and trade make that
true...???

Aribert
--
Hom�opathische Kindesmi�handlung

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_kind.htm

BillW50

unread,
Aug 9, 2009, 2:49:39 PM8/9/09
to
In news:l16u75dn045oaouq9...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:40:58 +0100:

> So there actually is NO netbook with no fans one could buy. The
> expensive ones are too over-priced and the other ones are a risk to
> buy.

Not so! One of the cheapest netbooks that you can buy (which also
happens to be the first netbooks) are the Asus EeePC 700 series line.
They use the Intel Celeron 900 CPU and clock them down to 633MHz. You
can clock them back up by the way. But they use the keyboard as a
heatsink (very clever) and heatsinks the CPU, southbridge, and
northbridge chips. Which all lives on the topside of the motherboard.

There is a fan on the bottom side of the motherboard and doesn't hardly
provide any airflow for the topside at all. I have even tested the CPU
temperature with the fan manually controlled at different speeds and not
running period. And it has almost no effect on the top of the
motherboard.

And the only things on the bottom side of the motherboard is the RAM,
WiFi, and some versions SSD (solid state drive). Does any of them really
need a fan running? Apparently not, as there are countless people
reporting on the eeeuser forum of running their EeePC with the fans
disconnected without any harm (so far).

I have five of these things and all of them generally run the CPU at
131�F (55�C) pretty much constantly, regardless of what the CPU use is.
And it should be able to operate the CPU up 30�F (17�C) higher without
any problems. Which is indeed very hard to do normally.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2


AJL

unread,
Aug 9, 2009, 7:07:29 PM8/9/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>Happy Oyster typed

>> So there actually is NO netbook with no fans one could buy.

>Not so!

>One of the cheapest netbooks that you can buy (which also

>happens to be the first netbooks) are the Asus EeePC 700 series...
>There is a fan on the bottom side of the motherboard...

You contradict yourself Bill. If the 700 has a fan then your corrected
answer should be *Is so*.

>and doesn't hardly provide any airflow for the topside at all.

My Eee PC 2G Surf netbook has the same chassis and bottom fan
arrangement as your 700 series Eee PC netbook. When my fan comes on
the bottom of the netbook becomes noticeably cooler to the touch. Mr.
Oyster pointed out that less heat is better for the longevity of the
electronic parts. That might be why cost conscious Asus used the extra
bucks to put a fan in these otherwise stripped down to bare essentials
netbooks...

>There are countless people...running their EeePC with the fans

>disconnected without any harm (so far).

I'm glad you added the words "so far"... ;)

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 9, 2009, 8:44:34 PM8/9/09
to


I mean NO FANS AT ALL. And that is valid only for one netbook by Dell, one
netbook in two versions (Linux, Windows) by a Chines manufacturer, and some
really expensive machines above 2000 USD.

BillW50

unread,
Aug 10, 2009, 4:46:57 PM8/10/09
to
In news:jaku751uquggsbgr2...@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:07:29 -0700:

> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Happy Oyster typed
>>> So there actually is NO netbook with no fans one could buy.
>
>> Not so!
>
>> One of the cheapest netbooks that you can buy (which also
>> happens to be the first netbooks) are the Asus EeePC 700 series...
>> There is a fan on the bottom side of the motherboard...
>
> You contradict yourself Bill. If the 700 has a fan then your corrected
> answer should be *Is so*.

Well being an electronic engineer myself, I have to wonder about what
others are doing sometimes. As I remember machines that has a fan which
isn't even needed at all. And other machines without a fan and they end
up cooking themselves.

And when I mention the 700 series, I often forget to exclude the 700
model with a Celeron 800 microprocessor (vs. the Celeron 900). As you
have told me they get very hot. Those the other models in the 700 series
does not get hot in my experience, even with the fan disconnected.

So IMHO, the 700 series 4G and 8G models really doesn't need a fan at
all. They probably threw it in there with the 2G models and just left it
in there. I heard that eeectl utility is now available for Xandros too.
And it would be nice if you ran it and see how hot that Celeron 800
heats up to.

>> and doesn't hardly provide any airflow for the topside at all.
>
> My Eee PC 2G Surf netbook has the same chassis and bottom fan
> arrangement as your 700 series Eee PC netbook. When my fan comes on
> the bottom of the netbook becomes noticeably cooler to the touch. Mr.
> Oyster pointed out that less heat is better for the longevity of the
> electronic parts. That might be why cost conscious Asus used the extra
> bucks to put a fan in these otherwise stripped down to bare essentials
> netbooks...

Actually your 2G has soldered in ram and a slightly slower processor. If
yours gets as hot as you say and my five EeePCs does not, there has to
be a reason for this. Do you run it on AC with the battery installed? I
usually do not, maybe that helps right there. As it requires 10 more
watts of power to charge the battery with the netbook running. And the
voltage regulators are pushing 20 watts of power that way. And the way I
run them, they only push 10 watts of power while the netbook is running.
Thus maybe why mine runs cooler.

>> There are countless people...running their EeePC with the fans
>> disconnected without any harm (so far).
>
> I'm glad you added the words "so far"... ;)

Well I added that because I have a Toshiba T1950CS from '94 that didn't
have a fan (486SX-25). That thing would get very hot and I thought about
adding my own fan. Apparently I waited too long, as it cooked itself in
5 years. Then when I tried to find spare parts, I learned that so do
everybody else's T1950CS. And there are no working spare power regulator
boards because they all have been cooked.

So I am thinking the same thing might happen with those who have
disconnected their EeePC fans. I guess we have to wait another 3 or 4
years to learn for sure. But even if they do die, it would be time to
buy another one anyway for most people (if not earlier). <grin>

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 10, 2009, 5:57:47 PM8/10/09
to
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:46:57 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>Well being an electronic engineer myself, I have to wonder about what
>others are doing sometimes.

A machine WITHOUT ANY FAN is important in an absolutely quiet environment.

Taking out a fan of a computer which is designed TO HAVE a fan is rediculous.

--
**** WARNING **** The web-hoster Globat.com steals money from your
credit card account. If you are a customer of Globat.com, never give
them any credit card information. If you can't erase the information,
then do delete the old card and get a new one! **** WARNING ****

BillW50

unread,
Aug 10, 2009, 5:52:21 PM8/10/09
to
In news:mr518559hpjaaclo5...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:57:47 +0100:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:46:57 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Well being an electronic engineer myself, I have to wonder about what
>> others are doing sometimes.
>
> A machine WITHOUT ANY FAN is important in an absolutely quiet
> environment.

I totally agree! And I have gotten used to SSD (solid state drives) and
I never realized how annoying those HDD drives can be. I've been using
SSD so much I am now very sensitive to the HDD noise.

> Taking out a fan of a computer which is designed TO HAVE a fan is
> rediculous.

Ah you assume too much! In some cases believe it or not, some things are
over-engineered. It is very common in military and professional
equipment and done all of the time. It is rarely seen in consumer
equipment, but it still *does* happen from time to time. Also it is hard
to argue against those who has had their fans disconnected for 2 years
now.

Remember too, I am predicting that they will run fine without a fan
until the ambient temperature reaches 95�F (35�C). These things are
designed in the far east where the temperature reaches this and higher.
Where I live, these temps are very rare and I probably wouldn't be in
such conditions anyway running a netbook. As we turn on the air
conditioner. <grin>

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people who are
doing it. -- Anonymous

AJL

unread,
Aug 10, 2009, 6:39:39 PM8/10/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>So IMHO, the 700 series 4G and 8G models really
>doesn't need a fan at all.

If *all* the components (not just the processor) feel no hotter than
just *moderately warm* to the touch while running *all* the circuitry
(WiFi, charging, ports, HD, ect) while running full out (several apps
and video) with no cooling for say a 30 minute test then I might
agree...

>I heard that eeectl utility is now available for Xandros too.
>And it would be nice if you ran it and see how hot that Celeron 800
>heats up to.

Do you know the repository?

>Actually your 2G has soldered in ram

That shouldn't make much of a temperature difference.

>and a slightly slower processor.

I think it's just under 600 MHz.

>Do you run it on AC with the battery installed?

Nope, always portable.

>I guess we have to wait another 3 or 4 years to learn for sure.

>But even if they [Eee PC with disconnected fans] do die...

I wouldn't worry about 3 or 4 years. They'll be antiques by then... ;)

BillW50

unread,
Aug 10, 2009, 7:30:24 PM8/10/09
to
In news:h16185talqpjbu2j8...@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:39:39 -0700:

> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> So IMHO, the 700 series 4G and 8G models really
>> doesn't need a fan at all.
>
> If *all* the components (not just the processor) feel no hotter than
> just *moderately warm* to the touch while running *all* the circuitry
> (WiFi, charging, ports, HD, ect) while running full out (several apps
> and video) with no cooling for say a 30 minute test then I might
> agree...

Well it has to be something, as 4G and 8G users have disconnected their
fans and all is well (so far). Although I haven't noticed if any 2G
users have disconnected their fans, have you?

>> I heard that eeectl utility is now available for Xandros too.
>> And it would be nice if you ran it and see how hot that Celeron 800
>> heats up to.
>
> Do you know the repository?

Offhand no. Although I should add it to my Xandros machine. So if I find
it before you I'll post it.

>> Actually your 2G has soldered in ram
>
> That shouldn't make much of a temperature difference.

I know, but I am thinking they knew the RAM couldn't be upgraded and
couldn't use more power... and so they could borderline the regulation
supply to put out much less power. And the 2G can't be upgraded either.
So a stock 2G system could be operating at borderline with the
regulation components as it is. And maybe the 4G and 8G models they
couldn't pull this off and used higher rated components.

>> and a slightly slower processor.
>
> I think it's just under 600 MHz.

I believe it is 5xx MHZ for the under clocked speed. But the processor
is 800MHZ I believe. The 4G and 8G models uses a 900MHZ processor, but
under clocks them down to 633MHZ. I have ramped them back up to 900MHZ
with eeectl and they get hotter. But normally you don't see much of a
difference unless you are running something that will max out the
processor anyway.

>> Do you run it on AC with the battery installed?
>
> Nope, always portable.

Oh okay.

>> I guess we have to wait another 3 or 4 years to learn for sure.
>> But even if they [Eee PC with disconnected fans] do die...
>
> I wouldn't worry about 3 or 4 years. They'll be antiques by then... ;)

Well one of mine I dropped in a 16G SSD. And it does run Windows 7, so
at least three of mine (which the SSD can be upgraded) might be still
useful 3 to 4 years from now.

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 10, 2009, 8:31:06 PM8/10/09
to
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:52:21 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>Ah you assume too much!

I have seen too many bad engineered computers. As netbooks are at the edge of
what can be done in such small volumes I estimate them to be made to last about
the time of the guarantee - and not a day longer.

So, anything which could raise the temperature will lead to an early death of
the machine, and that WITHOUT guarantee as that will be void.

AJL

unread,
Aug 10, 2009, 8:09:21 PM8/10/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>Although I haven't noticed if any 2G
>users have disconnected their fans, have you?

I haven't seen anything recently on mods for the 2G fan. I'll hit the
eeeuser group later and see what I can find.

>I know, but I am thinking they knew the RAM couldn't be upgraded and
>couldn't use more power...

I think the RAM in the 2G is soldered in because the netbook was
cheaper to make. Also there is no trap door on the bottom, more
savings...

>I believe it is 5xx MHZ for the under clocked speed. But the processor
>is 800MHZ I believe.

Celeron-M 800 MHz operating at 571 MHz (Looked it up.)

>Well one of mine I dropped in a 16G SSD. And it does run Windows 7, so
>at least three of mine (which the SSD can be upgraded) might be still
>useful 3 to 4 years from now.

Oh they all will probably work in 3-4 years, its just that they will
be antiques. Other than my Toshiba T-1000 I've never had a laptop
fail. I always seem to end up giving the old ones to a grandkid... ;)

BillW50

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 6:20:01 AM8/11/09
to
In news:9ue185l2gboatvo8u...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:31:06 +0100:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:52:21 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Ah you assume too much!
>
> I have seen too many bad engineered computers. As netbooks are at the
> edge of what can be done in such small volumes I estimate them to be
> made to last about the time of the guarantee - and not a day longer.
>
> So, anything which could raise the temperature will lead to an early
> death of the machine, and that WITHOUT guarantee as that will be void.

I too have heard those horror stories of others laptops breaking right
after the warrantee expires. Although my first laptop was back in '84
and I bought 11 more in the past 25 years. And just like AJL, the only
one that died was one Toshiba from the 90's. All the rest of them are
still working just like the day I bought them. Some of them the
batteries are near dead or are, but that is normal after a decade or two
anyway.

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 7:28:40 AM8/11/09
to

So the engineers are very stupid who put in those ventilators???

BillW50

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 7:52:07 AM8/11/09
to
In news:eel285pc0cje5vef6...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:28:40 +0100:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:20:01 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> In news:9ue185l2gboatvo8u...@4ax.com,
>> Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:31:06 +0100:
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:52:21 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah you assume too much!
>>>
>>> I have seen too many bad engineered computers. As netbooks are at
>>> the edge of what can be done in such small volumes I estimate them
>>> to be made to last about the time of the guarantee - and not a day
>>> longer.
>>>
>>> So, anything which could raise the temperature will lead to an early
>>> death of the machine, and that WITHOUT guarantee as that will be
>>> void.
>>
>> I too have heard those horror stories of others laptops breaking
>> right after the warrantee expires. Although my first laptop was back
>> in '84 and I bought 11 more in the past 25 years. And just like AJL,
>> the only one that died was one Toshiba from the 90's. All the rest
>> of them are still working just like the day I bought them. Some of
>> them the batteries are near dead or are, but that is normal after a
>> decade or two anyway.
>
> So the engineers are very stupid who put in those ventilators???

Not necessarily. It depends on the environment it is operating in. And
the design seems IMHO to control the fan speed totally dependently on
the CPU temperature. Right now my room is 75�F and the CPU temperature
is at 123�F. And the fan won't even start automatically until the
temperature hits around 127�F.

And that is super slow speed which most of the time you can't even hear
it in a totally quiet room. That is the speed all of mine (five) usually
runs at in automatic mode. Rarely does one of them ever jump up to the
next second speed up (there are a total of eight speed steps). And never
have I seen automatic mode kick in the last 6 higher speed modes.

So you should be okay without a fan IMHO with these 700 series 4G and 8G
models until the room temperature reaches 95�F or the CPU temp hits
about 160�F. This is also inline with Intel's specs as well.

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 9:17:09 AM8/11/09
to
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:52:07 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>> So the engineers are very stupid who put in those ventilators???
>
>Not necessarily. It depends on the environment it is operating in.

Not all of us live in Greenland.

BillW50

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 8:38:42 AM8/11/09
to
In news:spr285pmuo40ranue...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:17:09 +0100:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:52:07 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>>> So the engineers are very stupid who put in those ventilators???
>>
>> Not necessarily. It depends on the environment it is operating in.
>
> Not all of us live in Greenland.

The Germany I remember doesn't often reach 35�C either.

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 10:39:31 AM8/11/09
to
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:38:42 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:spr285pmuo40ranue...@4ax.com,
>Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:17:09 +0100:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:52:07 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>>> So the engineers are very stupid who put in those ventilators???
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. It depends on the environment it is operating in.
>>
>> Not all of us live in Greenland.
>
>The Germany I remember doesn't often reach 35�C either.

The world inside my computer is not Germany. It is electronics.

BillW50

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 11:11:18 AM8/11/09
to
In news:ak03851um5t0fv5ue...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:39:31 +0100:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:38:42 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> In news:spr285pmuo40ranue...@4ax.com,
>> Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:17:09 +0100:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:52:07 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So the engineers are very stupid who put in those ventilators???
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. It depends on the environment it is operating in.
>>>
>>> Not all of us live in Greenland.
>>
>> The Germany I remember doesn't often reach 35�C either.
>
> The world inside my computer is not Germany. It is electronics.

It is electronics which is highly dependent on conditions outside of the
box. Thus why you often see ambient temperature range given within the
specification of many electronic equipment manufactures.

--
Bill
Windows XP Home SP3 (5.1.2600)

Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Happy Oyster

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 1:16:15 PM8/11/09
to

And the environmental temperature depends on how much wind flows.

And the temperature within the computer depends on how much cooling the surface
and eventual fans can provide.

BillW50

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 11:13:42 AM8/12/09
to
In news:lo9385lr84los45ss...@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on :

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:11:18 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> In news:ak03851um5t0fv5ue...@4ax.com,
>> Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:39:31 +0100:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:38:42 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:spr285pmuo40ranue...@4ax.com,
>>>> Happy Oyster typed on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:17:09 +0100:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:52:07 -0500, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the engineers are very stupid who put in those ventilators???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily. It depends on the environment it is operating
>>>>>> in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all of us live in Greenland.
>>>>
>>>> The Germany I remember doesn't often reach 35�C either.
>>>
>>> The world inside my computer is not Germany. It is electronics.
>>
>> It is electronics which is highly dependent on conditions outside of
>> the box. Thus why you often see ambient temperature range given
>> within the specification of many electronic equipment manufactures.
>
> And the environmental temperature depends on how much wind flows.
>
> And the temperature within the computer depends on how much cooling
> the surface and eventual fans can provide.

Sounds reasonable to me. Unfortunately I have never seen the wind chill
factor listed within the hardware specifications. Although you can't
argue against success. As many Asus EeePC 701/702 users have
disconnected their netbook fans. And so far I haven't heard of one EeePC
failing yet.

AJL

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 12:33:21 PM8/12/09
to
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:

>Although you can't
>argue against success. As many Asus EeePC 701/702 users have
>disconnected their netbook fans. And so far I haven't heard of one EeePC
>failing yet.

I thought we agreed to wait 4 years to see if it was a success... ;)

0 new messages