Computer Hope
Other => Other => Topic started by: Thomas_Horscroft on July 31, 2010, 06:28:13 PM
-
Now explain why? We all now 7 is better. ::)
-
I would take neither because if I'm getting them for free they are clearly stolen.
-
If it were legit, I would go with Option A. Software can easily be replaced.
-
A, but install Windows 7 on it.
-
Technically 7 is a Vista distro.
-
Technically 7 is a Vista distro.
technically no it's not. it's Windows 7. Windows doesn't have "distributions" because a "distribution" is a set of various publicly available components; Linux distributions combine kernel, UI desktop, and applications. many distributions use the same kernel but different desktops, and many Distros use different kernels but the same desktops, and so on and so forth. The fact is nothing in windows is "mixed and matched" into a distro. The Kernel and UI are both entirely different in 7 from what they were from Vista just as Windows XP's kernel and User interface were different from windows 2000. a Distribution implies a branch-like architecture. Windows 7 has been a straight line from NT 3.1 to 7.
-
Oh really? Looks like I have been misinformed.... But Wasn't 7 built off Vista?
-
The Kernel and UI are both entirely different in 7 from what they were from Vista just as Windows XP's kernel and User interface were different from windows 2000. a Distribution implies a branch-like architecture. Windows 7 has been a straight line from NT 3.1 to 7.
I thought that everything from 2000 - Windows 7 uses the NT kernal....Are there different versions of the NT kernal ? How does this brake down, exactly ?
-
Depends entirely on the rest of the specifications and what actual processor and RAM is in them.
I thought that everything from 2000 - Windows 7 uses the NT kernal....Are there different versions of the NT kernal ? How does this brake down, exactly ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt
-
Depends entirely on the rest of the specifications and what actual processor and RAM is in them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt
thx
-
I'd go with 'A', by the way..
Definately install Linux, but you would have buy a license for 7. If you went with the lower end hardware, you'd have 7, but upgrading the hardware would be more expensive..
-
Oh really? Looks like I have been misinformed.... But Wasn't 7 built off Vista?
Thanks for your answers guys, was just curious. And Also, the GUI was kind of taken from vista but everything else is entirely different. This is why its faster/better etc.
-
Oh really? Looks like I have been misinformed.... But Wasn't 7 built off Vista?
Of course 7 (NT 6.1) was a later version of Vista (6.0). Vista was a later version of XP (5.1). XP was a later version of 2000(5.0), 2000 was a later version of NT4, etc.
But that's the thing. Ubuntu 10.04 isn't regarded as a distro of Ubuntu 9.04, just because it's a later version. Ubuntu, Slackware, Fedora, Mepis, KUbuntu, Mint, etc are Distributions of Linux. They aren't different Versions of Linux insomuch as they are completely different Operating Systems based on Linux.
-
don t know enough about computors to answer that , thats why i m on this site , tryin to learn a few things ..lol
-
Eh, I might choose computer B and just add memory. Bringing it up to 4GB would probably cost a good bit less than buying Win 7 for computer A. But, I'd probably also want more details about the processors before deciding.
-
Option A, then install XP on it.
-
Option A, then install XP on it.
*High five* Best choice yet!
-
If option A is a 3.2ghz Pentium processor and B is a 2.6ghz Core 2 Duo, I would take option B.
I'm surprised nobody has asked for processor or memory specs yet.... :-\
Any more info on the computers for us?
-
Haha everyone seems to have a same idea. I would take option A. and just buy windows 7 and upgrade it. that simple ::)
-
Haha everyone seems to have a same idea. I would take option A. and just buy windows 7 and upgrade it. that simple ::)
You're oversimplifying. As various posts have mentioned, more facts are needed and there may well be other reasonable, or more desirable, options.
-
If option A is a 3.2ghz Pentium processor and B is a 2.6ghz Core 2 Duo, I would take option B.
I'm surprised nobody has asked for processor or memory specs yet.... :-\
Any more info on the computers for us?
@Bolded text...what?
Also, the poll does say how much RAM they have.
-
@Bolded text...what?
They didn't say what kind of processor. they just said the speed. for all we know Option A is a overclocked 286, or it could be an overclocked quad core.
Like I said, I'd probably go with neither anyway, depends who it's from. People giving away free computers like that (without trying to sell them) sets off alarm bells in my head of "stolen merchandise" that they are trying to offload.
-
@Bolded text...what?
Also, the poll does say how much RAM they have.
processor and memory specs are somewhat different than speeds and capacity. A 2.6ghz Intel Core2Duo is a lot faster than even a 3.2ghz Intel Pentium dual core processor. Also, if the memory on the 4gb system is running at 667mhz and the 2gb memory is running at 1200mhz, I'd take the 2gb. We don't have nearly enough information to make a good choice.