From: Christopher Muto on
buddy b wrote:
> Had Vista but XP Pro was installed.
> Now I`m thinking of installing W7.
> I have yet to run the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor
> soon but the answer maybe known by one of you.
>
> 2GB Ram.
> Regards
> buddy b

if it runs vista then it will run windows 7 (and it will be more stable).
From: Mark Opolo on

"Christopher Muto" <muto(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5rydnRyjxdIP9sjRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net...
> buddy b wrote:
>> Had Vista but XP Pro was installed.
>> Now I`m thinking of installing W7.
>> I have yet to run the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor
>> soon but the answer maybe known by one of you.
>>
>> 2GB Ram.
>> Regards buddy b
>
> if it runs vista then it will run windows 7 (and it will be more stable).

but then again some of us have never found Vista unstable.


From: Some One on
On or about 8/1/2010 6:00 AM, it came to pass that buddy b wrote:
> Had Vista but XP Pro was installed.
> Now I`m thinking of installing W7.
> I have yet to run the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor
> soon but the answer maybe known by one of you.
>
> 2GB Ram.
> Regards
> buddy b
Works fine on my Dell E1505 that is essentially a clone of the Dell
6400. I did an update from Vista to Win 7 and it's been working without
issue here since November 2009.

From: Rick on
Windows 7 Professional will run on an ASUS 1000H Netbook with a single core
processor and 1 GB of memory.


"Some One" <someone(a)notyahoo.net> wrote in message
news:i381da$v2m$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> On or about 8/1/2010 6:00 AM, it came to pass that buddy b wrote:
>> Had Vista but XP Pro was installed.
>> Now I`m thinking of installing W7.
>> I have yet to run the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor
>> soon but the answer maybe known by one of you.
>>
>> 2GB Ram.
>> Regards
>> buddy b
> Works fine on my Dell E1505 that is essentially a clone of the Dell 6400.
> I did an update from Vista to Win 7 and it's been working without issue
> here since November 2009.
>


From: BillW50 on
On 8/3/2010 8:36 AM, Rick wrote:
> Windows 7 Professional will run on an ASUS 1000H Netbook with a single core
> processor and 1 GB of memory.

There is a big difference between running and crawling! I ran Windows 7
Ultimate RC on three machines:

1) Gateway MX6124 1.5GHz Celeron with 2GB of RAM

2) Gateway M465 1.7GHz Celeron with 2GB of RAM

3) Asus 702 900MHz Celeron fitted with a 16GB SSD with 2GB of RAM.

The first two runs Windows XP with the CPU at 3% idle and a CPU temp of
132�F. Under Windows 7, CPU idle jumps to 23% and the temp increases 20�F.

The Asus runs Windows XP at 5% idle and the CPU temp at 132�F. Under
Windows 7 the CPU idle jumps to a whopping 50% and the CPU temp
increases 10�F. These notebooks don't increase heat so much due to the
keyboard is also being used as a huge heatsink.

And all three uses the drive far more than Windows XP does. And anything
that needs lots of CPU power was always slower under Windows 7 on the
same machine. Which makes sense since Windows 7 is using much more CPU
power for itself.

You can also see this under the minimum requirements for CPU intensive
games like The Sims as well. As you need more memory and a faster CPU if
the game is running under Windows 7 vs. Windows XP. So all of this
should be a no brainier to be honest.

And the Asus EeePC 702 was totally unusable IMHO. It worked, but it was
just so dang slow! And I am sure that cheap 16GB MLC SSD I popped in
there doesn't help matters either. As those are really slow when it
comes to writing. And it appears Windows 7 does seem to write a lot more
than Windows XP does.

And to be honest the two Gateway machines ran Windows 7 fairly well as
long as the CPU wasn't in heavy use. Couple this with the fact that XP
runs 100% of what I want to run while Windows 7 only runs about 95% of
what I want to run. So I didn't see the need for Windows 7 at all and I
removed them on all of my machines back in May.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2