Window7 install on dodgy PC

[Char Jackson]

Hi, Bramblestick.

Your thread has wandered off into several non-productive sub-thread.

I haven't seen any sub-threads, let alone non-productive ones.

But
Big Steel gave you the right advice, after confirming that you have the
"Full" retail version of Win7.

A couple of us have pointed out that the full retail version is not a
requirement. The less expensive Upgrade version works fine for clean
installs.

<rest snipped>

I can't see that you added any new info to the thread, RC, but I
thought it would be worthwhile to offer a correction regarding retail
versus upgrade options.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

If BF admittedly "installed a non-genuine version of Windows 7", who knows
what else he may have added?

I was letting a visitor use my computer for e-mail, and he accepted an
invitation from outside to install something (he clicked as I was
saying "DON'T!"), so I decided on a security change that might be
relevant to Bramblestick's situation - I mean his daughter's situation.

I added a new Standard User account to every computer in the house,
with, for convenience, the same password on each. In the future, if I
have a visitor who needs a computer, he will get to use that account
with a new password that I'll set up for the duration of his visit, and
he will never know the original password or the password for any of the
Administrator accounts.

I think the BF is good candidate for getting a standard account only,
and not getting a password to any Administrator accounts on
Bramblestick's daughter's computer.

Unless he reforms

 

[Paul]

Does a brand new drive come with a Windows MBR?

I can't vouch for all of them, but they seem to come
with a single NTFS partition. So the MBR would be defined.

I probably told you at some point, about the *BIOS*
on an old computer here, that will not tolerate an all-zero MBR.
If you do that, and leave the zeroed drive connected, the
computer will not boot. You have to disconnect the zeroed
drive, to complete boot. Without that, basically the
BIOS freezes up.

In that case, you need to put that drive in a USB enclosure, wait
for boot to complete (so Windows is in control), and then work on the
drive over USB. Then you can use Disk Management and so on.
Once "repaired", then it's safe to connect directly to
the motherboard again.

I've learned all of this, the hard way :-( By getting
stuck, and having to "bail like crazy".

Paul

 

[Big Steel]

I haven't seen any sub-threads, let alone non-productive ones.


A couple of us have pointed out that the full retail version is not a
requirement. The less expensive Upgrade version works fine for clean
installs.

<rest snipped>

I can't see that you added any new info to the thread, RC, but I
thought it would be worthwhile to offer a correction regarding retail
versus upgrade options.

It was not about the full retail or upgrade version. It was about
deleting the partition and just doing the install. And then there was
all the posts.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Char.

A couple of us have pointed out that the full retail version is not a
requirement. The less expensive Upgrade version works fine for clean
installs.

This is an example of what I meant by a non-productive sub-thread. Once
Bramblestick confirmed that he bought a "Full Version (PC DVD)" of Win7,
the "full v. upgrade" discussion should have been saved for another
conversation - where it might be productive. There also are sub-threads
about the possible need for Linux or other third-party formatters or
installers; unless the OP reports that booting from the Win7 DVD does not
work, we need not start down those paths.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"Char Jackson" wrote in message

Hi, Bramblestick.

Your thread has wandered off into several non-productive sub-thread.

I haven't seen any sub-threads, let alone non-productive ones.

But
Big Steel gave you the right advice, after confirming that you have the
"Full" retail version of Win7.

A couple of us have pointed out that the full retail version is not a
requirement. The less expensive Upgrade version works fine for clean
installs.

<rest snipped>

I can't see that you added any new info to the thread, RC, but I
thought it would be worthwhile to offer a correction regarding retail
versus upgrade options.

 

[Char Jackson]

It was not about the full retail or upgrade version.

Yet, that's part of what I quoted above, so apparently it was at least
partly about that.

It was about deleting the partition and just doing the install.

What was confusing about that?

And then there was all the posts.

That shouldn't have been confusing. There weren't that many posts and
they were all on topic and productive, so I'm not sure what RC was
referring to. Oh, well.

 

[Big Steel]

Yet, that's part of what I quoted above, so apparently it was at least
partly about that.


What was confusing about that?

Linux and everything else in the thread when the simple solution was
just delete the partition and install from the install dvd.

That shouldn't have been confusing. There weren't that many posts and
they were all on topic and productive, so I'm not sure what RC was
referring to. Oh, well.

I think I know.

 

[Char Jackson]

Hi, Char.


This is an example of what I meant by a non-productive sub-thread. Once
Bramblestick confirmed that he bought a "Full Version (PC DVD)" of Win7,
the "full v. upgrade" discussion should have been saved for another
conversation - where it might be productive.

That's wrong, of course. I'd agree with you if the subject had never
come up, but it did and it was on topic, and it was initially answered
incorrectly. We shouldn't pretend that it's off topic (and
non-productive!) to correct bad information, especially when that bad
info itself was on topic.

There also are sub-threads
about the possible need for Linux or other third-party formatters or
installers; unless the OP reports that booting from the Win7 DVD does not
work, we need not start down those paths.

This is another case of bad info that was ultimately corrected.
Someone incorrectly claimed (or at least the OP misunderstood) that
the Win 7 DVD wasn't able to format the drive, so yes, that needed to
be corrected. Meanwhile, that's how the Linux stuff crept in. You
didn't find it productive, but that doesn't mean that others won't.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

It's faster than XP.

Wolf K.

On the same hardware (especially memory)? And does it have to be a
"crippled" version of 7 for this to be true ("Starter edition", or Aero
turned off, or - well, anything?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Hi, Bramblestick. []
No OS will obey your command to commit suicide, which means you can't
boot into Windows on Drive C: and ask it to format Drive C:. But if

[]
Not (AFAIK - not sure about version 3.x) Windows, but "No OS" is wrong -
you certainly could "format c:" (or a:, if you'd booted from a in DOS.
(It would issue a warning.) I'm sure some other OSs too ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

 

[Wolf K]

On the same hardware (especially memory)? And does it have to be a
"crippled" version of 7 for this to be true ("Starter edition", or Aero
turned off, or - well, anything?)

W7 Pro 64 on an ancient Duo-core with 64-bit emulation, 4GB RAM, GeForce
9400 graphics, MSI mobo with 800MHz FSB. W7 boots noticeably faster.
Based on "user perception", which is really what counts IMO. The
difference is most pronounced when processing large (3-4GB) images:
barely noticeable hiccup in W7, what feels like a second or two stall in
XP, using the same software. I keep the XP only because I haven't found
a driver solution for the ancient but super-reliable Canon ImageRunner
printer.

However, _starting_ some older 32-bit programs takes longer. I think
it's compatibility mode that causes this.

And as I said in another post, I "need" a new laptop.... Expensive
hobby, computers. Almost as expensive as RC airplanes. ;-).

HTH
Wolf K.

 

[Steve Hayes]

On the same hardware (especially memory)? And does it have to be a
"crippled" version of 7 for this to be true ("Starter edition", or Aero
turned off, or - well, anything?)

When my XP laptop was stolen it was taking 25 minutes to boot, and 7 minutes
to shut down.

The Win 7 one I replaced it with took 25 seconds to boot a 7 second to shut
down.

Of course it helped that it had 2 Gigs of RAM instead of 250 Mb.

 

[Ken Blake]

When my XP laptop was stolen it was taking 25 minutes to boot, and 7 minutes
to shut down.

The Win 7 one I replaced it with took 25 seconds to boot a 7 second to shut
down.

Of course it helped that it had 2 Gigs of RAM instead of 250 Mb.

2GB for Windows 7 and 256MB for Windows XP are roughly equivalent
amounts. The amount of memory probably had little or nothing to do
with the difference in startup and shutdown times. If XP took that
long to start up and shut down, something was seriously wrong--very
possibly a malware infection.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

W7 Pro 64 on an ancient Duo-core with 64-bit emulation, 4GB RAM,
GeForce 9400 graphics, MSI mobo with 800MHz FSB. W7 boots noticeably
faster. Based on "user perception", which is really what counts IMO.

A dual-core with 4G is hardly "ancient". XP will - for most purposes -
run well enough on a single-core with 1G - for me; I actually upped it
to 2G hoping it would fix the problem with Skype, but it didn't (behaves
like a memory leak - runs fine at Skype start, but falls over at 100%
CPU usage after a few minutes. It isn't using all the memory, not even
1G). I don't think I've noticed much if any difference in any
application from doubling the RAM, which suggests to me that the 1G was
more than enough for XPSP3. (Device manager usually shows <800M in use.)

The difference is most pronounced when processing large (3-4GB) images:

Do you mean something like disc images? If you mean pictures, I'd say
that's quite an unusual use of computing! Even today's ridiculous
multimegapixel cameras [always used at maximum resolution, of course
(-:], or a scanner scanning full A4 at high resolution - 3 to 4 G, what
are these images? (Or are they something you could tell me but would
then have to kill me?)

barely noticeable hiccup in W7, what feels like a second or two stall
in XP, using the same software. I keep the XP only because I haven't
found a driver solution for the ancient but super-reliable Canon
ImageRunner printer.

However, _starting_ some older 32-bit programs takes longer. I think
it's compatibility mode that causes this.

If that's the case, it suggests to me that compatibility mode hasn't
been well designed. (Might be the processor rather than the OS at fault
there though - depends where the emulation takes place.)

And as I said in another post, I "need" a new laptop.... Expensive
hobby, computers. Almost as expensive as RC airplanes. ;-).

HTH
Wolf K.

Indeed. And depressing (to an engineer, anyway) when you see the piles
of once-good machines (I have such a pile!) fit for nothing but scrap
these days.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

 

[Steve Hayes]

2GB for Windows 7 and 256MB for Windows XP are roughly equivalent
amounts. The amount of memory probably had little or nothing to do
with the difference in startup and shutdown times. If XP took that
long to start up and shut down, something was seriously wrong--very
possibly a malware infection.

I doubt it.

I think what happened was that 250 Mb RAM was adequate when I bought it, but
each Windows and program upgrade was more bloated than the last, and in the
end it was spending most of its time swapping to disk.

There's one program I used -- Legacy Family Tree, where I was always a version
behind the latest, because to run the latest would have required a hardware
upgrade. And when I did a hardware upgrade, I'd get the latest version and
two months later they'd bring out a new version with more bloat that would
requitre new hardware, even if I didn't need most of the new features. Same
with Firefox, and several other ptograms.

 

[Dominique]

Hi, Bramblestick. []
No OS will obey your command to commit suicide, which means you can't
boot into Windows on Drive C: and ask it to format Drive C:. But if

[]
Not (AFAIK - not sure about version 3.x) Windows, but "No OS" is wrong -
you certainly could "format c:" (or a:, if you'd booted from a in DOS.
(It would issue a warning.) I'm sure some other OSs too ...

Windows 3.x was not exactly an OS, it was a DOS program, mainly a graphic
user interface; I don't know if you could format the system drive from
within Win 3.x but it wouldn't surprise me if you could.

We could call it an OS in the sense that some other programs needed it to
run but Win 3.x itself needed DOS which is the real OS in that situation.

 

[Dominique]

Hi,
My daughter's BF has installed a non-genuine version of Windows 7
Ultimate on her laptop. I've bought a genuine version of Home Premium.
I'm thinking of wiping her hard-drive & installing the genuine article
(not entirely sure how to do this..). Are there things that I should
watch out for? I've never installed win 7 on a bare drive...
Cheers,
Bramblestick

Since it's a laptop and if the BF hasn't wiped everything, there should be
an hidden partition to restore the original OS, the manual should explain
how to proceed.

What is the brand and model of that laptop?

 

[Ken Blake]

Windows 3.x was not exactly an OS, it was a DOS program, mainly a graphic
user interface; I don't know if you could format the system drive from
within Win 3.x but it wouldn't surprise me if you could.

We could call it an OS in the sense that some other programs needed it to
run but Win 3.x itself needed DOS which is the real OS in that situation.

Windows 3.x was certainly an operating system. An operating system is
the software that handles I/O, manages the hardware, and runs the
applications (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system,
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/operating_system.html,
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/operating-system,
and lots of other definitions on the web).

Yes, Windows 3.x ran under DOS, but that's an example of one operating
system running under another operating system. Here's another example:
on mainframes, an operating system like IBM's MVS could run either
alone or under the operating system VM/370; that does *not* mean that
MVS wasn't an operating system when it was doing that.

 

[Dominique]

situation.


Windows 3.x was certainly an operating system. An operating system is
the software that handles I/O, manages the hardware, and runs the
applications (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system,
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/operating_system.html,
http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/operating-system,
and lots of other definitions on the web).

Yes, Windows 3.x ran under DOS, but that's an example of one operating
system running under another operating system. Here's another example:
on mainframes, an operating system like IBM's MVS could run either
alone or under the operating system VM/370; that does *not* mean that
MVS wasn't an operating system when it was doing that.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Ken Blake]

Thanks for the correction.

You're welcome. Glad to help.