Windows doesn't "just work"

23n1th

Was handed an old netbook yesterday to fix an Advent 4211-B. Turned out I needed to replace the hard drive, which I did. I then went about installing XP home back onto it, which took a long time, only to find out that nothing worked properly, no wireless, ethernet, webcam etc.

Advents website is very helpful btw, telling you to contact PC World, eventually realteks website provided to wireless driver I need to download SlimDriver to get the rest.

Out of interest I downloaded Lubuntu 10.10, loaded it up and it found all the hardware straight away, no need to trawl the internet from another computer to find drivers. Not only that but it was more responsive running from the CD than XP was running from the HD.

Now I'm tempted to install Lubuntu and say I couldn't salvage XP for them. They'd be better off for it.

JJ_Egan

The old XP is hardly going to find current drivers for modern hardware it dont know what a netbook is it was born before netbooks .

If they can work Linux let them try it for a week or two .
Some can get on with it straight away .

jje

mrhunter_2

JJ Egan is right, it seems that XP does not know where to look for the drivers. Vista & 7 on the other hand are both very good a finding and installing new hardware.

HO87

mrhunter wrote: »

Vista & 7 on the other hand are both very good a finding and installing new hardware.

True, but both are Microsloth bloatware products and were the OP's customers to upgrade to one or other of them would have cost implications. Lubuntu, by contrast, is open source and far less resource hungry than W7 or Vista and, of course, is free.

As a suggestion why not give them a dual boot so they can "play" with Lubuntu whilst having XP to get them through the things they need to do until they got used to it.

teffers

Search the net for the model of netbook you have. Look for the 'drivers' for that model (for each item of hardware you have an issue with).

Hammyman

23n1th wrote: »

Was handed an old netbook yesterday to fix an Advent 4211-B. Turned out I needed to replace the hard drive, which I did. I then went about installing XP home back onto it, which took a long time, only to find out that nothing worked properly, no wireless, ethernet, webcam etc.


Now I'm tempted to install Lubuntu and say I couldn't salvage XP for them. They'd be better off for it.

If I were you, I'd be more tempted to stop fixing peoples computers because you plainly have little clue. Any half competent person wouldn't expect XP to have included drivers for anything made in the last half decade and at most, only LAN and basic graphics.

They'd be better off if they take it somewhere else.

Hammyman

HO87 wrote: »

True, but both are Microsloth bloatware products

Oh, my ribs are aching. Do you feel clever when you say that? Are you aware that Windows XP can run with a fully fledged GUI with just 64MB of RAM, something that no Linux distro has been able to do for the thick end of a decade?

23n1th

Hammyman wrote: »

If I were you, I'd be more tempted to stop fixing peoples computers because you plainly have little clue. Any half competent person wouldn't expect XP to have included drivers for anything made in the last half decade and at most, only LAN and basic graphics.

Good job you ain't me then, little clue is better than no clue just as half competent is better than incompetent. Both of which you seem to be when commenting on linux. There are plenty of linux distros that run with 64mb of ram. Silly hammy.

I guess I'm just used to things working, which is apparently what everyone think windows is supposed to do.

They'd be better off if they take it somewhere else.

I don't see how, seeing as its working as they wanted at the cost of £0.

Mr_Oink

Hammyman wrote: »

Are you aware that Windows XP can run with a fully fledged GUI with just 64MB of RAM

Great plates of wobbling custard - what a useful system that would be! I wonder how much use you could get out of a Windows GUI based system in 64mb of ram?

Hammyman wrote: »

something that no Linux distro has been able to do for the thick end of a decade?

Really? A lot of embedded devices, routers and home gateways {that is USEFUL devices that run Linux} seem to contradict this - but if you don't want to count web gui's there are several on this list:

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Minimal_Linux_distros

... which rather ironically brings us back to this...... >>>

Hammyman wrote: »

Do you feel clever when you say that?

I hope you did :-) Son, you have some egg on your face, clean yourself up.

23n1th

I would imagine I'm comparing them since XP (the 10 year old OS you're refering to) was the OS used on the netbook in the first place (ie, I didn't decide to install it), is it my fault m$ was using an out of date OS? Who is iPhan?

Mr_Oink

23n1th wrote: »

I would imagine I'm comparing them since XP (the 10 year old OS you're refering to) was the OS used on the netbook in the first place

Take no notice of BackOnTrack - he has some experience with clunky operating systems playing catch-up, as he is a Debian user :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Whilst XP may be a '10 year old' operating system, it has had a number of service packs and weekly fixes and updates so it's hardly fair to consider the core as 10 year old code. It may be considered 'end of life', but has extended support until 2014 - so the remarks about it's age are largely irrelevant.

I get your point about 'why won't it just work'. I have to admit for many machines an install of a lollipop Linux like *buntu is such a breeze compared to anything Microsoft. There is no fiddling with keys, no piracy and no needing to call them when it refuses to activate. On the other hand some hardware can be a royal backside to get to work with *buntu - but in general I tend to agree with your sentiments.


'Debian' English for "Slackware is too hard for me" - commonly known as 'why use one simple linear config file when breaking it into 20 pointless conf.d parts will do the same job!'