Microsoft could be facing a class action for Windows 10 OS upgrade

[samiscool51]

10 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

How ironic is it to complain about the spelling of an arbitrary corporate name, then failing to use the language properly? 

does anyone read signatories?

because read mine....

[Dabombinable]

8 hours ago, Avayel said:

Glad it's not just me! lol I installed Vista Ultimate on my Sony Vaio that came with XP Media Center Edition, ran just fine.

As long as you didn't try running it on a system with less than 1GB of RAM.....which most people and OEM did. I myself found no problems with Vista either, although its very limited SSD support means that I went to Windows 7.

[Eaglerino]

3 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

As long as you didn't try running it on a system with less than 1GB of RAM.....which most people and OEM did. I myself found no problems with Vista either, although its very limited SSD support means that I went to Windows 7.

My first major computer ran Vista 64-bit and I had zero problems with it but it was kind of expensive at the time, 4GB RAM, dual core, and an Nvidia 8800. I didn't have any Vista compatibility issues like other people kept telling me I would, except to this day I can't get Call of Duty 2 to run on anything less than Windows XP. Eventually I upgraded to 7 and functionally can barely tell the difference

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Eaglerino said:

My first major computer ran Vista 64-bit and I had zero problems with it but it was kind of expensive at the time, 4GB RAM, dual core, and an Nvidia 8800. I didn't have any Vista compatibility issues like other people kept telling me I would, except to this day I can't get Call of Duty 2 to run on anything less than Windows XP. Eventually I upgraded to 7 and functionally can barely tell the difference

The real main benefit of Windows 7 is the way programs show in the task bar, and windows snapping to the edge. Which are the only things I miss when I occasionally go back to it. Although at the same time, I gain compatibility with Windows XP and 7 drivers at the same time, which is really good for old hardware.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 hours ago, samiscool51 said:

does anyone read signatories?

Of course not.

14 hours ago, samiscool51 said:

because read mine....

I have no problems with your English, only with you calling out people on the most trivial misspelling despite it.

[SCHISCHKA]

What happened to people who wanted a refund where they bought OEM but did not use the windows license?

[Avayel]

20 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

As long as you didn't try running it on a system with less than 1GB of RAM.....which most people and OEM did. I myself found no problems with Vista either, although its very limited SSD support means that I went to Windows 7.

My desktop at the time had 1GB RAM, Pentium D and whatever graphics came with the PC at the time (originally had XP installed).

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, Avayel said:

My desktop at the time had 1GB RAM, Pentium D and whatever graphics came with the PC at the time (originally had XP installed).

At least it wasn't a Celeron D, or one of the earlier Northwood Pentium 4 (let alone Willamette-1.8GHz and you still have a slower CPU than an old Pentium III 1GHz).

[ProjectBox153]

On 3/29/2017 at 6:24 PM, Dabombinable said:

As long as you didn't try running it on a system with less than 1GB of RAM.....which most people and OEM did. I myself found no problems with Vista either, although its very limited SSD support means that I went to Windows 7.

Vista? I used Vista Ultimate with 256MB of RAM, and it was usable. Not the snappiest, but it definitely could do some stuff. 

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, Jamiec1130 said:

Vista? I used Vista Ultimate with 256MB of RAM, and it was usable. Not the snappiest, but it definitely could do some stuff. 

*facepalm* That's called HDD thrashing, and due to systems like that, Vista ran worse than XP as XP can make do with less than 80MB of RAM (or SP2 can, SP3 needs 100MB).

[ProjectBox153]

7 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

*facepalm* That's called HDD thrashing, and due to systems like that, Vista ran worse than XP as XP can make do with less than 80MB of RAM (or SP2 can, SP3 needs 100MB).

The HDD actually had fairly low usage. It was quicker than if it was constantly accessing the drive (and I would know because that's an old PATA laptop drive). 

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Jamiec1130 said:

The HDD actually had fairly low usage. It was quicker than if it was constantly accessing the drive (and I would know because that's an old PATA laptop drive). 

Windows Vista used more than 256MB of RAM with nothing installed. I know that because I ran it on:

• 2x Pentium III 1000EB 512MB and 2GB of PC1333 SDRAM and a Segate U5 HDD (painfully slow to boot, and recently it got upgraded to an ATA IV)
• Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz with 512MB of DDR 330 and a 80GB PATA HDD (later on 1.5GB then 2GB, the original 40GB HDD wasn't around for long as a 1cm drop while turned off shattered its spindle) - BTW that laptop even under XP was less responsive than the Pentium III desktop
• Celeron M380 with 512MB DDR2 400 with a 60GB PATA HDD (later on a Pentium M770 with 2GB of RAM and a 160GB HDD)
• Core Duo T2600 with 2GB DDR2 400 and 100GB SATA1 HDD that was slower than my U5 somehow (later on a Core 2 Duo T7600 with 4GB of RAM and a 500GB 7200RPM HDD @ SATA 1)

[ProjectBox153]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Windows Vista used more than 256MB of RAM with nothing installed. I know that because I ran it on:

• 2x Pentium III 1000EB 512MB and 2GB of PC1333 SDRAM and a Segate U5 HDD (painfully slow to boot, and recently it got upgraded to an ATA IV)
• Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz with 512MB of DDR 330 and a 80GB PATA HDD (later on 1.5GB then 2GB, the original 40GB HDD wasn't around for long as a 1cm drop while turned off shattered its spindle) - BTW that laptop even under XP was less responsive than the Pentium III desktop
• Celeron M380 with 512MB DDR2 400 with a 60GB PATA HDD (later on a Pentium M770 with 2GB of RAM and a 160GB HDD)
• Core Duo T2600 with 2GB DDR2 400 and 100GB SATA1 HDD that was slower than my U5 somehow (later on a Core 2 Duo T7600 with 4GB of RAM and a 500GB 7200RPM HDD @ SATA 1)

Hmm, I don't know. My copy never had that much RAM usage for some reason. 

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, Jamiec1130 said:

Hmm, I don't know. My copy never had that much RAM usage for some reason. 

Did it by any chance have an AMD/Ati graphics card?

[ProjectBox153]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Did it by any chance have an AMD/Ati graphics card?

Some random, not too common ATI mobile chip designed for stuff like Word. 

[Dabombinable]

6 minutes ago, Jamiec1130 said:

Some random, not too common ATI mobile chip designed for stuff like Word. 

That would be why-older Ati or AMD drivers use far less RAM than newer ones and those from Nvidia.

[ProjectBox153]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

That would be why-older Ati or AMD drivers use far less RAM than newer ones and those from Nvidia.

I didn't have the display drivers installed as they never worked properly with anything other than Windows XP, if they worked there. 

[Dabombinable]

6 minutes ago, Jamiec1130 said:

I didn't have the display drivers installed as they never worked properly with anything other than Windows XP, if they worked there. 

Just how old was the computer? Was it by any chance the Mobility Radeon 9000igp (which is half a Radeon 9000)?

[samiscool51]

15 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I have no problems with your English, only with you calling out people on the most trivial misspelling despite it.

....

why is everyone mean today? 

jeez....

[ProjectBox153]

13 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Just how old was the computer? Was it by any chance the Mobility Radeon 9000igp (which is half a Radeon 9000)?

It is a Toshiba Satellite 1905-S277, and the graphics chip is identified as a Mobility Radeon with 16MB VRAM. 

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, Jamiec1130 said:

It is a Toshiba Satellite 1905-S277, and the graphics chip is identified as a Mobility Radeon with 16MB VRAM. 

OK...laptops changed a lot within a couple of years, comparing it (http://www.anandtech.com/show/894) to my old one from 2004-albeit with the 3.2GHz P4 being the only difference from the laptop reviewed (http://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/compaq-presario-r3000-review/)