Re: Windows 10 considerations

["Paul Breeze" dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxx (Redacted sender "paul.breeze" for DMARC)]

Dear Kari

Yes, I agree. My main reason for upgrading from XP to Windows 7 was to
move from 32 bit to 64 bit, which seemed a worthwhile change. So far it
has been (relatively) painless.


Best wishes

Paul

On 10/01/2016 11:48, Kari Eveli wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> I think you have an important point there. In fact, my own rig (an HP
> Z400 which I bought second-hand was originally a Vista machine that has
> been upgraded to Win7). It is true that you can upgrade many XP machines
> to Win7, most Vista machines to Win7, most Win7 machines to Win8 and
> Win10. My point is to resist any unnecessary changes as long as one can.
> Keep your system in the original configuration while it is supported.
> Less pain, more gain. Despite all the talk about user interface
> enhancements, I have seen none that really matter. The operating system
> should remain in the background, the apps should be the main thing in
> our computing.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kari Eveli
> LEXITEC Book Publishing (Finland)
> lexitec@xxxxxxxx
>
> *** Lexitec Online ***
> Lexitec in English: http://www.lexitec.fi/english.html
> Home page in Finnish: http://www.lexitec.fi/
>
> 9.1.2016, 13:57, Paul Breeze (Redacted sender paul.breeze for DMARC) wrote:
> > Dear Kari
> >
> > I'm not sure your suggestion about not upgrading older systems always
> > applies.
> >
> > I am running a silent system I built around 8 years ago with an AMD
> > motherboard. I was using XP but have just in the last couple of weeks
> > upgraded to Windows 7 with no problem -- in fact with less problem
> > than installing XP because the operating system appears to carry
> > drivers for everything on the motherboard. In addition to that I can
> > still plug a variety of modern AMD processors into the board. I last
> > upgraded about four years ago with a dual processor and was looking
> > last month at some quad processor chips.
> >
> > Of course commercial systems may present problems that I have not
> > encountered.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 08/01/2016 19:22, Kari Eveli wrote:
> > > Jordan,
> > >
> > > As a general rule, there is not much to be gained from changing
> > > something that works well. Computers should ideally be used with the
> > >  operating system they came with. Buying a new system with new system
> > >  software is the easiest solution when the old one stops working or
> > > becomes too much of a risk to use. Upgrades are just stopgap measures
> > > to make the old systems last longer. Given the short cycles of
> > > technology, upgrading systems older than a couple of years may prove
> > > to be counterproductive.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Kari Eveli LEXITEC Book Publishing (Finland) lexitec@xxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > *** Lexitec Online *** Lexitec in English:
> > > http://www.lexitec.fi/english.html Home page in Finnish:
> > > http://www.lexitec.fi/
> > >
> > >
> > > > You make me very glad that I am using older hardware with older
> > > > chips / CPU ! I think the most recent desktop rig that I'm running
> > > > is circa 2009. A laptop may be from about a year later. They are
> > > > powerful enough for the vast majority of what I do, computing wise.
> > > > I've also got a decent supply of spare parts. Maybe there is some
> > > > way to block or turn off said chips, or parts of what they do, but
> > > > now I'm even less interested in upgrading.