SHP Forums

It sounds like this is about the right size, larger than a Netbook, but still small enough to not be a pain to carry around. If Patrick going to get a new one anyway, perhaps he'll give you the old one to use at home for more capabilities.

You can turn off Aero, but no classic start menu. Most people that give the Win7 interface a chance usually prefer it to XP's one they get used to it. This includes me, and I strongly dislike the Mac GUI, even after giving it repeated tries for many years and having had to professionally support them. The added alpha channel and the ability to pin shortcuts to the Taskbar are what make it look similar to Macs, but functionally the Win7 GUI is deeper. It has a lot of usability enhancements that you quickly become dependent on, things like thumbnails for icons for a preview of each file and the Taskbar enhancements. I've had several friends that have felt as you about the Windows interface, but after using it for a while have grown to love the Win7 GUI. Even small features, such as when renaming a file, only the file name is selected, not the extension, when you have Windows set to show all extensions. Remember, it is potentially dangerous to have extensions hidden, the Windows default.

DPX is right in that bit depth determines how much RAM your machine can use. 32-bit has a theoretical limit of 4GB, with a practical limit of less than 4GB. 32-bit OSs can use more via PAE (Physical Address Extension), but it is slower than native access to the >4GB addresses. It is also not enabled as default in 32-bit Windows. The main thing to remember for a portable is that the more RAM you install the more power it will suck up (AKA battery life). You should have at least 2-4GB. Anything more will not gain you that much and will shorten battery time. So the RAM limit is not much of a factor for this machine. Something to consider when choosing bit depth is that Win x64 seems snappier than 32-bit. This is due to a couple of factors. It's newer code with the 16-bit code (NTVDM, WOW, etc.) removed it has less legacy overhead. It also has a smaller memory footprint than 32-bit Windows. The >4GB limit only matters if you have an application that needs the extra address space to utilize the extra RAM. Most consumers don't need it, but that may change with time.

I didn't know this, but apparently there is a way to use the Classic theme in Windows 7. Here's the page on how to do it. You won't need any third-party programs since the instructions are straight from Microsoft.

I tested it out and it works. I wouldn't want to use it, but it seems Jules does.

That is for Vista, that check box is missing in Win7. That ability was removed with Win7. Here is what the Start Menu properties looks like in Win7.

Collector, I have Windows 7 and here's what Classic Mode looks like on my laptop:

Now if you mean the actual Windows menu (as opposed to the entire theme) then you can simply use CSMenu to complete the look and feel.

I know that you can set the general theme to classic, but the article that you linked to was for Vista and the first thing listed was setting the Start Menu to classic view. I prefer the XP and greater Start Menu over the classic. It has great usability with the pinned programs at the top left, the recently used applications at the bottom left and direct links along the right that give you one click access many system features. That and the fact that it is highly customizable. I do sightly prefer the cascading All Programs menu in XP over the scrolling one in Vista/Win7, but that is minor. In comparison, the old Windows 95 style Start Menu is slow, clunky and awkward, with frequently used items buried too deeply.

That aside, I'm with you. Give me the new GUI. Classic has become primitive and not nearly as functional. I have found that most that set their theme to classic have never given the newer themes enough of a chance to get used to it. Most of the changes are not just change for change's sake.

Collector wrote:I know that you can set the general theme to classic, but the article that you linked to was for Vista and the first thing listed was setting the Start Menu to classic view.

Ah, okay. I was looking at changing the entire theme and interface (for the most part) into Windows Classic. The actual start menu won't change (like you said) but CSMenu works.

Collector wrote:That aside, I'm with you. Give me the new GUI. Classic has become primitive and not nearly as functional. I have found that most that set their theme to classic have never given the newer themes enough of a chance to get used to it. Most of the changes are not just change for change's sake.

People are naturally resistant to change of any kind. It's sometimes difficult to get over that hump and try new things.

You guys can be so nerdy with your computer talk!

All kidding aside, I do appreciate the help.

I'm going to hold off on purchasing anything at the moment until I do a little more research.

That's "geeky."

It's probably a good idea to hold off right now. Look up more information and see what's happening with Patrick's laptop as well.