Is this equal size to 2133 just that this actuallt fills the screen instead of speakrs? becasue the other says 8.9 and this says 10. is it because they used more of the areal (no speakers) ?
yer just download the trial from the internet then enter your bought serial when the pop up shows. Y would u wanna run dreamweaver nd flash on a netbook
Its cool... I was just asking.... is not that I want to run it.. I was just curious about why this mini didn't had a hard-disk drive... but ur right... todays days harddisk are kinda like floppis...
holy shit "if T-pain were to buy a netbook" - that's probably the stupidest fucking opening line I have _ever_ heard. thanks, now I have to go kill some bunnies just because of you.
It is as noisy as previous model, although not as hot.
It is even nosier than U1010. Sometimes the screen resolution changed to 800x600 automatically without cause. Click on Start Menu folder (Vista), take a few seconds to open, but using Classic Start Menu is fine.
In counter strike 1.6 i set my resolution to 800x600 and the FPS im getting was constantly 80FPS but goes down to 40 fps if there is more than 24 people in the game
Tested out warcraft 3 frozen throne .. FPS was 60 constantly playing DOTA but drops if you play large maps or build a lot of stuffs
It doesn't have to have an SSD to 'qualify' as a Netbook as there's no specific definition. It's simply a portable notebook that's built for net centric computing, thus the name. Intel Atom, not excessive ram, Intel GMA 950, still retaining a very small size. I say it can rightfully be called a netbook.
First EEE PC - the idea - was essentially what I was looking for for some time and all these quasi-EEE are simply not good enough. After replacing HDD with SSD Dell, Acer or HP would meet certain level of quality but they'll not do that because average user has no idea about drives and will be easily misinformed - cheap shots :-(
if the price is not expensive this one beast will a very awesome netbook to showoff to other people so looking a netbook this will be the best at a great value but regardless I am still waiting for the ion platform which will make a revolution to netbook
Albert said you can't install software on netbooks because they don't have CD drives, that they aren't good enough to even run MS Word, play movies, the list goes on and on. He seems to find the thought of Photoshop running on them utterly impossible.
And the funny thing is, he's a "guru" from the same company as this much more informative video which appreciates that netbooks are extremely capable despite their smaller size and far lower price.
hp 2133 is good but 2140 is finally out to upgrade it
I just bought this 2140 and i think this is the best NETBOOK in the market compared to the others not just the specifications and also the aluminium case
i also think that the Toshiba Protege R500 would be better but your right it isnt a net book and it cost more then a net book should be it seems awesome thought
Vista is well acknowledged as being a massive failure. The pseudo security, odd hardware configuration, broken compatibility, and poor implementation of local user settings is just the tip of the spear as to what is wrong with the os.
Can you debug? Can you work in x86 ASM? Could you reverse engineer a program? How much does your "work" qualify you as to being a professional? If anything, you're probably just a lamer.
There's nothing about windows xp that makes it better than vista, listing the only alleged problems with the operating system as only being the "tip of the spear" is just a stupid exaggeration, much like your complaints about vista to begin with.
The only thing about XP that's better than vista is a little plus called RELIABILITY! Flexibility is also better with XP. With EVERY new version of Windows, Mickysoft locks down windows a little more. I've started just replacing windows with Ubuntu anyway.
Ubuntu simply isn't ready to completely replace windows yet. And windows xp was never reliable, I don't understand why everyone thinks that xp never crashed just because vista got shit about reliability. I don't get what you mean by saying it's more flexible
I've been running XP on a system formatted in NTFS for about three and a half years now, and after using it DAILY, I've never had it crash. As for Vista's flexibility - there is A LOT of hardware and software that will not work well with Vista. Not only no name stuff - but MAJOR brands. And actually, Ubuntu is very stable and easy for moderate to advanced users. Vista has so many issues just waiting to cause problems.
umm, vista is VERY stable and it works VERY well, anything that i've installed to either the motherboard or the operating system has had no problem running since launch.
Ubuntu is not stable. Ubuntu crashes daily. I've used it on many computers I own and it never works properly. It doesn't work with half of my hardware and the software it runs is mostly second class "open source" copies of good software built for Windows/Mac. Driver support for Ubuntu is almost nonexistent. You can't even run flash on AMD64 architectures. Vista is the second most popular os in the world, second only to XP. It has no compatibility issues except with old hardware made before XP.
dude get the right version then, or u just suck at installing linux, Ive used it on my servers, clustered it, virtulised a shit load of stuff on it, It ran gr8 for a few months, until my isp desided to crash my network, the clusters fucked up and I went on using server 2003...
I know how to install it. I had no problems using Ubuntu, Suse, or Linpus, all the "easy" distros, they all sucked for the same reasons. People say they're stable but they're not. They don't have crashes entirely, in which the operating system has to reboot. Instead, you get continuous application crashes. Programs in Ubuntu did it the most often for me, they'd just randomly fade to black and I'd have to force quit them. Which is a shame since Ubuntu has such a nice interface compared to Suse.
"The software bundled with Ubuntu is mostly second rate?" I've used OpenOffice in place of MS Office for a long time now, and I'd have to say it's BETTER than the MS product. And YES Ubuntu will run on a system with an Athlon64 processor. My linux box is an HP box that I set up with Ubuntu, and I have been fairly well satisfied. It does take a bit of time, and knowledge of Linux, but you CAN get it to work. I'm writing this message using Firefox on my 64-bit Ubuntu machine.
I said you can't run FLASH (the plug-in) on an AMD64 machine simply because adobe said so. I tried doing simple things like playing a dvd, the app that's assigned to it doesn't have Xvid support. Ubuntu wouldn't support my wifi adapters, it wouldn't recognize flash drives when I plug them in, half the time when I open GIMP it would crash. When I push my pc's power button, Ubuntu just goes to sleep. Media centre keys and the left/right scroller on my mouse didn't work... it's just too much for me
If you can't install Flash on Ubuntu - why would I be on a site like YouTube on a linux machine? YouTube videos play through Adobe Flash! Linux requires a little time up front to get things going which is why I said in an earlier comment, "Ubuntu is very stable and easy for moderate to advanced users."
I'm not necessarily new to Ubuntu, I've worked with it for a long time... It just never grew on me. To get flash working I had to find old packages from when Adobe was called Macromedia, I think it's the equivalent of having flash player 7. YouTube videos turn out laggy and some flash applications outside of YouTube simply don't work or recognize that I even had the flash player installed, and every few days YouTube would stop recognizing it as well so I had to reinstall the packages for YouTube
Consider the truth that actual businesses never wanted to switch to Vista to begin with. The fact M$ offers a downgrade right to all Vista Business PCs so that companies can opt to use XP instead is a clear indication that Vista is a failure.
You can dislike Vista all you'd like, but calling it a failure makes no sense. It's clearly not a failure. When Windows XP came out, Windows 98 still had more users than XP did for about a year. Vista wasn't that much of a major upgrade so a lot of XP users don't feel like they have to upgrade to Vista, and they don't, it can't do much that XP can't do.
Windows XP is still the popular/preferred choice over Vista. I don't know what you can do on Vista that you can't do on XP. I sure as hell know that Vista can't do half the stuff I used to do on XP. That is why I'm going to get a new computer running XP very soon. Really, Vista tries to take all the power away from the user. An idiot os at best.
"Vista tries to take all the power away from the user"
I don't know where you heard that, but it's the complete opposite. Vista haters commonly tell me that Vista is oppressive, but it's not in any way. Out of the box Vista takes some configuring for me to use it, but I recall the same preparations needing o be made for XP. I never said Vista could do things XP can't, but I'd love to hear what complicated processes you undertake with XP that you could not also do with Vista.
Vista can't run cmd apps at fullscreen, which is totally lame for my intents and purposes. Somehow someway, M$ found a way to fuck up the keyboard layout, so many programs I use can't find the correct mappings, however, those same programs work flawlessly under XP and Linux distros. The sound mixer has changed in Vista, breaking some SDL programs I used to use flawlessly in XP. The inclusion of the hidden appdata directory was a fucking retarded decision for Vista. Want more reasons?
July 17th, 2008, I upgraded from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3. One of my add-ons stopped working until the developer released a Firefox 3 version. That doesn't make Firefox 2 better. It just makes it obsolete.
And why do you wan the command line to be fullscreen? It's not important in Windows, the whole point of having a GUI was so you don't need to bother with text commands anymore.
Funny how the developer for the addon was able to fix the issue, yet M$ turns a blind eye to most of their problems. Oh wait.....Win7 is being pushed like no tomorrow....hmmm. As for the CLI, most lamers such as yourself have no use for it. I on the other hand, need it. Having the cmd crippled is total ass if you rely on it. Hell a lot of oldschool apps need a fullscreen cmd so you're fucked in Vista. No problems in XP though.
I know how to use it, I just mean there's no reason to, I haven't had to in a long time, didn't even bother with it when I used XP.
The developer just upgraded it so it worked on the Firefox 3 codes. Microsoft isn't responsible for rewriting applications that worked with XP so they work on Vista. It's not their fault, just like if said developer never bothered, it wouldn't be Mozilla's fault.
You say oldschool apps, I don't know what you mean by that, oldschool to me just means obsolete.
No reason to use a cli if all you do is novice stuff. Oldschool is far from being obsolete. M$ broke compatibility, it is their fault. Case in point. Also, let me ask you, what can you do in Vista that you can't do in XP?
By saying I didn't know what you meant by oldschool, I was hoping you'd tell me your definition of it. And I never said Vista can do anything XP can't, but that's only if DirectX10 doesn't count for anything. People still consider XP to be standard. Microsoft not breaking compatibility would mean Vista would've been less significant of an upgrade.
DX10 is possible for XP but it doesnt run well at all. It was built for vista and its still not possible to run it on XP without a HUGE performance hit.
And i consider vista to be an upgrade especially if you have 4gb of ram or more. For me 64bit vista is so much better than XP 64bit. Barely anything works on XP 64bit. But with vista near enough everything is supported.
Yes Vista is an upgrade. So will Windows 7 will be, and you're right, it'll be better than Vista. Just like Vista was better than XP, and XP was better than Windows 98. Holding on to the past just so you don't lose compatibility with old software is stupid because all software has alternatives, better alternatives, of which works on Vista. And have you tried compatibility mode?
I have an XP install disk as well, if I wanted to go back to XP I would, there's no reason to fool myself into liking one option better if it isn't because I have both as an option.
Vista runs and launches programs faster than my XP system with higher specs, after minor configuration it will boot fast as well. I can use compatibility mode to run software made for XP. The new start menu is better, searching is faster. Oh but none of that matters, because the CLI can't go full screen :S
I have never seen Vista do anything faster than XP. You're just starting to sound like some idiot who is trying to protect his investment and stay optimistic. You say you can configure Vista to be fast? Don't you know you can configure any OS to run faster than its default settings? Total lamer you are. Vista is nothing more than the NT based alternative for Windows ME. Vista will go down as a complete and total fuck up. Enjoy your failed OS.
It's called Prefetch, it's why I load applications faster with Vista than with XP on the same machine. Vista by default has a lot of memory draining options turned on, changing options does less in XP than it does in Vista. You can call me a lamer over and over again, it doesn't mean shit to me or anyone else besides you because you're just using some nerdy insult in place of an actual argument. Did you know Windows 95 runs faster than Windows XP does? Does that mean you're willing to downgrade?
I have vista on a cheap sony vaio. It runs very slow, and when i want to shut down, it takes like 3 minutes saying "Windows is shutting down". XP is way faster and vista is just ripping you off for a bunch of upgrades.
So because there is text on the screen telling you what it's doing it's any different from the wait you have with Windows XP? Do you know how much longer it takes to shut down with XP than it does with Windows 98? That's the OS I was using when XP came out, and I thought the wait just to turn the computer off was ridiculous.
Win95 can't run on modern hardware like XP can. Therefore you're wrong, it is not faster depending on the systems. XP would always shut down pretty much instantly for me, until I started to get hardware failures. Your slow speeds in XP is a problem on behalf of you or your hardware. You still haven't explained why Vista is better or why it should be considered an actual upgrade. Broken record is all you are. Again, enjoy your failed OS.
I wasn't talking to you about how long XP took to shut down, I used modern (at the time) gaming computers with Windows 98, when XP came out I installed it on the computer and it took much longer to turn off. And no, it's not because of my hardware, because the computer was sold with XP on it, not Vista, it's an HP desktop PC I bought in 2005, Vista runs faster on it. And I installed Windows 95 on that computer as well, it's impractical and requires some work, but runs faster than XP does.
Funny, because I know people who dual boot XP and Vista and they always bitch about how slow Vista is compared to XP. Considering that Vista needs more resources to operate, this comes as no surprise. I still have yet to see Vista outperform my old POS running XP.
It said it runs faster. Obviously it boots slower, it's 50 million lines of codes compared to around 30 million with XP. For example the digital editing suites I use launch faster with Vista than on XP, render projects faster with Vista than XP, I notice I can usually apply more layers of effects before I start lagging out. Vista needing more resources to run doesn't mean that it has worse performance, it just means just that. It needs more resources to run.
Digital editing for me is faster on XP. Vista needing more resources to run means that XP can outperform Vista with lesser resources. Win7, however, will not require the amount of resources Vista needs either. Vista was poorly coded. End of story.
Yes. If you have a 150Mhz processor, then Windows 98 will out perform XP. Therefore, XP was poorly coded because requirements for standard computing aren't allowed to rise over time, that's inexcusable. Vista makes better use of the available hardware than XP does so initial requirement means nothing.
Give XP the hardware it needs and it will perform any of the DOS based windows. XP can run on Vista hardware, and utilize the resources better. DOS based windows can not utilize modern hardware. Fail harder.
Windows XP has lower initial requirements than Vista, meaning that on lower end hardware it will perform better. But the same fault applies to XP. On very old hardware, versions of Windows made before XP will perform better than XP will. As you increase your system specifications, newer versions of Windows will perform best. 64 bit Vista will 4+GB of ram runs much better than XP on the same hardware, as you go lower XP becomes the faster choice. Use whatever works best for you.
What you fail to see is that XP can run on the bleeding edge hardware that Vista requires and utilize the resources better than Vista. Increased system requirements is a bad sign if the OS handles resources badly such as Vista. MS knows this, that is why Win7, as a BETA, runs much faster than Vista does right now. Win7 is pretty much on par with the speed of XP, and it has many more features than XP. And no, Vista does not run faster than XP on the same hardware.
What I said is that Vista can handle more hardware at once. You can keep adding ram to a computer but eventually it'll stop making a difference with XP, where as 64 bit Vista can go much further, so eventually you get to the point where Vista can make better use of it. On average systems, 1-3GB of ram, XP will perform better. The reason is that it takes less to run, so less of your ram is being used to run the os and more is left for your applications, not because it utilizes ram better.
It's limits still aren't as high as Vista. You do know this right? And again, the only reason XP performs better is because it uses less ram, meaning there's more left over for actual processes, not because it handles ram better.
I also read that you said Microsoft broke compatibility. I run old school games with the original installer coded for Windows 95 on Vista without problems, you just set compatibility mode to Windows 95 and occasionally find the appropriate .dll files online.
Try running Vanilla Wolf if you think you can run old school games in Vista, hell even try Vanilla Doom and see what happens. Of course DosBox can be used as a work around, it is just too bad that DosBox on Vista has some broken features.
The big problem with Vista is that in never should have required such steep resources to begin with. That is why I have been mentioning Win7 and how it doesn't even need the resources Vista requires.
Maybe old school wasn't the right term. Older games, released before Windows XP was at least. I won't be any more specific because I'll probably end up saying something wrong. Command & Conquer - Red Alert, 1995. Half Life, 1998. Doom 2, 1994. Quake 2, 1997. Team Fortress, 1996. I don't know where these fit into category wise, but they all predate XP and run fine on Vista.
Ive got one of those but mine only got Windows XP =(
Lordops98 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's funny on how Im watching this through my hp 2140 xD
Frozenflutter 1 month ago
It's funny on how Im watching this through my hp 2140 xD
Frozenflutter 1 month ago
Is this equal size to 2133 just that this actuallt fills the screen instead of speakrs? becasue the other says 8.9 and this says 10. is it because they used more of the areal (no speakers) ?
sindrelove 2 months ago
how much in approx.? what OS?..... planning to buy that
ZrPreZario 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZrPreZario 1 year ago
I didn't get the T-Pain joke lol
ShawnyBoyKrump 1 year ago
if i already have laptop,they it have virus? what will ido do so that i will restore that laptop?
dekoangelz13 2 years ago
i got one :D
i play counterstrike2D on it. very fun 35 fps
boonpaLindved 2 years ago
guyz in my school every one in my class goin to get this 26 hp minis FTW!11!!
KEINIBS 2 years ago
It's Very Good!
megahfi 2 years ago
isnt having vista a bad thing?
twigs45 2 years ago
OMG LOL, my school is getting these for students, AND THEY USED THIS VIDEO FOR THE PARENT ORIENTATION!
asth12 2 years ago 4
lol i kno! our skool is usin these now 2 cuz we just used them 2day lol they r AWESOME!
backstreetgirl95 2 years ago
i just bought it
sameer28101997 2 years ago 2
How much do these mini laptops cost now?
unknownwade 2 years ago
$500-1000
sameer28101997 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
even i have an external dvd rom
sameer28101997 2 years ago
no CD room. :( so I can't install programs that comes as CD?
YellowYackets 2 years ago
CD´s/DVD´s are dead. You can download almost everything by now, even Games (like in Steam)...
dekkard 2 years ago
ut I want to install softwares such as adobe dreamweaver, Flash Professional..., etc...
YellowYackets 2 years ago
You can buy & download those Programms or you can "mount" a DVD and install it from a CD/DVD that is copied to the Harddisc. Many ways to do that...
dekkard 2 years ago
yer just download the trial from the internet then enter your bought serial when the pop up shows. Y would u wanna run dreamweaver nd flash on a netbook
biffcalliafas 2 years ago
Its cool... I was just asking.... is not that I want to run it.. I was just curious about why this mini didn't had a hard-disk drive... but ur right... todays days harddisk are kinda like floppis...
YellowYackets 2 years ago
I agree... waste of resources
BR177 2 years ago
no its like a little attachment u put in like a usb to use cds
rfipahy 2 years ago
I see
YellowYackets 2 years ago
u can use an external cd/dvd rom......
sameer28101997 2 years ago
everyone in our high school is getting this :D
keve202 2 years ago
ha we r to thats y i was looking at them. im like a pc nerd. i will be this things worst nightmare..hahahahaha
asth12 2 years ago
is this good for games like maplestory, rune scape, world of war craft, etc? please private message me
ynotluvhippo 2 years ago
nice notebook
ali7355 2 years ago
I got one ^^
boonpaLindved 2 years ago
is it good for games? and video?
patkys 2 years ago
It's good for everything, including video, except games. But it works for retro games (nes, scumm, dosbox...).
christiankarlsson 2 years ago
how is it??? i wanna run Vmware on it will it do that????
metalmulisha98101 2 years ago
holy shit "if T-pain were to buy a netbook" - that's probably the stupidest fucking opening line I have _ever_ heard. thanks, now I have to go kill some bunnies just because of you.
orkarn 2 years ago 2
why the fuck would you ever reference t-pain as some sort of metaphorical degree of quality? T-PAIN IS A FUCKING JOKE.
ohsnapitzjohn 2 years ago 3
I've got the same pen!
Gazaa90 2 years ago
I would by this :D
awgwoods72 2 years ago 4
hmm t-pain would buy this..IM GETTIN IT
JustYourAverageNick 2 years ago 4
that's what he want's everyone to think.
andyschannel17 2 years ago
Has anyone experience in playing World of Warcraft on this machine ?
delphi7691 2 years ago
i am
godnutt 2 years ago
it is a very nice laptop but if u ganna buy it wait till windows 7.
there is only 6 months left
u ganna have a better power control
heshamharold 2 years ago
i dont think theyll ship windows 7 right off the release
what do u think?
haltzy 2 years ago
actually windows 7 is coming out on october 22 im gonna get ob my birthday
rockzilla99 2 years ago
Or you could just save some money and download it, burn it to a disc and use an activator when it comes out.
: )
andyschannel17 2 years ago
this or the eee 1000he
xKatz90 2 years ago
t-pain would buy this?
correrog 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
and your mother too
lokasoo 2 years ago
It is as noisy as previous model, although not as hot.
It is even nosier than U1010. Sometimes the screen resolution changed to 800x600 automatically without cause. Click on Start Menu folder (Vista), take a few seconds to open, but using Classic Start Menu is fine.
developer108 2 years ago
the sd version can go 800x600? no way. If i could do that I would reconsider trying to trade me in for the HD one.
Soloflex 2 years ago
windows vista is listed under pros ? made me smile
manish5555 2 years ago
vista shouldn't be ran on netbooks. XP would be better and once w7 comes out that should work better than vista.
fishcomputer33 2 years ago 2
lol y T-Pain???? btw, i have this netbook
mulogo 2 years ago
VISTA on that? well Windows 7 is gona be better
SMGJohn 2 years ago
running vista is gonna be ballz slow
member353 2 years ago
yes it can runs vista but slow processing data
In counter strike 1.6 i set my resolution to 800x600 and the FPS im getting was constantly 80FPS but goes down to 40 fps if there is more than 24 people in the game
Tested out warcraft 3 frozen throne .. FPS was 60 constantly playing DOTA but drops if you play large maps or build a lot of stuffs
Moonface00z 2 years ago
Oh Dear Its Vista..........
MrSqueakz 2 years ago
you can also buy it with preinstalled linux or xp :)
ICEMAN8998 2 years ago 2
mechanical HDD...160GB - power consuming and heavy and fragile.... it's not a netbook :-(
grraadd 2 years ago
It doesn't have to have an SSD to 'qualify' as a Netbook as there's no specific definition. It's simply a portable notebook that's built for net centric computing, thus the name. Intel Atom, not excessive ram, Intel GMA 950, still retaining a very small size. I say it can rightfully be called a netbook.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Well, I will not call it netbook :-)
First EEE PC - the idea - was essentially what I was looking for for some time and all these quasi-EEE are simply not good enough. After replacing HDD with SSD Dell, Acer or HP would meet certain level of quality but they'll not do that because average user has no idea about drives and will be easily misinformed - cheap shots :-(
grraadd 2 years ago
aweosme laptop
druidkg 2 years ago
if the price is not expensive this one beast will a very awesome netbook to showoff to other people so looking a netbook this will be the best at a great value but regardless I am still waiting for the ion platform which will make a revolution to netbook
rservicex01 2 years ago
it would be perfect if it had an dvd writer inside , otherwaysu need to buy an extern dvd drive to reinstall windows or install software
gamer931215 2 years ago
can i just say i watch all your vids on laptops and netbooks and other various vids and i think you guys do a great job
thelittleaussie 2 years ago 2
T-Pain worthy eh? lol
Would be awesome if it were 720p capable... Not very much netbooks r 720p, would be nice!
Nice!
Thsiscool 2 years ago
A GMA 950 running Vista?
ImprezzaImpressions 2 years ago
uhm but canz i play ocunter strike on its?
whiteruler 2 years ago
"where is albert" lol was that sarcasm?
Albert said you can't install software on netbooks because they don't have CD drives, that they aren't good enough to even run MS Word, play movies, the list goes on and on. He seems to find the thought of Photoshop running on them utterly impossible.
And the funny thing is, he's a "guru" from the same company as this much more informative video which appreciates that netbooks are extremely capable despite their smaller size and far lower price.
diffusedlight 2 years ago
2:10 did he just say 'T- Pain worthy' ?? hahaha.
griffinthecity 2 years ago
where is albert
ZeldascornStudios 2 years ago
hp 2133 is good but 2140 is finally out to upgrade it
I just bought this 2140 and i think this is the best NETBOOK in the market compared to the others not just the specifications and also the aluminium case
Moonface00z 2 years ago
tpain would buy it ...cause he's On a BOat Motha fucka!
nothingnothing15 2 years ago
tpain wtf lol
CurtisShadyAMG 2 years ago
i got correct you
them are netbooks on the video
Silverwolfstarz 2 years ago
N Wifi !
that's awesome in a netbook !
nikkhoo 2 years ago
i also think that the Toshiba Protege R500 would be better but your right it isnt a net book and it cost more then a net book should be it seems awesome thought
Chizu2 2 years ago
I have a 2133, I kept waiting for a 2133 with a 10" and an Atom processor, I gave up a month early lol!!
Gr33nMamba 2 years ago
wtf 10"
triFeral 2 years ago
Why T-Pain?
Oh and I still think the Toshiba Protege R500 is better, its not a netbook but its still small and thin.
gera562prmnt 2 years ago
I'm not closed minded, I've had Vista 64 bit for a year I just want more speed on that tiny thing and Vista won't provide that IMO
STLFANSS 2 years ago
It's probably Vista basic 32 bit so it doesn't have aero, turn off the side bar and there's no problems with it
CheezeLN 2 years ago
T pain really lol
pepublood 2 years ago
hahahaha if T-Pain were to bey a netbook.... HP Mini!
marquesbrownlee 2 years ago
Looks great... the right and left click button setup would drive me crazy though.
big4wheeler 2 years ago
honestly it sucks some of our customers tried to get it back because vista takes forever to load
jma90 2 years ago
Vista Basic will fly with 2 Gb of Ram
Silverwolfstarz 2 years ago
Not really.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
My notebook has 3GB of ram and 2Ghz Intel core 2 duo with Intel GMA 4500MHD
and it run Vista Home Premium and it fly's
My Old AMD Dual core Notebook
and it had 2Gb of Ram
and vista Home Premium it flayed in tell the Mother board frayed
Silverwolfstarz 2 years ago
Run that on XP, then see the difference.
Vista is a whore for resources.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
I hate when people Blame Vista for being a slow OS .
It a Dam good os
and runs just like XP
When you build a computer for Vista
then vista runs Great
My System Runs very Little resources.
My Xp System i got Runs a Lot Resources
But my Vista notebook don't
Silverwolfstarz 2 years ago
the only thing i will give you is your direct x 10
sieglines 2 years ago
so i take it your abit special
Iferno600 2 years ago
Then your XP system is fuxed.
Vista is well acknowledged as being a massive failure. The pseudo security, odd hardware configuration, broken compatibility, and poor implementation of local user settings is just the tip of the spear as to what is wrong with the os.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
dude i work on computers
Silverwolfstarz 2 years ago
So?
Anybody can work on computers.
Can you debug? Can you work in x86 ASM? Could you reverse engineer a program? How much does your "work" qualify you as to being a professional? If anything, you're probably just a lamer.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
It works just fine. Lay off of vista already...its getting old.
SimmanGodz 2 years ago
There's nothing about windows xp that makes it better than vista, listing the only alleged problems with the operating system as only being the "tip of the spear" is just a stupid exaggeration, much like your complaints about vista to begin with.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
The only thing about XP that's better than vista is a little plus called RELIABILITY! Flexibility is also better with XP. With EVERY new version of Windows, Mickysoft locks down windows a little more. I've started just replacing windows with Ubuntu anyway.
VideoGuyNC 2 years ago
Ubuntu simply isn't ready to completely replace windows yet. And windows xp was never reliable, I don't understand why everyone thinks that xp never crashed just because vista got shit about reliability. I don't get what you mean by saying it's more flexible
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
I've been running XP on a system formatted in NTFS for about three and a half years now, and after using it DAILY, I've never had it crash. As for Vista's flexibility - there is A LOT of hardware and software that will not work well with Vista. Not only no name stuff - but MAJOR brands. And actually, Ubuntu is very stable and easy for moderate to advanced users. Vista has so many issues just waiting to cause problems.
VideoGuyNC 2 years ago
umm, vista is VERY stable and it works VERY well, anything that i've installed to either the motherboard or the operating system has had no problem running since launch.
CrdBrdProjects 2 years ago
Ubuntu is not stable. Ubuntu crashes daily. I've used it on many computers I own and it never works properly. It doesn't work with half of my hardware and the software it runs is mostly second class "open source" copies of good software built for Windows/Mac. Driver support for Ubuntu is almost nonexistent. You can't even run flash on AMD64 architectures. Vista is the second most popular os in the world, second only to XP. It has no compatibility issues except with old hardware made before XP.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
dude get the right version then, or u just suck at installing linux, Ive used it on my servers, clustered it, virtulised a shit load of stuff on it, It ran gr8 for a few months, until my isp desided to crash my network, the clusters fucked up and I went on using server 2003...
server4utube 2 years ago
I know how to install it. I had no problems using Ubuntu, Suse, or Linpus, all the "easy" distros, they all sucked for the same reasons. People say they're stable but they're not. They don't have crashes entirely, in which the operating system has to reboot. Instead, you get continuous application crashes. Programs in Ubuntu did it the most often for me, they'd just randomly fade to black and I'd have to force quit them. Which is a shame since Ubuntu has such a nice interface compared to Suse.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
"The software bundled with Ubuntu is mostly second rate?" I've used OpenOffice in place of MS Office for a long time now, and I'd have to say it's BETTER than the MS product. And YES Ubuntu will run on a system with an Athlon64 processor. My linux box is an HP box that I set up with Ubuntu, and I have been fairly well satisfied. It does take a bit of time, and knowledge of Linux, but you CAN get it to work. I'm writing this message using Firefox on my 64-bit Ubuntu machine.
VideoGuyNC 2 years ago
I said you can't run FLASH (the plug-in) on an AMD64 machine simply because adobe said so. I tried doing simple things like playing a dvd, the app that's assigned to it doesn't have Xvid support. Ubuntu wouldn't support my wifi adapters, it wouldn't recognize flash drives when I plug them in, half the time when I open GIMP it would crash. When I push my pc's power button, Ubuntu just goes to sleep. Media centre keys and the left/right scroller on my mouse didn't work... it's just too much for me
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
If you can't install Flash on Ubuntu - why would I be on a site like YouTube on a linux machine? YouTube videos play through Adobe Flash! Linux requires a little time up front to get things going which is why I said in an earlier comment, "Ubuntu is very stable and easy for moderate to advanced users."
VideoGuyNC 2 years ago
I'm not necessarily new to Ubuntu, I've worked with it for a long time... It just never grew on me. To get flash working I had to find old packages from when Adobe was called Macromedia, I think it's the equivalent of having flash player 7. YouTube videos turn out laggy and some flash applications outside of YouTube simply don't work or recognize that I even had the flash player installed, and every few days YouTube would stop recognizing it as well so I had to reinstall the packages for YouTube
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Consider the truth that actual businesses never wanted to switch to Vista to begin with. The fact M$ offers a downgrade right to all Vista Business PCs so that companies can opt to use XP instead is a clear indication that Vista is a failure.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
You can dislike Vista all you'd like, but calling it a failure makes no sense. It's clearly not a failure. When Windows XP came out, Windows 98 still had more users than XP did for about a year. Vista wasn't that much of a major upgrade so a lot of XP users don't feel like they have to upgrade to Vista, and they don't, it can't do much that XP can't do.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Windows XP is still the popular/preferred choice over Vista. I don't know what you can do on Vista that you can't do on XP. I sure as hell know that Vista can't do half the stuff I used to do on XP. That is why I'm going to get a new computer running XP very soon. Really, Vista tries to take all the power away from the user. An idiot os at best.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
"Vista tries to take all the power away from the user"
I don't know where you heard that, but it's the complete opposite. Vista haters commonly tell me that Vista is oppressive, but it's not in any way. Out of the box Vista takes some configuring for me to use it, but I recall the same preparations needing o be made for XP. I never said Vista could do things XP can't, but I'd love to hear what complicated processes you undertake with XP that you could not also do with Vista.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Vista can't run cmd apps at fullscreen, which is totally lame for my intents and purposes. Somehow someway, M$ found a way to fuck up the keyboard layout, so many programs I use can't find the correct mappings, however, those same programs work flawlessly under XP and Linux distros. The sound mixer has changed in Vista, breaking some SDL programs I used to use flawlessly in XP. The inclusion of the hidden appdata directory was a fucking retarded decision for Vista. Want more reasons?
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
July 17th, 2008, I upgraded from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3. One of my add-ons stopped working until the developer released a Firefox 3 version. That doesn't make Firefox 2 better. It just makes it obsolete.
And why do you wan the command line to be fullscreen? It's not important in Windows, the whole point of having a GUI was so you don't need to bother with text commands anymore.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Funny how the developer for the addon was able to fix the issue, yet M$ turns a blind eye to most of their problems. Oh wait.....Win7 is being pushed like no tomorrow....hmmm. As for the CLI, most lamers such as yourself have no use for it. I on the other hand, need it. Having the cmd crippled is total ass if you rely on it. Hell a lot of oldschool apps need a fullscreen cmd so you're fucked in Vista. No problems in XP though.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
I know how to use it, I just mean there's no reason to, I haven't had to in a long time, didn't even bother with it when I used XP.
The developer just upgraded it so it worked on the Firefox 3 codes. Microsoft isn't responsible for rewriting applications that worked with XP so they work on Vista. It's not their fault, just like if said developer never bothered, it wouldn't be Mozilla's fault.
You say oldschool apps, I don't know what you mean by that, oldschool to me just means obsolete.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
No reason to use a cli if all you do is novice stuff. Oldschool is far from being obsolete. M$ broke compatibility, it is their fault. Case in point. Also, let me ask you, what can you do in Vista that you can't do in XP?
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
By saying I didn't know what you meant by oldschool, I was hoping you'd tell me your definition of it. And I never said Vista can do anything XP can't, but that's only if DirectX10 doesn't count for anything. People still consider XP to be standard. Microsoft not breaking compatibility would mean Vista would've been less significant of an upgrade.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Can you honestly call Vista an "upgrade"?
Eh, Win7 will hopefully be what Vista should have been. As for DX10, it is possible to have it in XP, but really there is not much reason to.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
DX10 is possible for XP but it doesnt run well at all. It was built for vista and its still not possible to run it on XP without a HUGE performance hit.
And i consider vista to be an upgrade especially if you have 4gb of ram or more. For me 64bit vista is so much better than XP 64bit. Barely anything works on XP 64bit. But with vista near enough everything is supported.
slinkey123 2 years ago
Yes Vista is an upgrade. So will Windows 7 will be, and you're right, it'll be better than Vista. Just like Vista was better than XP, and XP was better than Windows 98. Holding on to the past just so you don't lose compatibility with old software is stupid because all software has alternatives, better alternatives, of which works on Vista. And have you tried compatibility mode?
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
You're only fooling yourself if you think Vista is indeed better.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
I have an XP install disk as well, if I wanted to go back to XP I would, there's no reason to fool myself into liking one option better if it isn't because I have both as an option.
Vista runs and launches programs faster than my XP system with higher specs, after minor configuration it will boot fast as well. I can use compatibility mode to run software made for XP. The new start menu is better, searching is faster. Oh but none of that matters, because the CLI can't go full screen :S
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
I have never seen Vista do anything faster than XP. You're just starting to sound like some idiot who is trying to protect his investment and stay optimistic. You say you can configure Vista to be fast? Don't you know you can configure any OS to run faster than its default settings? Total lamer you are. Vista is nothing more than the NT based alternative for Windows ME. Vista will go down as a complete and total fuck up. Enjoy your failed OS.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
It's called Prefetch, it's why I load applications faster with Vista than with XP on the same machine. Vista by default has a lot of memory draining options turned on, changing options does less in XP than it does in Vista. You can call me a lamer over and over again, it doesn't mean shit to me or anyone else besides you because you're just using some nerdy insult in place of an actual argument. Did you know Windows 95 runs faster than Windows XP does? Does that mean you're willing to downgrade?
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
I have vista on a cheap sony vaio. It runs very slow, and when i want to shut down, it takes like 3 minutes saying "Windows is shutting down". XP is way faster and vista is just ripping you off for a bunch of upgrades.
logontomyface 2 years ago
So because there is text on the screen telling you what it's doing it's any different from the wait you have with Windows XP? Do you know how much longer it takes to shut down with XP than it does with Windows 98? That's the OS I was using when XP came out, and I thought the wait just to turn the computer off was ridiculous.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Win95 can't run on modern hardware like XP can. Therefore you're wrong, it is not faster depending on the systems. XP would always shut down pretty much instantly for me, until I started to get hardware failures. Your slow speeds in XP is a problem on behalf of you or your hardware. You still haven't explained why Vista is better or why it should be considered an actual upgrade. Broken record is all you are. Again, enjoy your failed OS.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
I wasn't talking to you about how long XP took to shut down, I used modern (at the time) gaming computers with Windows 98, when XP came out I installed it on the computer and it took much longer to turn off. And no, it's not because of my hardware, because the computer was sold with XP on it, not Vista, it's an HP desktop PC I bought in 2005, Vista runs faster on it. And I installed Windows 95 on that computer as well, it's impractical and requires some work, but runs faster than XP does.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Funny, because I know people who dual boot XP and Vista and they always bitch about how slow Vista is compared to XP. Considering that Vista needs more resources to operate, this comes as no surprise. I still have yet to see Vista outperform my old POS running XP.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
It said it runs faster. Obviously it boots slower, it's 50 million lines of codes compared to around 30 million with XP. For example the digital editing suites I use launch faster with Vista than on XP, render projects faster with Vista than XP, I notice I can usually apply more layers of effects before I start lagging out. Vista needing more resources to run doesn't mean that it has worse performance, it just means just that. It needs more resources to run.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Digital editing for me is faster on XP. Vista needing more resources to run means that XP can outperform Vista with lesser resources. Win7, however, will not require the amount of resources Vista needs either. Vista was poorly coded. End of story.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
Yes. If you have a 150Mhz processor, then Windows 98 will out perform XP. Therefore, XP was poorly coded because requirements for standard computing aren't allowed to rise over time, that's inexcusable. Vista makes better use of the available hardware than XP does so initial requirement means nothing.
PowerLinuxUser 2 years ago
Pretty much... and I actually have a laptop with a 150Mhz cpu but it's got windows 95 not windows 98
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Give XP the hardware it needs and it will perform any of the DOS based windows. XP can run on Vista hardware, and utilize the resources better. DOS based windows can not utilize modern hardware. Fail harder.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
No, it can't utilize resources better. There's not even anything more to say to that, it just isn't true.
LuckyNibb 2 years ago
Windows XP has lower initial requirements than Vista, meaning that on lower end hardware it will perform better. But the same fault applies to XP. On very old hardware, versions of Windows made before XP will perform better than XP will. As you increase your system specifications, newer versions of Windows will perform best. 64 bit Vista will 4+GB of ram runs much better than XP on the same hardware, as you go lower XP becomes the faster choice. Use whatever works best for you.
PowerLinuxUser 2 years ago
What you fail to see is that XP can run on the bleeding edge hardware that Vista requires and utilize the resources better than Vista. Increased system requirements is a bad sign if the OS handles resources badly such as Vista. MS knows this, that is why Win7, as a BETA, runs much faster than Vista does right now. Win7 is pretty much on par with the speed of XP, and it has many more features than XP. And no, Vista does not run faster than XP on the same hardware.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
What I said is that Vista can handle more hardware at once. You can keep adding ram to a computer but eventually it'll stop making a difference with XP, where as 64 bit Vista can go much further, so eventually you get to the point where Vista can make better use of it. On average systems, 1-3GB of ram, XP will perform better. The reason is that it takes less to run, so less of your ram is being used to run the os and more is left for your applications, not because it utilizes ram better.
PowerLinuxUser 2 years ago
There is 64 bit XP. You do know this right? It can handle more than 4GB RAM just like Vista 64 bit.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
It's limits still aren't as high as Vista. You do know this right? And again, the only reason XP performs better is because it uses less ram, meaning there's more left over for actual processes, not because it handles ram better.
I also read that you said Microsoft broke compatibility. I run old school games with the original installer coded for Windows 95 on Vista without problems, you just set compatibility mode to Windows 95 and occasionally find the appropriate .dll files online.
PowerLinuxUser 2 years ago
Try running Vanilla Wolf if you think you can run old school games in Vista, hell even try Vanilla Doom and see what happens. Of course DosBox can be used as a work around, it is just too bad that DosBox on Vista has some broken features.
The big problem with Vista is that in never should have required such steep resources to begin with. That is why I have been mentioning Win7 and how it doesn't even need the resources Vista requires.
SonikkuZaHedgehog127 2 years ago
Maybe old school wasn't the right term. Older games, released before Windows XP was at least. I won't be any more specific because I'll probably end up saying something wrong. Command & Conquer - Red Alert, 1995. Half Life, 1998. Doom 2, 1994. Quake 2, 1997. Team Fortress, 1996. I don't know where these fit into category wise, but they all predate XP and run fine on Vista.
PowerLinuxUser 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so in your opinion if i were to get this netbook, would having XP or Vista be more ideal
blakew2107 2 years ago
With the Atom, I can't say Vista would do better.
PowerLinuxUser 2 years ago
Comment removed
blakew2107 2 years ago
Use more memory and give your brain hemorrhoids =D
jamesnuutinen 2 years ago
Ive been waiting for a new Hp netbook but i want 2.0 ghz!!
HaloHamstur 2 years ago
wow vista yessss
silverstonewebcam 2 years ago
That computer would be even better with XP on it.
STLFANSS 2 years ago
god, i;m seeing these mini laptops every
sopheaku 2 years ago
Its a netbook..
big4wheeler 2 years ago
noting else but hp :(
itsBIGbouncedawg 2 years ago
I'm on a boat, motha~
thefrog101 2 years ago
lol
AirForce194 2 years ago
bauer sux
Kaspar008 2 years ago
stop picking on bauer, am I the only one who thinks hes totaly fine
server4utube 2 years ago
I think hes great
AirForce194 2 years ago
also what is your problem why are you guys showing all old models and crap.
alovebaby41 2 years ago
the make a video of it when they get it in stock to sell at tigerdirect
aznuwin3 2 years ago
no girl? ya!!
Pnutlmclain 2 years ago
Sam?
techking00107 2 years ago
what?
Pnutlmclain 2 years ago
the chick's name is sam
techking00107 2 years ago
oh i know do you like her? i mean i dont not like her but just in tech videos?
Pnutlmclain 2 years ago
Ofcourse!!!! She is hot and its good to have a female co host the show
techking00107 2 years ago
lol she is hot put i watch porn for that lol
Pnutlmclain 2 years ago
no tienes ni idea
dominskater 2 years ago
BAUER! STOP SAYING "ONBOARD"! You say it so much at unnecessary times. EX:
Metallica737 2 years ago
1st
Evilbloodx1234 2 years ago
lol.......
bauer rules and this netbook is pretty cool
hallowarum 2 years ago
fail
toyserific 2 years ago
t pain's on a boat motherfucker
ithinksasukeiscool 2 years ago
lol
my fav song at the moment :p
Flutist7676 2 years ago
Where's the tech update?
EqSSupreme 2 years ago