Have there been any netbooks made / sold that don't have XP drivers or
that otherwise can't run XP?

I'm thinking about EeePC, Aspire, and anything else running Intel Atom
or maybe AMD Neo or Fusion, with a 10" screen.

I'm looking at buying one (what-ever is still available at retail) and
will want to wipe the drive and install XP on it, but don't want to get
a nasty surprise about it not supporting all the internal hardware
devices.

Side question: Is there any netbook with a touch screen?

On 12 Jan 2012, PC Guy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Have there been any netbooks made / sold that don't have XP
> drivers or that otherwise can't run XP?

Yes, many. Or, at least, there are no official XP drivers. That started
when Vista came out. I bought a Toshiba laptop at that time that only
had Vista drivers on the site. That's true of many new models that were
sold after Vista was released, and it's probably even more true now.

It may be possible that some of those computers can actually run XP...
but are you going to spend several hundred dollars to find out?

> I'm looking at buying one (what-ever is still available at retail)
> and will want to wipe the drive and install XP on it, but don't
> want to get a nasty surprise about it not supporting all the
> internal hardware devices.

So, look at the manufacturer's support site and see what they have.

PC Guy wrote:
> Have there been any netbooks made / sold that don't have XP drivers or
> that otherwise can't run XP?
>
> I'm thinking about EeePC, Aspire, and anything else running Intel Atom
> or maybe AMD Neo or Fusion, with a 10" screen.
>
> I'm looking at buying one (what-ever is still available at retail) and
> will want to wipe the drive and install XP on it, but don't want to get
> a nasty surprise about it not supporting all the internal hardware
> devices.
>
Looking at it from the opposite direction as it were, the EEEPC 701 will
run Windows XP, although you need to jump through some configuration
hoops to persuade it that it's a good idea.

The Samsung NC10 (Mine's from 2009) will also run XP, and all drivers
are available on the website.

I've got both here, running XP Home.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/01/2012 1:07 PM, PC Guy wrote:
> Have there been any netbooks made / sold that don't have XP drivers or
> that otherwise can't run XP?
>
> I'm thinking about EeePC, Aspire, and anything else running Intel Atom
> or maybe AMD Neo or Fusion, with a 10" screen.
>
> I'm looking at buying one (what-ever is still available at retail) and
> will want to wipe the drive and install XP on it, but don't want to get
> a nasty surprise about it not supporting all the internal hardware
> devices.
>
> Side question: Is there any netbook with a touch screen?

There are but they are called Pads or Tablets. Don't need a touchscreen
when you have a keyboard/touchpad.

--

Krypsis

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
PC Guy wrote:
> Have there been any netbooks made / sold that don't have XP drivers or
> that otherwise can't run XP?
>
> I'm thinking about EeePC, Aspire, and anything else running Intel Atom
> or maybe AMD Neo or Fusion, with a 10" screen.
>
> I'm looking at buying one (what-ever is still available at retail) and
> will want to wipe the drive and install XP on it, but don't want to
> get a nasty surprise about it not supporting all the internal hardware
> devices.
>
> Side question: Is there any netbook with a touch screen?

I only know a lot about the Asus EeePC 700 series. And they came with XP
Home. Except for the 700 which only had 2GB SSD which is too small for a
stock XP install. The 701 has 4GB and XP fits and all, but no room for
updates. Now the 701SD and the 702 came with 8GB SSD which is plenty of
room for XP and applications. Plus the SSD is replaceable so you upgrade
it to a larger SSD if you wanted.

None of them came with touch screens. Although there is at least one
company selling touch screen kits for them (or did). I don't know much
about them except I believe they plug into the webcam socket. So you
give up your webcam.

I know less about the EeePC 900 and 901. But they also came with XP and
have 9 inch screens instead of 7 inch. Both have 4GB (or higher) SSD
soldered in on the motherboard, but also have a second SSD that is
replaceable.

All of the above runs on a Celeron except the 901 which runs on an Atom.
And I installed Windows 7 on one 702 once and it is so painfully slow,
don't bother. As W7 ate 50% of the Celeron's power at idle. That's fine,
but now try to do something useful. :-(

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

Nil wrote:

> > Have there been any netbooks made / sold that don't have XP
> > drivers or that otherwise can't run XP?
>
> Yes, many. Or, at least, there are no official XP drivers.

I think you are being confused by this invention of the "official" vs
non-official driver.

A driver exists, or it doesn't.

> That started when Vista came out.
>
> So, look at the manufacturer's support site and see what they have.

What's printed on the side of a box is not necessarily hard reality.

Can you give me an example of a netbook based on the Atom that is known
to not fully support XP? (I mean, someone has actually tried to install
XP on it - not just read what the manufacturer says about what is and is
not supported).

Krypsis wrote:

> > Side question: Is there any netbook with a touch screen?
>
> There are but they are called Pads or Tablets.

No. A tablet doesn't have

- an integrated real physical keyboard
- sometimes doesn't have USB ports
- never has SDcard, ethernet or video out ports
- the ability to connect an external mouse or pointing device
- drivers for any version of windows
- the ability to take it apart to change/add memory or hard drive

> Don't need a touchscreen when you have a keyboard/touchpad.

Why would having a keyboard/touchpad and a touch screen be mutually
exclusive?

I think having a touch screen would make many netbooks easier to use.
I've always hated touch pads - I always connect a mouse to the HP
mininote I have when I want to use it.

BillW50 wrote:

> > Side question: Is there any netbook with a touch screen?
>
> I only know a lot about the Asus EeePC 700 series. And they came
> with XP Home. Except for the 700 which only had 2GB SSD which is
> too small for a stock XP install. The 701 has 4GB and XP fits and
> all, but no room for updates.

I should add that any netbook I buy, I intend to take it apart to be
able to get at the memory and hard drive to change those as I want.

When I bought an HP mininote 2133 a few years ago, the only ones
available had 4 gb ssd drive, 512 mb ram and came with SUSE. I opened
the computer, swapped the SSD drive for a 160 gb conventional hard
drive, and increased the ram to 2 gb. I pre-formatted and pre-loaded XP
onto the drive before I installed it (I slaved the drive to another PC
first to copy everything). I formatted the drive as FAT32 and put DOS
7.1 on it, so it had something to boot up with and then I ran the XP
setup from DOS, and I kept the drive as FAT32 because it's faster than
NTFS, and when the 2133 boots I have a choice to start XP or start in
DOS.

But even still, the Mininote is a drag because it's so slow (CPU is 1
ghz) even when running XP, even having 2 gb ram. The battery life is
also pretty bad - less than 2 hours (this is a 3-cell battery I think).

On any new netbook I buy, if it's Atom-based, I will not want it to be
any slower than 1.6 ghz. And I would still install a drive that I have
pre-formatted as FAT32 - but will probably have a second partition as
NTFS only to store large multi-media files (over 4 gb) that are somewhat
rare (I rarely have movies over 4 gb).

> I know less about the EeePC 900 and 901. But they also came with XP
> and have 9 inch screens instead of 7 inch. Both have 4GB (or higher)
> SSD soldered in on the motherboard, but also have a second SSD that
> is replaceable.

Well, that sounds usable to me.

I really don't want to spend more than $300.

I think it's a crock that you can't buy these without an OS
pre-installed. That would drop the price by $25 or $50 by not having
Windblows 7 on it (which I would just throw away anyways).

I'm looking at something called "chromebooks" which are netbooks running
the chrome OS. Again, I'd do the same thing with them (rip out the
drive and copy an XP installation image to it). Anyone know anything
about those chromebooks?

I think they come with integrated 3G - something that I'd rip out if
possible to save battery power.

> As W7 ate 50% of the Celeron's power at idle. That's fine,
> but now try to do something useful. :-(

What's faster - the celeron or the atom?

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
PC Guy wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>>> Side question: Is there any netbook with a touch screen?
>>
>> I only know a lot about the Asus EeePC 700 series. And they came
>> with XP Home. Except for the 700 which only had 2GB SSD which is
>> too small for a stock XP install. The 701 has 4GB and XP fits and
>> all, but no room for updates.
>
> I should add that any netbook I buy, I intend to take it apart to be
> able to get at the memory and hard drive to change those as I want.
>
> When I bought an HP mininote 2133 a few years ago, the only ones
> available had 4 gb ssd drive, 512 mb ram and came with SUSE. I opened
> the computer, swapped the SSD drive for a 160 gb conventional hard
> drive, and increased the ram to 2 gb. I pre-formatted and pre-loaded
> XP onto the drive before I installed it (I slaved the drive to
> another PC first to copy everything). I formatted the drive as FAT32
> and put DOS
> 7.1 on it, so it had something to boot up with and then I ran the XP
> setup from DOS, and I kept the drive as FAT32 because it's faster than
> NTFS, and when the 2133 boots I have a choice to start XP or start in
> DOS.
>
> But even still, the Mininote is a drag because it's so slow (CPU is 1
> ghz) even when running XP, even having 2 gb ram. The battery life is
> also pretty bad - less than 2 hours (this is a 3-cell battery I
> think).
>
> On any new netbook I buy, if it's Atom-based, I will not want it to be
> any slower than 1.6 ghz. And I would still install a drive that I
> have pre-formatted as FAT32 - but will probably have a second
> partition as NTFS only to store large multi-media files (over 4 gb)
> that are somewhat rare (I rarely have movies over 4 gb).
>
>> I know less about the EeePC 900 and 901. But they also came with XP
>> and have 9 inch screens instead of 7 inch. Both have 4GB (or higher)
>> SSD soldered in on the motherboard, but also have a second SSD that
>> is replaceable.
>
> Well, that sounds usable to me.
>
> I really don't want to spend more than $300.
>
> I think it's a crock that you can't buy these without an OS
> pre-installed. That would drop the price by $25 or $50 by not having
> Windblows 7 on it (which I would just throw away anyways).
>
> I'm looking at something called "chromebooks" which are netbooks
> running the chrome OS. Again, I'd do the same thing with them (rip
> out the drive and copy an XP installation image to it). Anyone know
> anything about those chromebooks?
>
> I think they come with integrated 3G - something that I'd rip out if
> possible to save battery power.
>
>> As W7 ate 50% of the Celeron's power at idle. That's fine,
>> but now try to do something useful. :-(
>
> What's faster - the celeron or the atom?

Is purchasing a netbook used ok? Or does it have to be new? If used, you
have a lot more choices. And forget those Asus EeePC 700s and 900s if
you want to add a hard drive. As the ones with SSD on a card uses those
PCIe type connections. I like SSD for netbooks because you don't have to
worry about head crashes when you walk around with them and pick them up
and set them down.

Which is faster Celeron or Atom? I never had an Atom, so I really don't
know. And the Celerons that are mostly used in EeePCs are 900MHz
underclocked down to 633MHz (although you can clock them back up again).
And with some tweaking, you can get them running pretty fast even at
633MHz. But I don't know any Celeron models that you can use a hard
drive, so that is probably out.

Asus originally sold netbooks only with Xandros Linux, but also came
with XP drivers. Xandros isn't a free Linux, so you were actually paying
for it like you do with XP. But it was about 40 bucks cheaper with
Xandros than XP. But when netbooks with XP started to appear, nobody
wanted the Linux machines and I think that is why they are hardly
offered anymore.

This tells you far more about EeePCs, see bottom:
Asus Eee PC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EeePC

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 13 Jan 2012, PC Guy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> I think you are being confused by this invention of the "official"
> vs non-official driver.

No, I'm not confused. It's an "official" driver if it's made available
by the hardware manufacturer or perhaps Microsoft.

> A driver exists, or it doesn't.

There are examples of drivers being written and distributed by
independent programmers.

> Can you give me an example of a netbook based on the Atom that is
> known to not fully support XP? (I mean, someone has actually tried
> to install XP on it - not just read what the manufacturer says
> about what is and is not supported).

No, I can't. That's why I wrote my second paragraph, the one you
ignored. I'm going to let you experiment with your own money. Maybe
netbooks are enough alike that drivers would be generic enough to work
between manufacturer. I wouldn't count on it. I was thinking more of
older laptops and desktops have such a variety of components that you
are not likely to get all hardware to fully function under XP because
there are no XP drivers.