1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Re: Windows Starter recovery w/o dvd

Discussion in 'Laptops' started by Gene E. Bloch, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:03:11 -0500, felmon wrote:

    > greets!
    >
    > just got a Samsung N150 Plus netbook with Windows 7 Starter.
    >
    > I wanted to back up the Windows recovery partition to be able to re-
    > install it if it gets corrupted or if I remove it.
    >
    > what is a good way to back it up with an eye on certainty and ease of
    > reinstallation?
    >
    > the N150 doesn't have a dvd. I suppose I could purchase an external one
    > and will do so if that is necessary or if other methods are terribly
    > complex or uncertain but would rather avoid that.
    >
    > I have tried googling around but so far I haven't stumbled on anything
    > useful.
    >
    > felmon


    Ask the manufacturer to send you a restore disc.

    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
    Gene E. Bloch, Jun 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    AJL wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:58:41 -0700:
    > "Gene E. Bloch" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:03:11 -0500, felmon wrote:
    >>
    >>> greets!
    >>>
    >>> just got a Samsung N150 Plus netbook with Windows 7 Starter.
    >>>
    >>> I wanted to back up the Windows recovery partition to be able to re-
    >>> install it if it gets corrupted or if I remove it.
    >>>
    >>> what is a good way to back it up with an eye on certainty and ease of
    >>> reinstallation?
    >>>
    >>> the N150 doesn't have a dvd. I suppose I could purchase an external one
    >>> and will do so if that is necessary or if other methods are terribly
    >>> complex or uncertain but would rather avoid that.
    >>>
    >>> I have tried googling around but so far I haven't stumbled on anything
    >>> useful.
    >>>
    >>> felmon

    >> Ask the manufacturer to send you a restore disc.

    >
    > Won't work since he has no external DVD reader/writer (the netbook has
    > none internally). But as I said, if he did he could make his own
    > recovery disk.
    >
    > To the OP: I recently restored my Eee PC netbook (also no internal DVD
    > but which came with a recovery DVD disk) and besides needing the
    > external DVD writer for that, I needed it to reinstall all my old
    > apps, which of course came on CD/DVDs... ;)
    >
    > Get the DVD writer, you won't be sorry...


    Hello AJL! Did you know that Asus Xandros recovery DVD (or was it your
    Windows machine one?) can be used in another computer with a drive and
    it can create the recovery on a flash drive? I believe it needs to be at
    least 2GB in size.

    There are ways to get by without an external DVD drive. But some of them
    requires a lot of work to get say Windows to install from a flash drive.
    But it can be done. But I do agree, getting an external DVD drive really
    does make things as easy as it gets. Yes I have a few of them myself.

    --
    Bill
    2 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2/SP3 ~ Xandros Linux
    BillW50, Jun 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:58:41 -0700, AJL wrote:

    > "Gene E. Bloch" <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 02:03:11 -0500, felmon wrote:
    >>
    >>> greets!
    >>>
    >>> just got a Samsung N150 Plus netbook with Windows 7 Starter.
    >>>
    >>> I wanted to back up the Windows recovery partition to be able to re-
    >>> install it if it gets corrupted or if I remove it.
    >>>
    >>> what is a good way to back it up with an eye on certainty and ease of
    >>> reinstallation?
    >>>
    >>> the N150 doesn't have a dvd. I suppose I could purchase an external one
    >>> and will do so if that is necessary or if other methods are terribly
    >>> complex or uncertain but would rather avoid that.
    >>>
    >>> I have tried googling around but so far I haven't stumbled on anything
    >>> useful.
    >>>
    >>> felmon

    >>
    >>Ask the manufacturer to send you a restore disc.

    >
    > Won't work since he has no external DVD reader/writer (the netbook has
    > none internally). But as I said, if he did he could make his own
    > recovery disk.


    Well, the manufacturer sent me a restore DVD for an Acer netbook that
    didn't have an optical drive. BTW, the disk was free, and they didn't
    hassle me at all when I called.

    Please - please - explain to me how my not having a drive prevents a
    manufacturer from sending me a restore DVD :)

    > To the OP: I recently restored my Eee PC netbook (also no internal DVD
    > but which came with a recovery DVD disk) and besides needing the
    > external DVD writer for that, I needed it to reinstall all my old
    > apps, which of course came on CD/DVDs... ;)
    >
    > Get the DVD writer, you won't be sorry...



    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
    Gene E. Bloch, Jul 1, 2010
    #3
  4. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:32:19 -0700, AJL wrote:

    > "Gene E. Bloch" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Well, the manufacturer sent me a restore DVD for an Acer netbook that
    >>didn't have an optical drive. BTW, the disk was free, and they didn't
    >>hassle me at all when I called.

    >
    > Heck Asus *included* the recovery DVD in the new packaging of both my
    > Eee PC netbooks that have no internal DVD drive to run them on.
    >
    > And of course my full size Acer laptops came with *no* recovery DVD
    > even though they *do have* an internal DVD drive. Go figure.


    It's an unfortunate crap shoot, I guess...

    > In the past when I had an HP laptop and I had them send me a recovery
    > disk they charged me $10 for it. I like the Asus way the best... ;)


    The other computers here have software to burn recovery DVDs, but I had to
    supply my own blanks :)

    Two of them are not much good anyway - the computers stated out with
    Windows Vista and I upgraded them to Win 7, so I'm not eager to recover to
    factory status.

    I'll rely on backups - which I don't do often enough. Of course :)

    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
    Gene E. Bloch, Jul 1, 2010
    #4
  5. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    AJL wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:40:33 -0700:
    > BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hello AJL! Did you know that Asus Xandros recovery DVD (or was it your
    >> Windows machine one?) can be used in another computer with a drive and
    >> it can create the recovery on a flash drive? I believe it needs to be at
    >> least 2GB in size.

    >
    > Hello Bill, yes I think I remember you giving that info here awhile
    > back.


    Ok

    >> There are ways to get by without an external DVD drive.

    >
    > And that may become necessary someday for my Xandros powered Eee PC 2G
    > Surf netbook. It won't recognize my newer HP slimline external DVD
    > drive. And I've never been able to find a driver to get it to work.
    > But it still recognizes my several year old monster sized externally
    > powered HP DVD drive so I'm OK for now... ;)


    Xandros doesn't recognize it or the BIOS doesn't? If the latter, Xandros
    probably will never see it unless the BIOS can. If the BIOS can see it,
    then you should be able to reinstall Xandros through the drive anyway.
    You can tell if the BIOS sees it by hitting the ESC key before Linux
    boots up. That kicks in the boot menu. And it will show up in the list
    if the BIOS sees it.

    > My XP powered Eee PC 1000HD recognizes the slimline drive just fine so
    > no problem there.


    Oh good deal there.

    > The reason I used the recovery disk on my 1000HD is that with all the
    > updates it seemed to be getting somewhat sluggish. After the recovery
    > it is back to its old snappy self. Quite a noticeable difference. So
    > this time I've turned off all the OS update stuff (apps too) and will
    > just use it that way awhile and see what happens... =8-O
    >
    > I think you do that on one or more of your laptops also IIRC...


    Yes I turned off Windows updates on one computer over a year ago. Lots
    of people said this was a bad idea. But I did it as a test and it worked
    so well, I later stopped all Windows updates on 6 other computers a few
    months later. And I haven't had any problems yet. If one ever does, I
    keep them all isolated anyway from each other. And no one system totally
    going down means nothing to me. As the rest could quickly carry the load
    anyway.

    So I am starting to think that Windows updates are far more scarier than
    viruses themselves. As I haven't seen any viruses myself before or
    after. But I have seen Windows updates screw up one's computer. The good
    news is the next one usually fixes it. But the next one later breaks it
    again. And the cycle repeats. <sigh>

    --
    Bill
    2 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2/SP3 ~ Xandros Linux
    BillW50, Jul 1, 2010
    #5
  6. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    Gene E. Bloch wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:13:36 -0700:
    [...]
    > The other computers here have software to burn recovery DVDs, but I had to
    > supply my own blanks :)
    >
    > Two of them are not much good anyway - the computers stated out with
    > Windows Vista and I upgraded them to Win 7, so I'm not eager to recover to
    > factory status.
    >
    > I'll rely on backups - which I don't do often enough. Of course :)


    Well I personally value backups far superior to the recovery disc
    anyway. As once you have backups, the recovery disc is only good for if
    you want to sell or give your computer away anyway. As why would you
    want a system without your favorite applications and settings for? And
    in your case, a totally different OS to boot. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    2 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2/SP3 ~ Xandros Linux
    BillW50, Jul 1, 2010
    #6
  7. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    AJL wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:01:08 -0700:
    > *My theory* is that a laptop works best with the software that was
    > matched to and originally came installed on it. And AJL's theory of
    > laptops #2 is that the original factory installation as restored by a
    > recovery disk works faster and better than that OS with a years worth
    > of updates. The theory certainly works out on this netbook... ;)


    Yes, I too have seen this evidence time and time again. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    2 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2/SP3 ~ Xandros Linux
    BillW50, Jul 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    AJL wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:27:05 -0700:
    > BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    >> AJL wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:40:33 -0700:

    >
    >>> And that may become necessary someday for my Xandros powered Eee PC 2G
    >>> Surf netbook. It won't recognize my newer HP slimline external DVD
    >>> drive. And I've never been able to find a driver to get it to work.
    >>> But it still recognizes my several year old monster sized externally
    >>> powered HP DVD drive so I'm OK for now... ;)

    >> Xandros doesn't recognize it or the BIOS doesn't?
    >> You can tell if the BIOS sees it by hitting the ESC key before Linux
    >> boots up. That kicks in the boot menu. And it will show up in the list
    >> if the BIOS sees it.

    >
    > Just tried your suggestion. The boot menu *does show* the slimline
    > drive. So Xandros is the culprit.
    >
    > I never worked on the problem too hard since my old HP external drive
    > works fine so I just use it. Out of curiosity (at the time) I did a
    > little research about using the slimline drive with the Surf but came
    > up empty. And really I would hate to rock the boat installing and
    > trying drivers even if I found one cause that little 7" box hasn't
    > crashed in months, it really works well with the original setup.
    > Course that just proves AJL's laptop theory#1... ;)


    Oh okay. My Samsung slimline SE-S084 DVD burner works fine under
    Xandros. And it even plays non-copy protected DVDs too. Well smooth for
    the first 5 seconds then choppy and the sound breaking up on this
    1140x900 external monitor after that. Needs more CPU power is my guess.
    Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
    BillW50, Jul 1, 2010
    #8
  9. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:31:56 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

    > Gene E. Bloch wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:13:36 -0700:
    > [...]
    >> The other computers here have software to burn recovery DVDs, but I had to
    >> supply my own blanks :)
    >>
    >> Two of them are not much good anyway - the computers stated out with
    >> Windows Vista and I upgraded them to Win 7, so I'm not eager to recover to
    >> factory status.
    >>
    >> I'll rely on backups - which I don't do often enough. Of course :)

    >
    > Well I personally value backups far superior to the recovery disc
    > anyway. As once you have backups, the recovery disc is only good for if
    > you want to sell or give your computer away anyway. As why would you
    > want a system without your favorite applications and settings for? And
    > in your case, a totally different OS to boot. ;-)


    I agree -- I have used a recovery disc for just the purpose you mention,
    with the addition of running a disk wipe program to clear the now unused
    portion of the recovered disk (just for paranoia) before giving it away.

    As for value of recovering to a totally different OS to boot (is the pun
    intended?) and the value of backups, well, obviously we agree there too.

    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
    Gene E. Bloch, Jul 1, 2010
    #9
  10. Gene E. Bloch

    M.L. Guest


    >> Get the DVD writer, you won't be sorry...

    >
    >I am seriously considering this but I'm a bit short of time as I am
    >packing for a European jaunt and everything is last moment plus it would
    >be nice not to carry more gear.


    Yes, that extra 10 ounces of gear could really ruin your trip.
    M.L., Jul 3, 2010
    #10
  11. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:50:36 -0700:
    > BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though. ;-)

    >
    > Bill:
    > I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought what
    > the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I was much
    > surprised when it installed without a hitch, and with 300M of drive
    > space left over after the installation. (That is about the same amount
    > of total free drive space I had with Xandros after installation.)
    > However after killing virtual memory, system restore, adjusting IE,
    > and moving other functions to the SD drive I'm up over a whopping 1GB
    > of free C: drive space!! I have to tell you I'm quite amazed after
    > reading all the problems others have had squeezing xp into this
    > machine. Asus of course has XP drivers so everything else is working
    > just fine. I hate to admit it (after our recent xp/linux wars) but it
    > does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only been using it
    > for a few hours now so we'll have to see... ;)


    Well that is good to hear and to be honest, I am not surprised. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 5, 2010
    #11
  12. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:i0sdfn$ra$-september.org,
    BillW50 typed on Mon, 5 Jul 2010 05:51:48 -0500:
    > In news:,
    > AJL typed on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:50:36 -0700:
    >> BillW50 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though. ;-)

    >>
    >> Bill:
    >> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought what
    >> the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I was much
    >> surprised when it installed without a hitch, and with 300M of drive
    >> space left over after the installation. (That is about the same
    >> amount of total free drive space I had with Xandros after
    >> installation.) However after killing virtual memory, system restore,
    >> adjusting IE, and moving other functions to the SD drive I'm up over
    >> a whopping 1GB of free C: drive space!! I have to tell you I'm quite
    >> amazed after reading all the problems others have had squeezing xp
    >> into this machine. Asus of course has XP drivers so everything else
    >> is working just fine. I hate to admit it (after our recent xp/linux
    >> wars) but it does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only
    >> been using it for a few hours now so we'll have to see... ;)

    >
    > Well that is good to hear and to be honest, I am not surprised. ;-)


    Just curious! What SP version is on that Windows XP Pro install disc?

    Retired your Palms? <sigh> I still use mine, although not a lot. I
    actually use the Palm Desktop v4.0.1 on the PCs a lot more. Older and
    newer versions of the Palm Desktop I didn't care too much for.

    iPod? Congratulations! I guess they are nice, never used one myself. I
    guess you really need a very large pocket before you can slip it into
    one, eh?

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 5, 2010
    #12
  13. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:49:32 -0700:
    > "BillW50" wrote:
    >
    >>> AJL typed:

    >
    >>>> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought
    >>>> what the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf.

    >
    >> Just curious! What SP version is on that Windows XP Pro install disc?

    >
    > Version 2002 SP3.


    Oh ok. SP2 would have been good too IMHO, but SP3 is pretty stable too.
    Btw, which Windows Media Player version came with your SP3 install? All
    of the ones that includes SP2 I have seen has WMP v10. For me
    personally, I like WMP v9 and WMP v10 the best. The newer ones I don't
    care much for.

    > My biggest complaint so far would be hibernation. It takes 1.5 minutes
    > to hibernate and 30 seconds to revive. Heck it only takes 40 seconds
    > to boot from scratch so not much of an advantage there. I imagine it's
    > because of the slow (read cheap) write speed of the SSDs that Asus
    > soldered into this model. But with drive space at a premium I can get
    > an extra 500M by disabling hibernate anyway. So even if it was super
    > fast I probably wouldn't have used it.


    Yes I have talked about this before. And I was hibernating 2GB worth of
    RAM. And SLC SSD are faster at writing than the newer more common
    nowadays MLC SSD. And yours I am sure is a SLC type. But even still the
    speed just isn't as good as a mechanical hard drive at writing anyway.

    Yes booting up is fast enough. Although what I like better is just using
    standby. I have six EeePC batteries and I usually take two with me
    during the day. And even the smallest one 4400mah I believe will run in
    standby for 12 or more hours. I don't know, I should check this to make
    sure. But it seems that long anyway.

    Then I have one of those larger 10440mah batteries too. And it will run
    5 to 6 hours straight on that one alone with the WiFi running. And it
    has to last over 24 hours on just standby for sure.

    > My second complaint is that the video is still choppy. But with a
    > 500MHz processor that probably is a given no matter what OS it runs.


    Are you talking about using the Flash Player within a browser? That is
    the worst CPU hogging player I ever have seen! It takes 3 times more CPU
    power than WMP does. And other players are not as bad as the Flash
    Player either. Have you checked the CPU usage during playback? If it
    pegs or even runs above 80%, playback is going to suffer.

    Older versions of the Flash Player are much better for slower CPUs.
    Although if you go too old, they won't work for many websites. And the
    best bet either way is to use another player besides Flash. I download
    most of the streams and play them through WMP using K-Lite codecs. They
    play just fine without pegging the CPU.

    Under Linux though, all players I have used use the CPU very heavy. So I
    don't know what you can do about it there.

    > Otherwise the Surf is running fine on XP. I have everything I use most
    > often installed now and it left a leeway of 300M on the drive. Just
    > like the old days I have to keep a close eye on what the apps are
    > doing on the drive. For example one wanted to install MS NET @
    > 100M+... =8-O


    Yes on my 4G EeePCs, I keep about 200MB free on them running Windows XP
    SP2. And the OEM Windows for the EeePC has .Net v1.1 installed (which
    you can uninstall) and MS Works v9, and some other stuff you can dump
    too.

    >> Retired your Palms? <sigh> I still use mine, although not a lot.

    >
    > My Palm TX is over 3 years old now and the old Blazer browser was
    > having trouble getting into some of the local hotspots. That's the
    > last of the Palm PDAs so I had to make a change eventually anyway.


    Yep, I had wireless with my Palm IIIc using my Kyocera cell phone and a
    data cable. And have a nice wallet that holds both. Although the
    wireless was cellular and only at 14k4 speed. Email was ok, but web
    browsing wasn't so hot. This was like 8 years ago. I don't use that
    phone anymore and I now live in the fringe area of cellular anyway. I do
    still have a Palm modem for them too. Didn't use it much though. Only
    got 4 hours per 2xAA batteries. Using rechargeables, I only got about 2
    hours.

    >> iPod? Congratulations! I guess they are nice, never used one myself.

    >
    > It does everything my Palm did only better and faster. (It was a
    > hundred bucks cheaper too.)


    Oh nice!

    >> guess you really need a very large pocket before you can slip it into
    >> one, eh?

    >
    > Were you thinking of the iPad tablet? My iPod (touch) is smaller and
    > lighter than the TX with about the same size screen so actually a
    > better pocket carry. Also it has much better battery life so things
    > have improved all around.


    Oh yeah, I was thinking of the iPad. So how is the iPod for typing? I
    sure liked my folding keyboard for my Palm IIIc and IIIxe. Although you
    need a flat surface to use it. As your lap didn't work too well. A
    briefcase would have been ok though.

    My Epson PX-8 from '84 ran for 12 hours and 40 days on standby. It is
    very much like a netbook, but with a far better keyboard. Heavier too,
    but about the same size. And screens were horrible back in '84.

    My Palm IIIc from '99 runs for 12 hours too and about 10 days on
    standby. My Palm IIIxe on rechargeable AA batteries I don't recall how
    long it ran for. About 12 hours is my guess. And maybe 10 to 20 days on
    standby.

    My Gateway M-465e laptop from '06 with an extended battery and a second
    battery runs for about 7 hours straight. But I think we are talking
    almost 8 lbs here. Not very light. Only has a 15.1 inch screen too.

    And then all of my EeePCs. Which everybody already knows about. ;-)

    So running time on batteries on these devices are very close throughout
    the years IMHO. So what does all of yours look like for running and
    standby times?

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 6, 2010
    #13
  14. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:30:12 -0700:
    > "BillW50" <> wrote:
    >
    >> AJL typed on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:50:36 -0700:

    >
    >>> BillW50 <> wrote:

    >
    >>> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought
    >>> what the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I hate to
    >>> admit it (after our recent xp/linux wars) but it
    >>> does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only been using it
    >>> for a few hours now so we'll have to see... ;)

    >
    >> Well that is good to hear and to be honest, I am not surprised. ;-)

    >
    > I wonder if there is a key combination in XP that allows moving a too
    > large window around on a small screen so that I can get to an 'ok'
    > button that is off the bottom of the screen? In Xandros it is to hold
    > the alt and left mouse buttons down while dragging the widow up. But
    > I've been unable to find anything like that in XP. I do have an Asus
    > app on the tray that changes the screen resolution and thus allows
    > scrolling up and down the larger resolution to expose the 'ok' button,
    > but I liked the Xandros way better. Surely Bill would have thought of
    > this in his OS...


    The only one I know of is ALT-Space and press M (M=move) and then use
    the arrow keys. And I like Windows allowing you to use higher
    resolutions on small screens. I can't get Linux to do this without
    hooking up an external monitor and using both. But then what is the
    point if you need an external monitor to pull this off anyway?

    Our Intel video also allows higher resolutions compressed on our smaller
    screens (I think some other manufactures allow this too sometimes). And
    yes it works if the resolution isn't too big and no scrolling around the
    desktop. But scrolling through documents or webpages are slow. And small
    print is hard or impossible to read. So I used it for awhile and I later
    gave this up. I believe it is a third party Astray replacement called
    AsTray2 or something.

    I don't use either anymore, but just eeectl instead. It doesn't have the
    resolution stuff, but the CPU temp, fan control, CPU speed (you might
    like that one to speed up video playing), and full control over the
    brightness of the display. The latter gives you a super bright display
    (higher than stock) that I need sunglasses just to view the screen with.
    lol

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 6, 2010
    #14
  15. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:i0vqhu$1ub$-september.org,
    BillW50 typed on Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:47:07 -0500:
    > Our Intel video also allows higher resolutions compressed on our
    > smaller screens (I think some other manufactures allow this too
    > sometimes). And yes it works if the resolution isn't too big and no
    > scrolling around the desktop. But scrolling through documents or
    > webpages are slow. And small print is hard or impossible to read. So
    > I used it for awhile and I later gave this up. I believe it is a
    > third party Astray replacement called AsTray2 or something.


    Ok I fired up AsTray2 (you can't run both versions at the same time,
    just one or the other). And I can run compressed (no scrolling in the
    desktop) in the following modes:

    800x600
    900x540
    1024x600
    1024x768

    AsTray2 calls compressing as Downscaling. And any higher resolution goes
    back to non-compression and scrolling around the desktop. Regardless if
    you have Downscaling selected or not.

    You can edit an ini file and create a Quickswitch. Why the author didn't
    do this I have no idea. But once you create all of your favorite
    resolutions, you are all set. I think without Quickswitch, you have a
    list of every possible resolution and fresh rates. Which is a list of
    too many to quickly switch between.

    And I have no idea why AsTray2 does this (it claims it doesn't). But it
    always defaults to 800x480 from the start. And I hate that one. And this
    is what Linux uses too. And without any AsTray version, I have Windows
    using 800x600 and I just scroll up and down to see the whole desktop
    (thus why I stopped using AsTray2). And no compression (downscaling)
    either. As most of the time I am not interested in the top of a window
    anyway and I don't mind to scroll for the few times I want too.

    I am playing around with AsTray2 right now using compressed
    (downscaling) at 1024x768 once again and it isn't as bad as I remember
    it. And it is slower too than without downscaling, but not as bad as I
    remember. And the tiny text I can still read. Maybe it is the really
    tiny text I can't read. Or maybe my eyes are better now. lol

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 6, 2010
    #15
  16. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:26:25 -0700:
    > AJL <> wrote:
    >
    >> "BillW50" <> wrote:

    >
    >> How do you get more resolution choices? I only have a choice of
    >> 800x480 (native) and 800x600

    >
    > Ah, figured it out.
    > Display props>settings>advanced>list all modes
    > Gets me 13 modes, all but the native mode scroll..


    Yes that is one way to do it.

    >>> it is a third party Astray replacement called
    >>> AsTray2

    >
    > I've found lots of references to AsTray2 but no source yet.


    Oh sorry, try looking for AsTray Plus v1.4beta. I believe that was the
    last version anyway. And I believe AsTray Plus replaced AsTray2.

    http://wiki.eeeuser.com/astrayplus

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 7, 2010
    #16
  17. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:54:15 -0700:
    > "BillW50" <> wrote:
    >
    >> which Windows Media Player version came with your SP3 install?

    >
    > WMP version 9.00.00.4503


    Oh nice! I do have a retail version of Windows XP SP2 and I don't recall
    what WMP that one has. As I use OEM versions of Windows XP SP2 and they
    all have WMP v10. Which you cannot go back to WMP v9 with.

    >> The newer ones I don't care much for.

    >
    > I don't use WMP much. I use the VLC media player. But I'm not going to
    > upgrade anything that came on this XP version (and works ok) on the
    > theory that newer is bigger, drive space being at a premium.


    VLC is pretty nice, but I use a multimedia keyboard a lot and use pause
    and play a lot. And only WMP works with multimedia keyboards. Why I
    don't know?

    >> yours [Surf's SSD] I am sure is a SLC type.

    >
    > Of course, this being the elcheapo the bare bones model. The SSD is
    > soldered in saving the price of a socket. BTW the cache is disabled
    > also which makes things even slower. I'm not sure that was done to be
    > cheaper or to make the more expensive models (like yours) run faster
    > in comparison.


    Oh I didn't know your cache is disabled.

    >> Yes booting up is fast enough. Although what I like better is just
    >> using standby.

    >
    > I would prefer waiting the extra half minute or so to boot and arrive
    > with a full battery.


    I would normally too. But when I am out I use my netbook like a Palm. As
    I turn it on for a few seconds typing or checking on something and then
    put it back in standby again a lot.

    >> I have six EeePC batteries and I usually take two with me
    >> during the day.

    >
    > That kind of ruins the reason for carrying a tiny netbook does't it?


    Well that one 10440mah battery has enough power to get me through the
    whole day alone. But since I don't carry the AC adapter with me anymore,
    I carry a spare battery instead, just in case. The batteries are pretty
    light and small anyway.

    >> Are you talking about using the Flash Player within a browser?

    >
    > Yes. It chops mostly when internet streaming. Local video file
    > playback is ok.


    Some websites use WMP instead Flash within a browser. And the CPU usage
    is much lower than Flash. I have no idea why users are not jumping all
    over Adobe for creating such a CPU hog?

    >> That is the worst CPU hogging player I ever have seen!

    >
    > Yes, with a faster CPU it could likely handle it. Or maybe just a
    > better hardware/software design. My new iPod seems to handle video
    > streaming just fine on a 300MHz processor.


    Does that use Flash too? Or some other player? Or does Adobe make a
    special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?

    >> So how is the iPod for typing?

    >
    > Terrible. It's a pain just to type a URL. This is a capacitive screen
    > (the TX was resistive) that uses no stylus. So you have to type with
    > your fat thumbs on the 3.5" screen. (The screen won't even react to a
    > stylus push, it needs your body capacitance to sense a push.) The
    > software is pretty good at guessing what you want but still it
    > requires a lot of concentration. Fortunately I don't need to do a lot
    > of typing. Bookmarks are a blessing... ;)


    Oh I wouldn't like that very much.

    >> sure liked my folding keyboard for my Palm IIIc and IIIxe.

    >
    > I don't know if keyboards are available for the iPod but probably. Its
    > a popular gadget and can run the same software as an iPhone. And there
    > are over 100,000 apps (many free and most under $5) in the Apple app
    > store so a bit more choice of software than the Palms had. (One of my
    > favorite free apps is called BJ, it's 75 blond jokes, very popular
    > with my grandkids...except for the blonds... ;)


    Oh nice!

    >> So what does all of yours look like for running and
    >> standby times?

    >
    > Course running time depends on what you're doing. Video is rough on
    > batteries. But I mostly surf, email, Usenet, and read ebooks. I
    > figured about 5 hours on the TX and 8 hours on the iPod. But that is
    > an estimate since I seldom let the battery run lower than 75% (about 2
    > hours on the iPod) in keeping with treating my Li-ion battery well.
    > I'm not sure on standby time as I charge it often (75% rule).


    Sounds good to me. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 7, 2010
    #17
  18. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:59 -0700:
    > "BillW50" <> wrote:
    >
    >> try looking for AsTray Plus v1.4beta. I believe that was the
    >> last version anyway. And I believe AsTray Plus replaced AsTray2.
    >>
    >> http://wiki.eeeuser.com/astrayplus

    >
    > Thanks, that was the site I was looking at yesterday. After reading
    > many of the posts there today I think I will pass on this utility.
    > After messing with some of the other resolutions I think that the
    > native resolution is the best for my use (as it usually is) on this
    > little 7" screen. What I really needed (that started this inquiry) was
    > a way to move too large off screen windows around to get at the ok
    > button and you already supplied that trick.


    Really? I am sure there is page after page about it in the forum. But
    can you sum up what you had learned in a sentence or two?

    And I don't see the big deal. It is so small it doesn't take up any
    room. And you don't have to run it at boot either. As you can start it
    manually too. And you can exit from the system tray. So it is there when
    you need it and not there when you don't. That is how I use it anyway.

    Heck I am running it right now in compressed (downscaling) at 1024x600
    and it looks good to me. I think it is worth it as you can run it only
    when you want too anyway.

    So you like the native 800x480? Wow that one is the worst for me! As I
    use 800x600 scrollable the most (I wish Linux offered this res on the
    EeePC 7 inch). But sometimes it is easier to have a larger desktop. And
    AsTray Plus is the way to go IMHO. Especially for those very wide
    webpages. And it is nice for having multiple windows opened like I am
    doing right now too. I dunno, I would rethink about this one.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 8, 2010
    #18
  19. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    Re: Windows Starter...(OT side thread, should die soon...)

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:51:16 -0700:
    > "BillW50" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Does that [iPod touch] use Flash too?

    >
    > No, the iPod touch can't use flash. (The new iPad tablet and iPhone
    > don't have flash either.)
    >
    >> special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?
    >> Or some other player?

    >
    > Each app handles its own video, but I don't know how it works
    > internally. For example I have a You Tube app that looks nothing like
    > the site but plays all the videos there. Most all the news outlets
    > (NPR, ABC, NY Times, ect) have free apps and they run print articles,
    > pictures and videos. Also I have rented a full length movie at the
    > iTunes store and watched it using the included video app.
    >
    >> Or does Adobe make a special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?

    >
    > Adobe and Apple are at war over flash right now. Steve Jobs has said
    > that flash is buggy, uses too many resources, and he won't use it. He
    > wants the standard to become HTML 5. If he gets enough
    > iPads/touchs/iPhones out there he may be able to swing it...
    >
    > (Check Google for lots of interesting articles on this.)


    Oh ok, very interesting. Well at least Steve Jobs and I agree on the
    Flash player anyway. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 8, 2010
    #19
  20. Gene E. Bloch

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    AJL typed on Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:01:35 -0700:
    >> "BillW50" <> wrote:

    >
    > Let me re-comment on an earlier post now that I've played with AsTray+
    > awhile.


    Ok, so you don't need me to comment on that one?

    >> try looking for AsTray Plus v1.4beta. I believe that was the
    >> last version anyway. And I believe AsTray Plus replaced AsTray2.

    >
    > I went for 1.7.3 as the AsTray author said that this was the more
    > stable version on the 701 models. So far I've not had one hiccup and
    > you can't get any more stable than that.


    Never tried that 1.3.7 one. Yes I saw your later post. ;-)

    >> As you can start it manually too. And you can exit from the system
    >> tray.

    >
    > For now I put an AsTray+ shortcut in the Startup menu and disabled the
    > old AsTray in startup. I haven't decided on the final configuration
    > yet but I probably will keep both.


    Yes I have both too, but I don't run either at startup. The original
    AsTray (from Asus) has no close, so you have to kill it from the Task
    Manager or something.

    >> Heck I am running it right now in compressed (downscaling) at
    >> 1024x600 and it looks good to me. I think it is worth it as you can
    >> run it only when you want too anyway.

    >
    > Interesting that my AsTray+ has over 300 resolution combinations to
    > choose from and 1024x600 is not one of them.


    Oh ok, it is in the 1.40 beta.

    >> So you like the native 800x480? Wow that one is the worst for me!

    >
    > So far the native resolution is still best for me. The print becomes
    > fuzzy and even smaller at the larger resolutions. And on a 7" screen
    > at native resolution, most print is already almost too small for my
    > bionically enhanced plastic lens implants... ;)


    Yes, but 800x480 is a really small desktop and some things just won't
    fit. But 800x600 works for most things and the resolution is the same
    and you just scroll 120 pixels up or down and that is all. Using AsTray+
    you can compress (downscaling) it of you want too.

    >> But sometimes it is easier to have a larger desktop. And
    >> AsTray Plus is the way to go IMHO.

    >
    > Yes, when using a larger external monitor I could see where AsTray
    > would be of great help.


    Oh no, I mean on the 7 inch screen and having a large desktop. Using an
    external monitor AsTray+ is worthless. Unless your external monitor is a
    7 inch too or something really small.

    >> Especially for those very wide webpages.

    >
    > That can be solved by using the browser zoom function. And the result
    > looks the same to me as when I switch to a larger resolution. In both
    > the print (and the whole page for that matter) becomes smaller and
    > less clear.


    Well there are a number of zooms. I am curious which one you are using?
    Most browser you can change the text size is one way. Another way is
    holding the CTRL key and use a scroll wheel on a mouse. But this zooms
    everything.

    >> And it is nice for having multiple windows opened like I am
    >> doing right now too.

    >
    > I Dunno, those multiple windows don't do me much good if I can't read
    > what's in them cause the print's too small. We are both still talking
    > about a 7" screen aren't we...


    Oh bummer! I am lucky in that department seen I can see 10x up close
    what normal people need 10x magnifying ability to see. And my eyes
    haven't changed for 35+ years now. My left eye can focus as close as 4
    inches away. My right can't do that good and I'm not as near sighted in
    the right eye (but it too is still near sighted).

    So if the native resolution is pushing the limits for you, maybe AsTray+
    might not be a good thing. Although you don't need to use the
    compression part (downscaling), but just use it to quickly change
    resolution with that quick thing that you have to add to the ini file
    for the resolutions it supports and you use. But you have to scroll
    through the desktop to use that part. And you might not like that
    either.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
    BillW50, Jul 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joe Wilson
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    424
    DaveW
    Mar 3, 2004
  2. Teffy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    359
    Chris H.
    Jan 20, 2005
  3. walterbyrd
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    579
    the wharf rat
    Feb 8, 2010
  4. Parko
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    583
    Parko
    Jun 30, 2010
  5. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    517
    Guest
    Jun 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page