upgrading microsoft xp and word 2003

farmer 3

I have Microsoft XP and Word 2003 on my Dell Dimension PC. I need to upgrade to enable my daughter to practice her ECDL programme. Any suggestions please? I need step by step instructions as I am not in the least tech-savvy!

White Heart Loon

farmer 3 wrote: »

I have Microsoft XP and Word 2003 on my Dell Dimension PC. I need to upgrade to enable my daughter to practice her ECDL programme. Any suggestions please? I need step by step instructions as I am not in the least tech-savvy!

There is no upgrading an Xp computer, you need a new one with faster hardware to run a more modern operating system

beauf

farmer 3 wrote: »

I have Microsoft XP and Word 2003 on my Dell Dimension PC. I need to upgrade to enable my daughter to practice her ECDL programme. Any suggestions please? I need step by step instructions as I am not in the least tech-savvy!

Whats wrong with using Word 2003 and XP for ECDL. What do they say they require? What version of the OS and Word is she going to be tested in? Where is the ECDL being taught? Can she not use their computers?

White Heart Loon wrote: »

There is no upgrading an Xp computer...

Theres no such thing as a XP computer. Its simply a computer with XP on it. You can change it to something else.

White Heart Loon

beauf wrote: »

Theres no such thing as a XP computer. Its simply a computer with XP on it. You can change it to something else.

Their Dell Dimension shipped with Xp pre installed, what would you change it to? What are you suggesting?

GarIT

beauf wrote: »

Theres no such thing as a XP computer. Its simply a computer with XP on it. You can change it to something else.

The computer was designed for Windows XP and shipped in 2003, there is no way a computer shipped in 2003 had the hardware to run any newer Microsoft OS to any reasonable standard.

beauf

I've upgraded many machine that came with XP to Windows 7. I have one under my desk at work, 12yrs old, came with XP, now running W7. Someone in the family has another a Dell laptop, 8yrs old 2GB ram, XP now running Windows 7. Runs fine.

But why would you need to. Can you not use XP for ECDL? What does the ECDL require?

White Heart Loon

beauf wrote: »

I've upgraded many machine that came with XP to Windows 7. I have one under my desk at work, 12yrs old, came with XP, now running W7. Someone in the family has another a Dell laptop, 8yrs old 2GB ram, XP now running Windows 7. Runs fine.

But why would you need to. Can you not use XP for ECDL? What does the ECDL require?

You cannot upgrade from Xp to Windows 7, you need to do a full wipe and install fresh which is not worth the expense of the licence. Besides the graphics will not be capable of running the aero effects and it will always be slow compared to something modern.

Xp is soon dead and needs to die. They need a new pc if they want a more modern OS.

beauf

You can turn off Aero, though mine has a Nvidia AGP card. But old hardware can run Windows 7. Yes, financially buying the OS on its own is not worth it. If the daughter is a student she might get student deals on office and a new laptop/desktop.

Though I don't know what you'd be asked to do in ECDL that you need Windows 7. Works much the same as XP. At least for ecdl file management. Word 2003~2007 are much the same also. Word 2010 though is very different. Maybe thats the issue?

Overheal

>_<

laymans terms people. English.

farmer,

you would need to update both Windows, the operating system, and Office 2003, the program. The combined cost to do so would be around 250 Euro or so, to upgrade to the newest versions, Windows 8.1, and Office 2013. That is even if your computer meets the requirements - it may, it may not.

For all that hassle, you'd be better off spending that much money on a new computer and a new copy of office. But saying that, it's even more cost effective to have your daughter practice elsewhere, if that is all you need to upgrade for.

In the grand scheme of things, the ECDL is a pretty basic certification, and employers don't generally give it much regard. Thats because plenty of people have it either can fake their way through and/or don't know how to use the tools/programs they've been trained to use, and ECDL doesn't really do the best job, frankly, of teaching it out effectively. That means to employers, it's not much better than toilet paper in many cases.

By all means let her do the ECDL but don't take it too seriously.

sawdoubters

you could get windows 7 and keep word 2003

save stuff you want to keep on external drive


Win Ult 7 SP1 32-bit English 1pk DSP OEI DVD on amazon uk you need 32 bit

I would not get 8 its pretty horrible

format the computer,you lose everything on it then load windows


http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/219487-clean-reinstall-factory-oem-windows-7-a.html

yoyo

beauf wrote: »

Whats wrong with using Word 2003 and XP for ECDL. What do they say they require? What version of the OS and Word is she going to be tested in? Where is the ECDL being taught? Can she not use their computers?

Word 2003 is very different to 2007 onwards as it lacks the ribbon interface. I doubt it would be suitable for the ECDL course. I agree at this point a new computer is likely the best course of action for OP

Nick

White Heart Loon

Guys, stop telling him he could get Windows 7, he shouldn't, it would be money wasted as his pc is too old to run it comfortably. He would get a poor experience, would most likely need to disable aero, indexing, prefetch and other features that make Windows 7 a better more modern OS.

It's also at the stage that it's not worth spending any time and effort on an XP computer, Microsoft are about to kill it. Security experts warn that there are thousands of vulnerabilities being sat on ready to be released the day support ends.

OP, buy a new computer with a more modern OS, your daughter may even be entitled to get a student discount on Office 2010 (if that's what she needs)

beauf

We've a few hundred PC's that came with XP originally. Now on Windows 7. I'm looking forward to them all exploding when XP support is turned of. Booom!

sawdoubters wrote: »

...I would not get 8 its pretty horrible...

Turn off Metro (install classic shell) and it looks the same as Windows 7 and runs even better. Some older CPU's don't support Window 8 though. The price of Windows 7 or 8 now though is nuts expensive. Originally you could get Windows 8 for €20. Made sense then, now it doesn't.

While you can run Newer OS on older computers. There are two issues that make this pointless. The cost of the OS, its about a third to a quarter the cost of new machine. Also modern websites are really demanding and are very slow on a old machine. You need decent core2duo to get decent experience on the web. Your smart phone is probably faster on the web than an old PC.

You could even buy a 2 or 3 yr old machine with Windows 7 license for about €150. Problem there is a lot of them especially on adverts, are massively over priced for old machines.

Get a new machine, negotiate a deal (as a student even) with office, word on it. If it comes with Windows 8, install classic shell, and you'll be back to the Windows 7/XP look and feel.

beauf

yoyo wrote: »

Word 2003 is very different to 2007 onwards as it lacks the ribbon interface. I doubt it would be suitable for the ECDL course. I agree at this point a new computer is likely the best course of action for OP

Nick

You're right, I got the versions mixed up. My bad.

White Heart Loon

beauf wrote: »

We've a few hundred PC's that came with XP originally. Now on Windows 7. I'm looking forward to them all exploding when XP support is turned of. Booom!

That's not what I said, I said staying with XP is not a wise option, neither is upgrading older XP machines to Windows 7. Like you said, you need a Core2Duo to get a decent experience, very few XP machines shipped with Core2Duos any that did were most likely downgrades from Vista and well capable of running Windows 7

beauf

Most of our ex XP machines are 2.8~3Ghz Pentium D's with 1~2GB of ram. Ok for office stuff, and intranet apps. But consumer websites are painful. A core2duo 1.5ghz runs rings around it. Curiously enough, I've just noticed of the 5 machines I use at work, 3 of them are XP. Two of them are test mules though, the other is a 8 core workstation. Everything else is W7. I'd hate to do a wider survey of machines. Shudder....

White Heart Loon

beauf wrote: »

Most of our ex XP machines are 2.8~3Ghz Pentium D's with 1~2GB of ram. Ok for office stuff, and intranet apps. But consumer websites are painful. A core2duo 1.5ghz runs rings around it. Curiously enough, I've just noticed of the 5 machines I use at work, 3 of them are XP. Two of them are test mules though, the other is a 8 core workstation. Everything else is W7. I'd hate to do a wider survey of machines. Shudder....

It would make a very interesting poll

farmer 3

Thanks for all the advice, looks like I'll have to invest! Any suggestions on that? We use the PC for the broadband connection, home/office work etc. I don't know if I should replace with a desktop or laptop?

beauf

Personally I much prefer a desktop. But laptops are handy if you have to move them, or short on space.

Everyone will have their own opinion on that.

White Heart Loon

Things have changed a little since you bought that Dell, back then a house had a computer, now it's the norm to each have a laptop of their own.

beauf

THis...

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2012/oct/29/social-tv-second-screen-research

Overheal

White Heart Loon wrote: »

Things have changed a little since you bought that Dell, back then a house had a computer, now it's the norm to each have a laptop of their own.

To begin I always advise a household start with a desktop before purchasing any laptops unless there is a very compelling reason. Desktops last longer purely because they aren't moved around and the parts are not sandwiched together into the thinnest configuration possible. Desktops are also better value for money, you get more performance for what you pay as all the parts in a desktop are standardized and nothing is manufacturer-specific to a very large degree.

Alternatively, the touch screen all in one provides a good family experience and gets everyone on board with our mouse-redundant future

Laptops for the most part are constructed rather poorly and because of physical abuse (bumps, ventilation, shear forces that happen just from using them, opening and closing the lid thousands of times, wear and tear on the charger, the charger port, other ports, the keyboard and trackpad) they don't last very long either. My ultra book is a year old and has problems that wouldn't exist in a desktop, the cord has been bent the trackpad gets stuck in one corner, the whole unit takes five minutes to turn off or go to sleep. Laptops are fine things to have when you actually need the portability but I am frankly against their adoption in situations where it's not necessary.

beauf

For me it would more about having a big screen, full size clicky keyboard, and more bang for buck.

ECDL isn't demanding though, in the way other apps like processing video, gaming, or graphics might be.

Irish Steve

sawdoubters wrote: »

you could get windows 7 and keep word 2003

save stuff you want to keep on external drive


Win Ult 7 SP1 32-bit English 1pk DSP OEI DVD on amazon uk you need 32 bit

I would not get 8 its pretty horrible

format the computer,you lose everything on it then load windows


http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/219487-clean-reinstall-factory-oem-windows-7-a.html

Hate to burst the bubble, Office 2003 is also falling off support in April, so it's XP AND Office that are going to be vulnerable from April, if the computer is used on the web.

The comments about Cpu capability are relevant, the most important issue for most old machines is maximum memory, XP will run reasonably with 2Gb, later operating systems for on line web use really need more to avoid problems with performance, and most "old" machines can't support more than 2Gb.

As to the validity of needing that much memory to run basic applications, don't get me started, I used to work on a multi programming capable Mini computers that had 64K of memory, and in certain areas, it would STILL wipe the floor with Microsoft, despite being over 25 years old. It wasn't that long ago that DOS 6 came on 3 floppy discs, now, anything less than a DVD is struggling to provide a working system, and they don't actually DO that much more than they did a good while back.

I am looking at alternatives to Microsoft at the moment, simply because the TOTAL cost of ownership is becoming very high, if the non productive time doing things like regular updates is taken into account, the initial cost of the software is minimal compared to the ongoing hidden cost of regular downloads, patches, security backups to then secure those changes, and the inevitable hassles when a patch doesn't work as it was meant to. There are not many applications that HAVE to be run on Microsoft, and nothing else, although there are some serious issues with Bank of Ireland Business banking in that area, which won't work with anything other than Internet Explorer, so something like Linux Mint with one of the free office packages and Thunderbird mail client will cover a lot of the things that most home users need.

So, if you use the net, Xp & 2003 are dead in April, so it's a case of deciding which of the number of options suggested are the best way to go, and then having made the decision and done it, not looking back, or wondering if you've done the right thing.

beauf

For light browsing you can get away with 2GB but certainly browsers really sucking up the ram these days. You'd need to be aiming for 4GB at a minimum with a new machine. Cost of Windows is a real problem for those with old hardware alright.

Irish Steve

beauf wrote: »

For light browsing you can get away with 2GB but certainly browsers really sucking up the ram these days. You'd need to be aiming for 4GB at a minimum with a new machine. Cost of Windows is a real problem for those with old hardware alright.

yes. My parents have an old machine that was really made for XP. but it got Vista installed on it instead as it had just come out, and it only has 2 Gb. Runs like a dog with a broken leg, but can't be upgraded as the motherboard is limited to 2 Gb. The time I've had to waste sorting out issues on that machine is only woeful, but there's no easy way to persuade them to upgrade it, and I can't really suggest to 2 pensioners in their 80's to start learning a new system, regardless of if it's Microsoft or not, the learning curve will just be too steep.

Crazy that a simple browsing machine needs 4 Gb in order to do the basics, I have often wondered how much duplication of code there is in some of the core modules that Microsoft use, it's clear that their attitude these days is that memory is cheap, so who cares, which in some respects is true, until you get to the point where it's swapping in and out of paging memory all the time, that really kills the performance.

When I started programming we had to look after memory much more aggressively, but it meant that we had programs that were fast, and did what the user wanted without being bloated, which for sure is not the case now, so much of what's out there is trying (and failing) to be all things to all men, instead of being specific, and tuned, and FAST.

We had flight simulator packaged running on 486/100's in 640 Kb of memory, under DOS, and even now, they were faster in the core areas than a modern machine, simply because we could prevent the machine from doing other things that were not needed at critical times. Now, Microsoft make those decisions for me, and I get no control over what the machine is doing, or why, and there are plenty of times when the decisions that are made are not what the user wants, or needs. The result is poor performance in areas that at times are critical, and getting access to what is being done, or why, is impossible, as the source is closed. Pain.

OK, drifted away from XP and Office 2003 a little, but I'm sure the point is clear, and it could well be that this decision about XP will be one that Microsoft will live to regret, I am already aware that there are some organisations (in the UK) that are planning to pay for continued support of XP, it will be expensive, but they have no choice, changing is just not possible at the moment. It will be interesting to see what does actually happen over the nest few months.

White Heart Loon

Very true, the saying now is "Can it run Crysis Chrome". Chrome has become such a pig

beauf

I've been trying the new Opera reboot, very basic at moment. But isn't trying to suck and combine all my data at every opportunity as Chrome/Google does.

beauf

Irish Steve wrote: »

yes. My parents have an old machine that was really made for XP. but it got Vista installed on it instead as it had just come out, and it only has 2 Gb. Runs like a dog with a broken leg, but can't be upgraded as the motherboard is limited to 2 Gb....

Windows 7 and Windows 8 are much lighter on an old system than Vista.

But it doesn't get around the cost of upgrading.

I might have to try Linux for the 20th time...

PropJoe10

People should not be using XP after April. If your computer is a Dell Dimension 2400 it should be able to take up to 2GB RAM - it would be quite cheap to upgrade to this, and stick Windows 7 or a Linux distro on it. Having said that, buying a new machine is probably more sensible really.

janeparker

Let me know machine's configuration. Then I can suggest a compatible operating system for your.