XP. I'm too lazy and incompetent to install any other OS. Although, I was thinking of getting a Mac a week ago. I hear they're really great with Photoshop, too.
Windows 98, 2000, XP. I bought Vista Ultimate for $7 at college, but my laptop doesn't have quite enough RAM to run it.
Bro has a MacBook. I'm not so fond of Mac OSX. And trust me, I've given it plenty of time to get used to. I think the people who stress it being infinitely better than Windows are just Mac fanboys.
XP for some work and play. OSX for cereal work and life/media stuff (mail, calendars, photos, TV, vids and that nonsense). Couldn't pick between them and thankfully I don't need to
XP on four computer in my room, Mac OS X Leopard on the other three. I can't stand tiger; leopard is a great OS though. XP is for my main machine; a good balance of work and play.
I prefer XP. I have a laptop with Vista Home Basic, and it's not bad, surprisingly. I've seen other computers that shipped with Vista Home Premium or Ultimate where it runs like shit
Originally Posted by cecil hmmm i swear i was in there before lol. maybe it was someone elses. leave me alone! i just want to be all normal1!!! and eat grubs..
What are you talking about ...
Moving on, does anybody know the latest on the upcoming Windows 7?
Originally Posted by Bibin I know a guy who works in PC mag. He's grabbing a beta copy soon, so it's likely that I'll be able to try Windows 7 in a few days.
Sweetola!
Yea, Vista's "horrible reception by the public" has been drastically over-emphasized. Which isn't to say that it's perfect by any means, but it's really not that bad.
When I lose 10-15fps performance on a fairly decent gaming rig just because I'm on Vista instead of XP (with the same settings and game) then yes- it is that bad.
Vista only requires two things to run perfectly and that's fast ram and a decent videocard.
Neither of these are because the operating system needs more resources, but because unlike past versions of Windows, it's constantly exchanging information in and out. It's not because Vista needs more ram, it's that it needs free ram so it can freely move stuff around. Plus, the faster the ram, the less likely you are to bottleneck. I can truly attest to this, because when I have DDR1 Ram that was pretty slow, Vista ran like shit. After I got some half decent DDR2 ram though, Vista runs beautifully.
And naturally a decent videocard, simply because Vista's desktop is now hardware accelerated, and you'd be cheating yourself out by not having one.
Originally Posted by Dr. James When I lose 10-15fps performance on a fairly decent gaming rig just because I'm on Vista instead of XP (with the same settings and game) then yes- it is that bad.
Well, of course. Computer land is all about obsolete-upgrade-obsolete-upgrade. Vista takes more memory than XP, so it's obviously not going to run some games as well. Same as when XP came out.
Well, of course. Computer land is all about obsolete-upgrade-obsolete-upgrade. Vista takes more memory than XP, so it's obviously not going to run some games as well. Same as when XP came out.
Actually no. Vista has by far been the greatest leap in minimum system requirements. I've always kept a number of legacy PC's for compatibility but I've had Pentium 3 500mhz machines running and gaming on XP without losing performance compared to Win2K, ME or 98. And that's supposed to be the minimum to get XP running (or used to be, there are ways of cutting the fat out of XP that would probably shrink the minimum spec).
I've got a big chunk of ram in my personal machine now and I still lose performance. Frankly I'd rather not buy another video card when my current one can still run all the source games at 1680x1050 and full settings (barring AA) at 30fps, just to run Vista. But 'nuff bout that and back to my newly acquired 8gb rammage gaming.
The requirements went UP 4x between 98 and XP (3 years between operating systems)
The requirements went UP 5x between XP and Vista (5 years between OS)
sorry Dr. James, you're wrong. Vista hasn't leaped in requirements. It has gone the ususual pace.
Vista doesn't use more RAM to run. It UTILIZES your ram. The reason you all experience slow downs is because the constant exchange is creating a bottleneck on your RAM unless you have a large amount or very fast ram. Preferably both if you don't want to see any loss in performance. Vista is a leap in requirements, because it's a leap in optimization.
Vista doesn't have a recommended ram speed because barely anyone even knows RAM actually has a speed at which it can exchange information or they just don't care. This leads people to think "Oh well it needs more RAM, the OS sucks because that's less for me to use." When that's the exact opposite effect. Unless your computer can fit snug within or above the comfort zone of Vista, then you will experience a negative impact as a result of Vista not being able to optimize itself properly.
Is this Microsoft's fault for not adding more flexibility? Hell yes! But please check up on your facts in line before you start spitting out reasons why you think Vista either isn't great, or why it's not as good as it could have been. Especially when you're wrong.
If I recall, Vista (and XP) can only use 8GB of RAM, too. I forget what the reason was, but if you have any more than that it won't get used, and it'll be wasted memory. I think you can only have up to 4 sticks, as well, for the same forgotten reason that you can only use 8GB. Macs can do up to I think 32GB, but I'm not sure about that at all.
Originally Posted by Adam Phant If I recall, Vista (and XP) can only use 8GB of RAM, too. I forget what the reason was, but if you have any more than that it won't get used, and it'll be wasted memory. I think you can only have up to 4 sticks, as well, for the same forgotten reason that you can only use 8GB. Macs can do up to I think 32GB, but I'm not sure about that at all.
Are you sure it's 8GB? I thought it was only 4 GB... maybe your right
It depends. Any 32 bit operating system can't use more than 4GB RAM. Vista and XP both can't use more than 3GB in 32bit. The limit for the 64 bit version of Vista is somewhere in the terabytes. I highly doubt we will ever need to or could practically use even 1 terabyte of RAM.
Originally Posted by Ricky It depends. Any 32 bit operating system can't use more than 4GB RAM. Vista and XP both can't use more than 3GB in 32bit. The limit for the 64 bit version of Vista is somewhere in the terabytes. I highly doubt we will ever need to or could practically use even 1 terabyte of RAM.
Originally Posted by Ricky I could be wrong.
Years ago, Bill Gates said "No one will ever need more than 640 KB of RAM"
hahahaha
gates was so wrong
i think that the standard power of computers will get greater all the time, because we keep thinking of things that require better hardware than we currently have.
You said that we'll never need 1 terrabyte of RAM, but who knows
Originally Posted by Ricky Windows 98: 16 MB RAM, 66 MHz processor
Windows XP: 64 MB Ram, 233 MHz processor
Vista: 512 MB Ram, 800 MHZ
The requirements went UP 4x between 98 and XP (3 years between operating systems)
The requirements went UP 5x between XP and Vista (5 years between OS)
sorry Dr. James, you're wrong. Vista hasn't leaped in requirements. It has gone the ususual pace.
Edited by the Author.
Congrats on getting confused by the megahertz myth Go fish out a Pentium 3 800mhz CPU and see if you can run Vista . Vista coughs a lot on our Pentium 4 3ghz but works okay on a 1.8ghz CD.
And for kicks one of our systems is running XP Home on 32mb ram. Besides XP on 64mb will run perfectly (just not so when you run other apps), Vista on 512mb? I wouldn't recommend it on anything less than 1 or 2gb ram if you want useable performance.
I suppose it depends on if you use the new visual gimmicks in Vista. I have them turned off and my comp runs fairly well (although I just bought it a couple of months ago ) with them turned on it was SLOOOOW
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke I suppose it depends on if you use the new visual gimmicks in Vista. I have them turned off and my comp runs fairly well (although I just bought it a couple of months ago ) with them turned on it was SLOOOOW
Oh really... that's interesting. When I turn Aero off is when I notice the drop in performance. It's whenever I turn it on that everything runs a lot smoother. I'm dead serious, I hate working with programs like 3D Studio Max anymore, because they turn Aero off. The whole system feels so sluggish. Takes me back to XP whenever windows would clone themselves when dragged over loading programs. (Redraw)
To go back to the 4GB myth, using the /PAE boot switch switches the processor to a strange 36-bit mode (should your processor support it - any 64 bit one will) where it can address a lot more RAM. That's how I have 6GB right now on my main machine, XP sees it, and utilizes it.
Microsoft thought it would be clever to limit their different versions of Windows to have higher or lower max ram values before it ignores other ram. Seems pretty stupid for Microsoft to make me pay for something I already paid for initially. If the technology is there, why should my operating system be allowed to stop it from being used because I didn't pay enough money for an upgraded version.
Either way though, I mean... it's still a higher maximum ram then Windows XP. My complaints are legit, but it's by no means against Vista, but Microsoft.
I found Vista to be almost identical to XP, it doesn't even look much different. It also runs fine on my pc but it was a new pc that came with Vista so i can't really compare performance.
I just feel there isn't a big enough difference to upgrade if you still use XP.
Oh and the only problems I've ever had were some old games not working (a few more than with XP)
So when i see people complaining about Vista i wonder if they're just listening to all the other crap they see and blaming any problem they come across on the OS when it's well known that no Operating system is perfect. Including Windows XP...
In terms of what computer i buy, I always definitely go with apple (cause I can run both windows and osx). If I had to choose one system over the two, I'd have to sacrifice something (namely MMF for windows or FCP for mac). why isn't there an "I have two OS of choice" option?
n/a
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
2nd November, 2008 at 10:46:15 -
"cause I can run both windows and osx"
So can a non-mac system, nowadays. Though you'll still have to watch out with the kind of hardware you buy if you do that, OSX doesn't support ALL hardware after all.
Vista was a sort of middle-deal thing. They weren't going to release anything until Windows 7 at first. It surprised me when what I thought was Windows 7 popped up three years earlier than I expected.
Originally Posted by Makrkno2 I've only got a Pentium 4 with 3.0ghz, and 1,700 ram or something with a X2600 PRO... Don't know anything about Linux, so all I can use is XP.
! Until recently, all I had was a 366Mhz. Now mine's only a 1300Mhz. (This computer was made before they started saying 1.3 Ghz. )
So can a non-mac system, nowadays. Though you'll still have to watch out with the kind of hardware you buy if you do that, OSX doesn't support ALL hardware after all.
Just as you said. I can't get the EFI-X or whatever it's called and install OSX on my P4 or any other funky system. As you said it requires specific hardware. Plus their Applecare is pretty damn brilliant and free for students, and if you buy at the right time you can get free iPods too.
That said Dell have been ace for me too. Accidentally damaged my 2404FWP monitor's screen in transit, rang them up to complain about it (since it had other minor problems)... Before I even got onto the display problem they said they'd replace it with the newer 2007 model.
Originally Posted by Jon Lambert Windows 7 starts its beta test next year. It looks just like Vista to me.
Yea just a bit, but worst of all is that they've kept the bad effects. Hopefully they update them. Basically the menu bar needed a ceiling darkness and more blur - as Vista stands now my eyes are too drawn to the title bar if there is something black behind it. Glad they copied more of the OSX dock too, usability shoots up some
Just wonder if they're going to nix loads of features before launch again. But either way it sounds like it could be a huge improvement over Vista. And hopefully they let you disable the "ribbon" interface. To switch between 2 basic tools in the new Paint you have to click the mouse twice? How about a structured interface that brings up more detailed options as well as constantly required important options. So many design flaws.
Advertisement
Post Reply
?
Apocalyptic Coders - 
I bought Vista Ultimate for $7 at college, but my laptop doesn't have quite enough RAM to run it. 
I think the people who stress it being infinitely better than Windows are just Mac fanboys. 
!
Vista takes more memory than XP, so it's obviously not going to run some games as well. 
Edited by the Author.
. I really prefer XP.
