|
The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition
|
|
|
Any Flaming Results in a Temp Ban or Worse. Your Choice!!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. October 2008 @ 00:20 |
Link to this message
|
Aight!! Someone tell me how crappy this RAM is cause I'm buying it unless a personal "friend" has had BAD experiences!!! :P
link to OCZ 2x2GB RAM
....gm
Oh btw.. Windows 7 is holding the GM's interest very high!!! If anyone runs across a version with the "tool bar" I'm in for trying it.. I've got who knows how many little HDD's that'll love some testing. :D
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 00:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Platinum versions were bad, not sure about this...
Windows 7 is very good. The Taskbar one should be out early 09 I think.
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 04:23 |
Link to this message
|
Russ I'm pretty sure 2000 pro, is just like XP pro, and vista premium, same OS just little differences to the other versions?
Oh and ask Sam, vista is needed when gaming, DX10, crossfire support, etc etc. If you want to use 2 4870X2s, you cant in XP. Not even in XP64.
And the P5Q hint was a joke, note the ":p" at the end, and the bottom board is a brilliant OCer, esp fro the price, whats wrong with it?
Drivers are not the problem of the OS but of lazy developers. The beta was out a long time before the final release, but its not MSs fault they couldnt be bothered to give drivers. Most have by now as it is.
And vista feels a hell lot more snappier to me than XP. It could be that im using hardware that can actually run vista, or the fact the superfetch is brilliant, either way, to me vista has been the best OS MS have made :)
|
Moderator
|
31. October 2008 @ 05:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by spamual:
And vista feels a hell lot more snappier to me than XP. It could be that im using hardware that can actually run vista, or the fact the superfetch is brilliant
I think i need a break away from this thread, you are just talking absolute and utter nonsense now. I'm off to ban myself and hit myself repeatedly with blunt objects. And if i'm still conscious after that i'm going to install Windows Me.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules *** |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 06:05 |
Link to this message
|
Lol!
Agreed.
Vista is wise for certain games in dual graphics, but only a select few, if you only have two GPUs (which you really only should). Age of Conan and Crysis:Warhead are the only games I've proved you need vista for to use dual graphics, and the performance impact of DX10 is absolutely shameful, it's about 30%, with no change in graphics. I suspect GRiD also needs vista to run as CF doesn't seem to work in XP, but I haven't tested it yet.
In general, however, Vista will NEVER be faster than XP, that's just absurd.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. October 2008 @ 06:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by spamual:
Russ I'm pretty sure 2000 pro, is just like XP pro, and vista premium, same OS just little differences to the other versions?
Oh and ask Sam, vista is needed when gaming, DX10, crossfire support, etc etc. If you want to use 2 4870X2s, you cant in XP. Not even in XP64.
And the P5Q hint was a joke, note the ":p" at the end, and the bottom board is a brilliant OCer, esp fro the price, whats wrong with it?
Drivers are not the problem of the OS but of lazy developers. The beta was out a long time before the final release, but its not MSs fault they couldnt be bothered to give drivers. Most have by now as it is.
And vista feels a hell lot more snappier to me than XP. It could be that im using hardware that can actually run vista, or the fact the superfetch is brilliant, either way, to me vista has been the best OS MS have made :)
So that's what the ":P" means! ROFLMSOAO!! I Swear, I never knew! LOL!!
Quote:
It could be that im using hardware that can actually run vista, or the fact the superfetch is brilliant, either way, to me vista has been the best OS MS have made :)
The hardware doesn't really matter! Regardless of which OS you use, they still have to make the same calls to the CPU. It has little to do with what hardware you use!
That's where Win 7 is going to be brilliant! It should do all you say Vista does, and much more! By now you should be able to see where this is all going? It's going to be geared to Core i7! With no fsb, Intel & M$ can do a lot of things to speed up all the internal processes. Look at what AMD did with the same concept a few years back! The were King until the C2D, and I'm pretty sure Intel is going to go AMD at least one better! LOL!! If they get it right, and you can be almost assured that they will. M$ couldn't have picked a better time either. By the time it's ready for Core i7, Core i7 should be ready for it. Bugs, bios updates, all that stuff should be pretty sorted out by the time Win 7 is released! I sure hope I'm right! LOL!!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 07:34 |
Link to this message
|
Well it just means, "hehe" like a person sticking their tongue out at someone :)
Still I know many a person (on forums) that have them, a good few months now with 3.6GHz OCed Q6600s :)
I do hate its placement of the 24 pin ATX cable, and that alone would be a reason I wouldnt buy it.
Well guys, im using a P4 3.1GHz for XP and a 3.4GHZ C2d for vista, IMO its faster :D
Hahaha
Which is why I said it will be due to the hardware :D
me <3 vista
I can understand why you wont like it, due to it not running, or booting in 10mins etc, but form the day I installed it, (July 07) apart from nVidia 64-bit drivers in march, I have had no BSODs or any vista related problems. If I do BSOD its when I push an OC too far! :D
I have not had any Compatibility problems with older games, software, or hardware I have used. This is completely different to how my XP life started out, when installing RA2 would cause a BSOD every time :(, after SP2 it was brilliant though. Truth be told, I didnt NEED to upgrade to windows, but when I got new hardware, I thought why not (as I used to bash it before) and I was glad I did. I remember XP installations would take hours, where as Vistas was about 45 mins, till I could use firefox :). These are the reason why I really didnt get why people were bashing it as I once was, and I assumed that most never used it and started bashing, or were using old hardware.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 08:48 |
Link to this message
|
Did anyone see what I wrote about Windows 7? It uses about 525 MB of ram. That's incredible to me, because Vista would be using up way more than 1GB doing the same stuff.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 09:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Again, please stop quoting that XP installs took hours. They only did on old P3 systems. An XP install has never taken me more than 40 minutes in the last three years or so. A Vista install has never taken less than an hour.
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 10:00 |
Link to this message
|
Im not saying for everyone it took hours, I am saying in my own real life findings, I dreaded to reinstall XP, as it took a long time, vista doesnt to install. Now this may be becuase I was installing XP on a P4 and 160GB sata HDD, but it took its time :)
Sam, you installed vista on a bascially full HDD and it took 10 mins to boot up, thats your findings, these are mine.
boozer, is that 32 bit or 64 bit. also when running games, would it be possible with 1GB of RAM, or a minimum 2GB for windows 7 32 bit will be needed?
IMO even for vista 32, 4GB was a minimum for gaming, as with 2GBs i used to hit 97-98% usage while playign cod4 :D
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 10:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's exactly why, and it makes that statement irrelevant, and also false.
|
Moderator
|
31. October 2008 @ 10:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by spamual:
Im not saying for everyone it took hours, I am saying in my own real life findings, I dreaded to reinstall XP, as it took a long time, vista doesnt to install. Now this may be becuase I was installing XP on a P4 and 160GB sata HDD, but it took its time :)
Do you work in PC World by any chance ?, or maybe Currys ?.
...goodbye cruel world, i can't take any more...
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 11:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
i wish i had work lool!
and yet i can still buy a £300 4870x2 :D
grants FTW :D
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 11:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
That's exactly why, and it makes that statement irrelevant, and also false.
but its not. its relavent to me, and to my experiances with both OSes. i never once claimed it was fact for everyone did i?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 12:53 |
Link to this message
|
well my GPU isnt bad.just had it checked out. its fine. so i guess my next thing to have tested i the PSU.then the mobo i guess???oh i dont wanna go through another return to gigabyte..lol3 weeks is to long to be without...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 13:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
What change did you make to the board to cause the problem?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 13:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
thats just it none. ive hadd my new hdd a week now no problems other than shooting some air all over to clean off the dust thats it. i havent even done any OC'ing im at my max for that on this system.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 13:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmm, that is odd. Which components are left to test?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 14:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
well honestly the mem hasnt been tested. but uve taken out 1 stick and tried fireing it up with 1 stick in each slot. same problem. then i tried the other stick the same way and same results. the only other thing it can be if not hte PSU which here in the next hour or so im gonna have it checked, would be the mobo...
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. October 2008 @ 16:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Again, please stop quoting that XP installs took hours. They only did on old P3 systems. An XP install has never taken me more than 40 minutes in the last three years or so. A Vista install has never taken less than an hour.
The first machine I ever installed XP on when I bought it, was a Dell Optiplex 350MHz P2, and it took only a little over an hour. I think a lot of the time people used to spend installing it had more to do with the speed of the older hard drives and how much memory it had installed, than anything else. The Dell Dimension 3000 P4 3.0GHz was under an hour. Even my neighbors P-100 only took about 1 1/2 hours to install XP on, but his HDD was ancient. Even installs of XP on K6 laptops as slow as 350MHz take about an hour!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 17:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
An old AATA-66 or ATA-33 drive would certainly take some time.
|
|
rick5446
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. October 2008 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 18:33 |
Link to this message
|
Very cheap. I tend to prefer quality brand monitors though, after all you are looking at them whenever you use your PC at all. The $170 Viewsonic is very attractive.
|
|
rick5446
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. October 2008 @ 18:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
sammorris..Where did U see it 4 170.00
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 19:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
