Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > O/S's, Drivers & General Software

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old November 27, 2008, 12:44 AM
MacJunky's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Creston, BC
Posts: 1,743

My System Specs

Default

Ok, but why exclude superfetch? Do you consider it to be cheating? It is just making good use of RAM for those people who want a nippy system even if they do not use heavy apps.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old November 27, 2008, 03:34 AM
Chilly's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazer-[X] View Post
Hmmm, XP, Vista, 2000, whateva, Ive used them all, ANd personally, it wouldnt even matter to me what I use. Even if I was running a web server, I could fasibly do it with 512 MB of ddr. If I was running a email server, I could do it with even less. BUT, if Im gaming, I can use any system, but I would want 4 GB of ram. 2000 server is pretty much the same as 2000 desktop, same with XP, and they both are very powerfull OS's. VIsta, is something entirely differant. NOt really a server grade kernal, but not really as usefull as 2000 was either. XP, is awesome. I jsut wish Microshaft would include a DX10 port natively in the enterprise class servers :)
WRONG, Vista SP1 is based off the Windows 2008 Server code, even pre-SP1 Vista was based off the Windows Server 2003 code. You may have been right had Microsoft(shaft? really? grow up) contiuned with the "longhorn" 4074 codebase, but they decided to reset the code base and start from scratch using the Server 2003 server codebase. That is one of the reasons Vista was so delayed actually because they scrapped 90% of the work done 2 yearsinto development. Oh and to prove my point even more, while it IS possible to enable(it DOES come already installed, just disabled) DX10 on Server 2008, but why the hell does a SERVER need high end graphics capablities?

Vista is one of the most stable OS's ever to come out of Microsoft since 2000 BECAUSE just like 2000, its based off a server grade kernal. Its fine to like XP more than Vista, plenty of valid reasons for it(main one being people don't like change). Don't bash an OS you know nothing about thou.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacJunky View Post
Ok, but why exclude superfetch? Do you consider it to be cheating? It is just making good use of RAM for those people who want a nippy system even if they do not use heavy apps.
Nope, its not so much that superfetch is cheating, its not, its an amazing feature, its just its not worth upgrading to Vista just for that feature alone. That and the fact that he does not have his own copy of Vista and is asking us to help him pirate it using his friends legit copy. XP is a great OS, plenty reasons to move to Vista in many cases, BUT this is not one of them.

Oh to Taser X, I aplogize if I seemed to come off a little strong, please don't get offended, just make sure you have your facts right before you start hating on an OS just cause its "cool" to hate it. Vista is an excellent OS that gets a bad rep due to bad vendor support when it launched, but that was 2 years ago people, wake up and realise that everyone said the EXACT SAME THING about XP when it launched.

That being said if your already crusining on XP with no issues, you don't need to upgrade to Vista. If your building a NEW system, theres no reason NOT to go with Vista, but if your on an older system, theres no reason to uproot XP and spend the money to go to Vista
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old November 27, 2008, 04:04 AM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,679
Default

Just because your building a new system doesn't mean you should use vista.. again its personal preference; myself any system I build will have XP because in no shape or form will I have Vista or 7 on my computer at all.

To say you should use Vista for a new build you might as well be one of the hundreds of manufacturers doing the same thing, and to force people is to make people not like. This is why companies allow a lot of machines to either come with XP still installed or XP downgrade allowable with Business or Ultimate installed onto computers.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old November 27, 2008, 05:04 AM
Chilly's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaberif View Post
Just because your building a new system doesn't mean you should use vista.. again its personal preference; myself any system I build will have XP because in no shape or form will I have Vista or 7 on my computer at all.

To say you should use Vista for a new build you might as well be one of the hundreds of manufacturers doing the same thing, and to force people is to make people not like. This is why companies allow a lot of machines to either come with XP still installed or XP downgrade allowable with Business or Ultimate installed onto computers.
I never said "should", I said theres no reason not to. Now that said if like XP better(whatever the reason) and lean towards XP, thats perfectly fine, enjoy your XP. I never said "should". My reasoning is more for people like me, I like both XP and Vista with a slight leaning towards Vista, now I have 5 active PC's in my house, 2 with Vista, 2 with XP and 1 with Mac OS X. I see no reason to upgrade the XP machines to Vista even thou they would run Vista VERY well, but if I were to build a new PC I'd grab a copy of Vista over XP for said new machine.

I never said "should", and agree that the choice should be given so that people who perfer XP, or dislike Vista (whatever the reason) can pick whatever OS they want. This also extends into my belief that system builders should offer Linux alongside Windows.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old November 27, 2008, 07:05 AM
misterd's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Posts: 608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazer-[X] View Post
NOt really a server grade kernal, but not really as usefull as 2000 was either. XP, is awesome. I jsut wish Microshaft would include a DX10 port natively in the enterprise class servers :)
Don't mean to rain on your parade but XP isn't a server grade anything either. And I really doubt there's a lot of gamers using enterprise class servers so why would they bother with DX10.
__________________
#hardwarecanucks on irc.freenode.net
fiat justitia ruat caelum

Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old November 27, 2008, 04:34 PM
CanadaRox's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Scarborough (Toronto)
Posts: 614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaberif View Post
You only noticed a difference because Vista dumped more of itself into RAM. If superfetch in Vista didn't exist you'd feel no difference.
Why does it matter if superfetching is why I noticed an increase performance. It comes with Vista by default and is enabled by default. Therefore, I would say increasing the RAM from 2GB to 4GB would increase performance, or at least how responsive it feels. Maybe with superfetch off I wouldn't notice anything, but why would I care about that? I'm not going out of my way to reduce performance by disabling it. As far as I'm concerned, if superfetch makes my experience better, then Vista is making my experience better. Its not as though I've installed a 3rd party program that manages the RAM for me. Its just the default Vista setup, so any other Vista user would notice the same effects.
__________________
Project: Black and White
i7 920 D0 | 3 x 2GB DDR3 | EVGA X58 SLI LE
XFX 4890 | Corsair HX750 | Corsair Obsidian
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old October 3, 2009, 11:50 AM
somecanadianguy's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somecanadiancity
Posts: 1,118

My System Specs

Default

Kind of an old thread, but I've been wondering something similar myself.
I'm building a budget AMD system and am going to need an OS.
I bought Vista Home Premium 64bit for my build (in March) and am wondering if there's any way of being able to use it on the new build too.
Even long enough to afford a copy of Windows7 for myself would be good (but that may take a few months).
Is the only way to just run it for a month and un/re-install?
No 'ing way I'm buying another copy.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old October 3, 2009, 12:52 PM
gingerbee's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Posts: 6,827

My System Specs

Default

to do it legal un-install from old machine and install on new machine done and legal
__________________
Fav quote "One should strive to achieve; not sit in bitter regret." Ronin Harris
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes