Insert_Nickname
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2012
- 4,971
- 1,696
- 136
Plus my earliest experience with a os was a neighbors Hp with ME.
Windows ME?
Dang. Now that is getting thrown in the deep end...
Always preferred 2K whenever possible, 98SE if not.
Plus my earliest experience with a os was a neighbors Hp with ME.
Windows ME?
Dang. Now that is getting thrown in the deep end...
Always preferred 2K whenever possible, 98SE if not.
Software required Vista? What a headache.
You add in the fact he refused to get rid of his AOL dial up when AT&T dsl and a 1.5mb/local home deal was costing me $21 out the door had me shaking my head. He was paying like $10 maybe for his deal? Then we found out how much fun ME was about ram upgrades, going for a 1gb Rambus deal i guess broke ME. I had a crash course in figuring out how the continuity sticks work as well. Luckily Vista was why he got the ram upgrade and ME was drop kicked. Not that he was balling all of a sudden, but the lovely bsod with ME wasn't a issue no more.
I do remember during the same time hugging XP for dear life cause i was having worst experiences with Vista. My neighbors software required Vista or else we would have put put XP on there without thinking twice.
Vista pre-SP2 was pretty terrible, particularly on machines with low RAM and/or integrated graphics. It helped a good deal to disable Aero, forcing Windows to use the old GDI+ compositor.
Vista SP2 was almost indistinguishable from 7. It even got DirectX 11 with an update.
HP Z400 User here (x58 chipset based). I have totally upgraded this workstation with liquid cooling, 24GB of PC31333, GTX 1080, USB 3.0 card, Gen 3 SATA card and last but not least Xeon W3690 (6 cored). I am getting a score of 4000 in the superposition benchmark at 1080p extreme. The setup feels super solid and fast, runs anything I throw at it with nothinig but a burp. Found it in a dumpster...
I am curious for a 1080p desktop how bad off a gtx960 will be bottlenecked by the 8350 if at all? I scored a $40 4gb 960 this evening locally as a hold me over till i upgrade my main in September. With a new power supply coming tomorrow, the 8350 will be prime time ready for gaming in September. Got my main a new psu so putting the old into the 8350 deal.
The 8350 tower will play Black Ops 1-2, Doom 2016 with some BF3/BF4 as well. Might toss in Rocket League too. Maybe toss on GTA V. Pretty much any game that doesn't give the finger to the 8350 or the 8gb.
Sounds like it would be pretty evenly matched.
One note I do have 32gb's DDR3-1866 installed which most likely doesn't matter a lot game-wise.
HP Z400 User here (x58 chipset based). I have totally upgraded this workstation with liquid cooling, 24GB of PC31333, GTX 1080, USB 3.0 card, Gen 3 SATA card and last but not least Xeon W3690 (6 cored). I am getting a score of 4000 in the superposition benchmark at 1080p extreme. The setup feels super solid and fast, runs anything I throw at it with nothinig but a burp. Found it in a dumpster...






Whats with people tossing out such good stuff? Last year i found a Leveno Thinkpad sitting on a curb with a utterly destroyed XBOX next to it. Forgot the model but it had a second generation i5 in it with 4gb of ram. Minus a key missing and one of the usb ports looking like Wolverine went at it in frustration, it worked perfectly fine once i put in a 2.5 drive and since i had a few of those already including a 60gb ssd it was a pretty respectable laptop. Ended up giving it to my wifes cousin and he was able to play some Runescape on it.
"Fun" times indeed.
Windows 9x always had that "bug" with more then 512MB RAM. From what I remember you had to tweak a couple of settings manually, or it wouldn't boot.
Vista pre-SP2 was pretty terrible, particularly on machines with low RAM and/or integrated graphics. It helped a good deal to disable Aero, forcing Windows to use the old GDI+ compositor.
Vista SP2 was almost indistinguishable from 7. It even got DirectX 11 with an update.
Windows 7 was just Vista SP2 rebranded and re-marketed, loool![]()
IIRC XP, Vista, 7 all run on the same NTFS technology.7 is more like Vista SP3. There are features Vista simply doesn't have. But yes, the underlying tech is the same...
...and MS had to distance themselves from the Vista fiasco. Which turned out quite comical, since everyone loves 7, but hates Vista.
By the time 7 was launched, hardware and software (in particular drivers) had caught up with the OS.
IIRC XP, Vista, 7 all run on the same NTFS technology.
Vista was still my favorite OS. I never had any issues with it. I had 4GB of RAM in my HP 9550t and that OS could be customized to look like a command center. Aero glass, live desktop, any colors of the rainbow, theme packs, gadgets. Amazing. All our OS with their “modern UI” scheme look like crappy playskool toys in comparison. Everything has to be a stupid block, mobile or desktop.
IIRC XP, Vista, 7 all run on the same NTFS technology.
You can very easily tweak the 7 user interface to resemble Vista 99%. There are a few details here and there, but nothing earth-shattering.
...?
NTFS is just the file system used on the drives. It has nothing else to do with Windows itself.
If you're referring to the NT kernel, that goes back to Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. Believe me, plenty has changed since. That original NT kernel didn't suddenly mutate support for AMD64 and other new features...![]()
True, but the tile-based interface of 10 I find horrible, then it, (apparently, I don't use it), likes to update without warning at any possible time. Oh, 10 will be the last OS issued as a standalone OS from MS, they want users to purchase a yearly license going forward. No. friggin. way. I'd got to Linux after 7 becomes untenable.7 is a non starter. It’s too close to sunset. Too few features compared to 10. 7 was great for the way too many years it lasted.
