Will you buy an intel VIIV system this year?

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

lol wow. someone is a little bit emotional...it might be because you got yourself in too deep and cant argue yourself out of the corner you worked into.

if you paid 220 for 1gb of ram then you are stupid. its that simple...you are stupid. there is no other way to actually describe that.

you can get 1gb dual channel pc3200 for 81 dollars. if you knew anything about memory bandwith you would know DDR500 and above for an AMD system really doesnt do much in terms of speed and power. size makes the biggest difference and if you want snappy response then next most important is latency. bandwith helps but you dont need DDR4700000 to get top notch performance. what do i know though? i just design stuff like this all day...

2gb for 165 dollars
1gb for 81 dollars


see the trend? 512mb for 40 dollars...

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

oops. you are wrong. try again.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay in addition to the culprit software that masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

lol wow. someone is a little bit emotional...it might be because you got yourself in too deep and cant argue yourself out of the corner you worked into.

if you paid 220 for 1gb of ram then you are stupid. its that simple...you are stupid. there is no other way to actually describe that.

you can get 1gb dual channel pc3200 for 81 dollars. if you knew anything about memory bandwith you would know DDR500 and above for an AMD system really doesnt do much in terms of speed and power. size makes the biggest difference and if you want snappy response then next most important is latency. bandwith helps but you dont need DDR4700000 to get top notch performance. what do i know though? i just design stuff like this all day...

2gb for 165 dollars
1gb for 81 dollars


see the trend? 512mb for 40 dollars...

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

oops. you are wrong. try again.

Who said that I have an AMD system? Who said I was using PC 3200? You were correct to mention DDR500 because that's EXACTLY what I have. Money is money, I don't care if YOU think it's cheap, to me, it's not. That money could have been spent towards something I'm *actually willing* to pay for, not obliged.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
wow. goku you really need to learn some programming or anything about computers actually before you get involved in a heated debate.

if you want all of your fancy options and features in an OS, that requires more power. the amount of ram in a computer is constantly on an upward slope, so it is expected that software will start taking more and more of it simply because it is getting cheaper. if everyone thought like you, we would still have 6.4gb 5400rpm hard drives, 32mb of ram, and S3 diamond trio video cards because, well, why upgrade and waste money if windows should be able to work on POS hardware?

if you have no clue how complicated programming can be then you really have a totally useless and invalid opinion on this subject. more stuff built-in (which 99% of people want newer, better features) requires more raw processing power, available ram, disk speed, more efficient input/output, etc.. you must be very immature if you still think your way of doing things is the only right way.

Right, because people can't benefit from having a 7200rpm drive unless they have windows XP :roll: We probably wouldn't still have 32MB of ram in our systems still but we wouldn't be requiring 2GB for a fscking game, admit it, BF2 is poorly programmed just as much as Windows XP is in relation to conservative memory usage. You can have more features with out using 512MB of ram before the system starts up... :roll: And believe it or not, but average joe-sumer couldn't care less about "more features" because "more features" means more confusion and more likely to just give up... Only people who benefit from "more features" are computer savyy people and computer savyy people tend to want to have as much ram available as possible.

Programming being complicated is no fscking excuse for using 256MB of ram on startup, sorry but you're wrong on this.. It's funny how CONVIENTLY windows uses at least TWICE as much ram as it does in prior versions and there is no "actual thing" to point the finger at because microsoft masks so much of the ram usage that it's practically impossible to know...

its impossible to get a hold of your point of view when you talk yourself in circles. try forming a coherent thought without all of the emotion and stupidity... i.e. grow up.

Right, because people can't benefit from having a 7200rpm drive unless they have windows XP

but i thought you said there should be no reason for an OS to hog system resources so i said 5400rpm hard drives should be fine. who said anything about that being specific to windows xp? i sure didnt. so are you arguing with yourself?

You can have more features with out using 512MB of ram before the system starts up..

says the guy who knows nothing about programming. it would be impossible to relate how stupid this statement is knowing you are completely ignorant of how this whole thing even works.

And believe it or not, but average joe-sumer couldn't care less about "more features"

oh really? then why is the trend to constantly add new devices, bells and whisltes to everything from cars to lawnmowers to input devices for the computer? thats right...because people want more advanced features that enhance the experience. there is no need for GPS navigation in a car or for an LCD on a keyboard, but the market tends toward stuff like that because "average joe-sumer" likes it. again, you have on clue what you are even saying.

Programming being complicated is no fscking excuse for using 256MB of ram on startup, sorry but you're wrong on this

oh wow you proved me wrong there...nice logic. "im right because i said so."'

and there is no "actual thing" to point the finger at

nice technical arguement again. what would the world of computing do without your vast knowledge and infalliable logic?

You've proved nothing with your comments...

 

[imported_goku]

Here is something that I don't believe anyone can argue with me about. Most people don't like computers, I'm sorry guys but people use these devices and treat it with the same effection as they do their appliances/electronics in their house, though I'm sure they care about it a bit more especially when they have files on there.

Most if not all people don't like having to spend more money when they fail to see the reason for doing so. Sure, increasing the amount of ram will boost performance in your system, but that's because you're using software that sucks up that much ram, if software wasn't sucking it up, you wouldn't notice.

Windows doesn't NEED more than about 128MB of ram before anything else is loaded, I'm sorry guys but you've yet to provide me a LOGICAL statement, (yes this mean something that is based off of LOGIC, not intuition) that can explain why windows need so much ram to boot up. Windows NT got by with less than 32MB of ram, why does XP need 128MB of ram? The excuse I've been getting is that progress would be stagnant with out artifically "raising the bar" by making peopling thing their systems are inadequate.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

And maybe YOU say the average person doesn't need all of that, but I know a lot of average people, and they love it. Hell, I have a couple of friends who are the perfect example of all things redneck. They own trucks, they hunt, they wear jeans and flannel, they love Nascar, and even they upgrade their computers now and then, because God knows that the newest Deer Hunter game or Nascar game won't run on 64MB anymore. That and you just can't fit enough porno on a 5GB drive to satisfy a full-grown redneck.

You seem to think that XP requires more memory because it's poorly written, and part of that may be true. But I can do things in XP I couldn't do in 95, and I loved 95 to death. I went right from 95 to 2000, then to XP, I completely ignored 98 and Me altogether. The whole point of technology is to get bigger, faster, better, and CHEAPER. Memory 5 years ago was 5 times the price that it is now, for half the capacity. Just last year 512MB of memory would've cost $100, now you can get it for $40, and you can get 1GB for about $80.

So yes, by my standards, the industry's standards, and apparantly everybody but YOUR standards, memory is incredibly cheap. It's easy to install, it gives a pretty decent boost in performance, and it is worth it no matter how you look at it. It is a very necessary price to pay if you want to keep current with all of the software that's out there, peripherals, digital cameras, everything else that comes out. You think you're going to be able to toss a Blu-ray drive into your PC, and be able to decode and watch it with only 128MB of memory? Hell no, which is exactly why people upgrade.

Originally posted by: goku
Windows doesn't NEED more than about 128MB of ram before anything else is loaded, I'm sorry guys but you've yet to provide me a LOGICAL statement, (yes this mean something that is based off of LOGIC, not intuition) that can explain why windows need so much ram to boot up. Windows NT got by with less than 32MB of ram, why does XP need 128MB of ram? The excuse I've been getting is that progress would be stagnant with out artifically "raising the bar" by making peopling thing their systems are inadequate.

Logic would be knowing that people do more with their computers than simply boot into Windows. You keep on saying how XP shouldn't need more than 128MB of memory, then qualifying it by saying that's before anything else is loaded. XP on my computer doesn't take more than about 150MB of memory. But I have about 6 or 7 other programs that load during bootup (Virus protection, firewall, Trillian, temp monitoring, etc.) that make up another 150MB or so, putting me right around 300MB. I'm betting if you go through the process manager and look at the processes that actually are directly connected to the OS, you'll notice that it isn't more than about 200MB tops, the rest is all extra stuff that you may not see running, but is.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

Bold: BUahahah, OMG TEH SPREADSHEETS REQUIRE UBER GIGZHERTZ! OMG! lol, Hey kid, have you ever used office 4.2? Do you know what year it was released? do you? Tell me what operating system you were using when you were using Office 4.2, get back to me when you're ready to reply honestly.
Only "new feature" that wasn't in Office 4.2 that is in Office 97 is the ability to create web pages, that's about it... Software usefulness/features have pretty much stopped entirely at Office 2000, admit it, and if you can't, well then you're in more denial than the people who believe elvis is still alive..

The only thing that I believe has been benefitting from the increased processor speeds/ram size are games. (Is excluding all video production/photo editing, number crunching etc.. applications as that'll take to long to mention). I don't feel that bad that I need to get a better video card for a game as much as I feel bad for having to upgrade a friend's computer to 256MB of ram just so he can browse the web and do simple tasks.. Forking over $100 just so that hardware doesn't become stagnant is a piss poor excuse for making financially tight families to "pay up".

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

And maybe YOU say the average person doesn't need all of that, but I know a lot of average people, and they love it. Hell, I have a couple of friends who are the perfect example of all things redneck. They own trucks, they hunt, they wear jeans and flannel, they love Nascar, and even they upgrade their computers now and then, because God knows that the newest Deer Hunter game or Nascar game won't run on 64MB anymore. That and you just can't fit enough porno on a 5GB drive to satisfy a full-grown redneck.

You seem to think that XP requires more memory because it's poorly written, and part of that may be true. But I can do things in XP I couldn't do in 95, and I loved 95 to death. I went right from 95 to 2000, then to XP, I completely ignored 98 and Me altogether. The whole point of technology is to get bigger, faster, better, and CHEAPER. Memory 5 years ago was 5 times the price that it is now, for half the capacity. Just last year 512MB of memory would've cost $100, now you can get it for $40, and you can get 1GB for about $80.

So yes, by my standards, the industry's standards, and apparantly everybody but YOUR standards, memory is incredibly cheap. It's easy to install, it gives a pretty decent boost in performance, and it is worth it no matter how you look at it. It is a very necessary price to pay if you want to keep current with all of the software that's out there, peripherals, digital cameras, everything else that comes out. You think you're going to be able to toss a Blu-ray drive into your PC, and be able to decode and watch it with only 128MB of memory? Hell no, which is exactly why people upgrade.

Originally posted by: goku
Windows doesn't NEED more than about 128MB of ram before anything else is loaded, I'm sorry guys but you've yet to provide me a LOGICAL statement, (yes this mean something that is based off of LOGIC, not intuition) that can explain why windows need so much ram to boot up. Windows NT got by with less than 32MB of ram, why does XP need 128MB of ram? The excuse I've been getting is that progress would be stagnant with out artifically "raising the bar" by making peopling thing their systems are inadequate.

Logic would be knowing that people do more with their computers than simply boot into Windows. You keep on saying how XP shouldn't need more than 128MB of memory, then qualifying it by saying that's before anything else is loaded. XP on my computer doesn't take more than about 150MB of memory. But I have about 6 or 7 other programs that load during bootup (Virus protection, firewall, Trillian, temp monitoring, etc.) that make up another 150MB or so, putting me right around 300MB. I'm betting if you go through the process manager and look at the processes that actually are directly connected to the OS, you'll notice that it isn't more than about 200MB tops, the rest is all extra stuff that you may not see running, but is.

Yea, to me 200MB is too much period. Bring the ram usage down to 64MB of ram after windows is completely loaded (this means patches included, other software excluded) then I'll be happy as I CAN see a 32MB increase in ram would be required for more drivers being loaded/more user friendly features being loaded like wirelessconfig being loaded. 128-200MB? Nope, no excuse at all.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

Bold: BUahahah, OMG TEH SPREADSHEETS REQUIRE UBER GIGZHERTZ! OMG! lol, Hey kid, have you ever used office 4.2? Do you know what year it was released? do you? Tell me what operating system you were using when you were using Office 4.2, get back to me when you're ready to reply honestly.
Only "new feature" that wasn't in Office 4.2 that is in Office 97 is the ability to create web pages, that's about it... Software usefulness/features have pretty much stopped entirely at Office 2000, admit it, and if you can't, well then you're in more denial than the people who believe elvis is still alive..

The only thing that I believe has been benefitting from the increased processor speeds/ram size are games. (Is excluding all video production/photo editing, number crunching etc.. applications as that'll take to long to mention). I don't feel that bad that I need to get a better video card for a game as much as I feel bad for having to upgrade a friend's computer to 256MB of ram just so he can browse the web and do simple tasks.. Forking over $100 just so that hardware doesn't become stagnant is a piss poor excuse for making financially tight families to "pay up".

First, I don't believe for a second that you're over the age of 16. So please don't try and act like you are.

Secondly, you completely ignored my argument, and then said that the "only thing" benefitting from more memory was games, then decided to list a few other things you excluded because you didn't want to take the time to mention them, then did anyways.

Thirdly, where's that $100 figure come from? I can surf the web on my phone, it only has 32MB of memory, so I'm not too sure why you had to upgrade your friend's computer to 256MB to do the same thing, and why you would've paid $100 for something that doesn't cost more than $15. Unless of course this was 5 years ago, in which case the price is about right, but the amount of memory for the application is way off.

Face it, you're completely wrong. Computers are a luxury, yes. So is the Internet. I don't see anybody "forcing" anyone to upgrade at all, I know plenty of people using computers that are 5 or 6 years old, or older. They do just fine, and if they decide they want to get into something newer, they will. Financially tight families shouldn't be worrying about the Internet, or gaming, or any other kind of luxury that they can't afford, they should be worrying about food and clothing and heat. Everything we've been talking about in here has NOTHING to do with financial hardships, or Microsoft somehow screwing over countless families that will starve if they have to upgrade their memory just to use Vista, it's all been about value now compared to value 5 years ago. Nobody is forcing poor people to "pay up", and I very much doubt that those families have a HDTV to worry about hooking up their new HTPC to anyways, or have the money to go out and buy the newest games or video editing application that they'll have to upgrade for.


Also, I doubt many people here ever used 4.2, since it was for NT only. Well, that and 4.3 was released the day before anyways.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

Bold: BUahahah, OMG TEH SPREADSHEETS REQUIRE UBER GIGZHERTZ! OMG! lol, Hey kid, have you ever used office 4.2? Do you know what year it was released? do you? Tell me what operating system you were using when you were using Office 4.2, get back to me when you're ready to reply honestly.
Only "new feature" that wasn't in Office 4.2 that is in Office 97 is the ability to create web pages, that's about it... Software usefulness/features have pretty much stopped entirely at Office 2000, admit it, and if you can't, well then you're in more denial than the people who believe elvis is still alive..

The only thing that I believe has been benefitting from the increased processor speeds/ram size are games. (Is excluding all video production/photo editing, number crunching etc.. applications as that'll take to long to mention). I don't feel that bad that I need to get a better video card for a game as much as I feel bad for having to upgrade a friend's computer to 256MB of ram just so he can browse the web and do simple tasks.. Forking over $100 just so that hardware doesn't become stagnant is a piss poor excuse for making financially tight families to "pay up".

First, I don't believe for a second that you're over the age of 16. So please don't try and act like you are.

Secondly, you completely ignored my argument, and then said that the "only thing" benefitting from more memory was games, then decided to list a few other things you excluded because you didn't want to take the time to mention them, then did anyways.

Thirdly, where's that $100 figure come from? I can surf the web on my phone, it only has 32MB of memory, so I'm not too sure why you had to upgrade your friend's computer to 256MB to do the same thing, and why you would've paid $100 for something that doesn't cost more than $15. Unless of course this was 5 years ago, in which case the price is about right, but the amount of memory for the application is way off.

I had to upgrade his computer to 256MB of ram because like all the OS nazis would say on here, "WINDOWS 98 IS A POS, install windows 2000 or XP", can you guess which I installed? Well if you can't, I installed windows 2000, and last I checked, after all the patches are installed windows 2000 uses about 100-128MB of ram fully loaded in all it's glory and my friend only had 64MB of ram before I installed windows 98. So, do you see why I feel bad that he had to fork over $100 JUST for hardware because their windows 98 install went bad and he wanted to use his iPod (I eventually convinced him to get an iRiver as he'd probably need 512MB ram for iTunes to function properly).

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

Bold: BUahahah, OMG TEH SPREADSHEETS REQUIRE UBER GIGZHERTZ! OMG! lol, Hey kid, have you ever used office 4.2? Do you know what year it was released? do you? Tell me what operating system you were using when you were using Office 4.2, get back to me when you're ready to reply honestly.
Only "new feature" that wasn't in Office 4.2 that is in Office 97 is the ability to create web pages, that's about it... Software usefulness/features have pretty much stopped entirely at Office 2000, admit it, and if you can't, well then you're in more denial than the people who believe elvis is still alive..

The only thing that I believe has been benefitting from the increased processor speeds/ram size are games. (Is excluding all video production/photo editing, number crunching etc.. applications as that'll take to long to mention). I don't feel that bad that I need to get a better video card for a game as much as I feel bad for having to upgrade a friend's computer to 256MB of ram just so he can browse the web and do simple tasks.. Forking over $100 just so that hardware doesn't become stagnant is a piss poor excuse for making financially tight families to "pay up".

Also, I doubt many people here ever used 4.2, since it was for NT only. Well, that and 4.3 was released the day before anyways.

Last I checked, I was running Office 4.2 on my Windows 3.1 machine. Only reason the majority of the people on here have yet to use office 4.2 is because of the fact they're likely lying about their age and are probably younger than they claim.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

Bold: BUahahah, OMG TEH SPREADSHEETS REQUIRE UBER GIGZHERTZ! OMG! lol, Hey kid, have you ever used office 4.2? Do you know what year it was released? do you? Tell me what operating system you were using when you were using Office 4.2, get back to me when you're ready to reply honestly.
Only "new feature" that wasn't in Office 4.2 that is in Office 97 is the ability to create web pages, that's about it... Software usefulness/features have pretty much stopped entirely at Office 2000, admit it, and if you can't, well then you're in more denial than the people who believe elvis is still alive..

The only thing that I believe has been benefitting from the increased processor speeds/ram size are games. (Is excluding all video production/photo editing, number crunching etc.. applications as that'll take to long to mention). I don't feel that bad that I need to get a better video card for a game as much as I feel bad for having to upgrade a friend's computer to 256MB of ram just so he can browse the web and do simple tasks.. Forking over $100 just so that hardware doesn't become stagnant is a piss poor excuse for making financially tight families to "pay up".

Also, I doubt many people here ever used 4.2, since it was for NT only. Well, that and 4.3 was released the day before anyways.

Last I checked, I was running Office 4.2 on my Windows 3.1 machine. Only reason the majority of the people on here have yet to use office 4.2 is because of the fact they're likely lying about their age and are probably younger than they claim.

That's funny because 4.2 was specifically for NT, and was 32-bit, while 4.3 was the last 16-bit version released. Sure it would run on a 3.1 system, but not as well as 4.3 would.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

Bold: BUahahah, OMG TEH SPREADSHEETS REQUIRE UBER GIGZHERTZ! OMG! lol, Hey kid, have you ever used office 4.2? Do you know what year it was released? do you? Tell me what operating system you were using when you were using Office 4.2, get back to me when you're ready to reply honestly.
Only "new feature" that wasn't in Office 4.2 that is in Office 97 is the ability to create web pages, that's about it... Software usefulness/features have pretty much stopped entirely at Office 2000, admit it, and if you can't, well then you're in more denial than the people who believe elvis is still alive..

The only thing that I believe has been benefitting from the increased processor speeds/ram size are games. (Is excluding all video production/photo editing, number crunching etc.. applications as that'll take to long to mention). I don't feel that bad that I need to get a better video card for a game as much as I feel bad for having to upgrade a friend's computer to 256MB of ram just so he can browse the web and do simple tasks.. Forking over $100 just so that hardware doesn't become stagnant is a piss poor excuse for making financially tight families to "pay up".

Financially tight families shouldn't be worrying about the Internet, or gaming, or any other kind of luxury that they can't afford, they should be worrying about food and clothing and heat. Everything we've been talking about in here has NOTHING to do with financial hardships, or Microsoft somehow screwing over countless families that will starve if they have to upgrade their memory just to use Vista, it's all been about value now compared to value 5 years ago. Nobody is forcing poor people to "pay up"

Yes, they're being forced to upgrade in a way that ATM I can't explain (there is probably a word for it). Just because you're financially tight, doesn't mean that you're starving, it means that you need to spend wisely otherwise you'll have to file for bankruptcy since you'd probably be in debt etc... I live in a wealthy area but that doesn't mean I haven't had my fair share of people who find $20 for anything to be expensive, let alone $40 for a ram upgrade just so that your bloatware can run "smoothly". And FYI, for people who have older systems and just need them fixed/OS upgraded, 128MB ram upgrade is not $40... :roll: You guys are pathetic.. And if you say they should just buy another dell for $300 for "real cheap" and then spend $40 on that ram upgrade etc. then you're just an uncompassionate moron who is too ignorant to see the point of view of others..

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Memory is cheap. Stop complaining about Vista requiring 512MB of memory, go out and spend the $40 to upgrade.

Memory ain't cheap you fscking tard, I paid $220 for my fscking ram and that was 1GB of ram. Not everybody runs DDR 2700 you moron.

For someone with such a big mouth, you really don't know that much, do you?

You keep talking about how we should all be perfectly fine with 128MB of memory, and how the average user doesn't need any more. Funny enough, but over the past 5 years, the AVERAGE user has gone from about 100MB to almost 700MB, on average of course. So people do know that increasing their physical memory can give them a performance gain, especially when it comes to games, DVD movie playback, audio/video, running multiple applications, pretty much everything except for playing Solitaire.

Oh, and according to Steam, of the 800,000+ people who submitted to the poll, 85% had more than 256MB of memory, with almost half over 512MB of memory.

You also say that not everybody runs DDR 2700 (actually that's PC2700, but close enough). That's true, obviously not EVERYBODY runs it, but how much you wanna bet the vast majority of people with a PC purchased in the past, oh, 3-5 years, uses PC2700 or PC3200 memory? I'm going to say it's probably in the 50-70% range, especially in computers that come from name-brand companies like Dell and Gateway. Hell, I'm still running on 3200, I see no need to go any faster since I don't feel like overclocking at all (and mine could, since I did spend a pretty penny on it, Corsair LLPT isn't cheap). But average users could spend $40 on 512MB of PC3200, and see a huge boost in their performance. Probably the cheapest upgrade, and one of the best if you're using the factory built basics. Just because you blew $220 on memory, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. BTW, want to know what the top 3 most reviewed memory modules were at Newegg? They were all Corsair, all under $100, and all PC3200. I only see ONE unit over $150 in the first 20 I looked through, so I'd say it's pretty obvious that the majority of everyday users out there use PC3200 or slower memory, and could stand to benefit from a CHEAP, $40 upgrade.

I don't CARE! I don't care about what you think is "cheap". $40 to YOU may be cheap but it's an unnecessary price to pay for software the masks the true reason for requiring more resources, and that's due to poor programming.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The way you think, we should all be fine with our PC Jr's and 4-color graphics, and never need anything more. And perhaps that'd be true, if all we ever needed to do was balance our checkbooks or play King's Quest 2.

But people get bored easy, and want new features, new technology, and new things to do. Even spreadsheets are horribly complicated now, you can use colors, graphics, all sorts of garbage in them. Word processing isn't just typing now, you can integrate all sorts of things into a document, publish it online, and it's a whole multimedia experience. Gaming is the big thing though, with countless thousands of games out there already, and more coming out all the time, pushing the technology we already have to the limit.

Bold: BUahahah, OMG TEH SPREADSHEETS REQUIRE UBER GIGZHERTZ! OMG! lol, Hey kid, have you ever used office 4.2? Do you know what year it was released? do you? Tell me what operating system you were using when you were using Office 4.2, get back to me when you're ready to reply honestly.
Only "new feature" that wasn't in Office 4.2 that is in Office 97 is the ability to create web pages, that's about it... Software usefulness/features have pretty much stopped entirely at Office 2000, admit it, and if you can't, well then you're in more denial than the people who believe elvis is still alive..

The only thing that I believe has been benefitting from the increased processor speeds/ram size are games. (Is excluding all video production/photo editing, number crunching etc.. applications as that'll take to long to mention). I don't feel that bad that I need to get a better video card for a game as much as I feel bad for having to upgrade a friend's computer to 256MB of ram just so he can browse the web and do simple tasks.. Forking over $100 just so that hardware doesn't become stagnant is a piss poor excuse for making financially tight families to "pay up".

Also, I doubt many people here ever used 4.2, since it was for NT only. Well, that and 4.3 was released the day before anyways.

Last I checked, I was running Office 4.2 on my Windows 3.1 machine. Only reason the majority of the people on here have yet to use office 4.2 is because of the fact they're likely lying about their age and are probably younger than they claim.

That's funny because 4.2 was specifically for NT, and was 32-bit, while 4.3 was the last 16-bit version released. Sure it would run on a 3.1 system, but not as well as 4.3 would.

Fine, you're right on one thing, I must have mistaken it for Office 4.3. I've used both and they're undistiguishable, and just an FYI I've had all windows operating systems since Windows 3.0 (NT 3.1 on as well).

 

[Hummin]

I fail to find that you spent $100 on a 128MB or a 256MB stick or RAM to be anywhere near the truth. I have found, in the last two minutes, several sticks of PC100, low density SDRAM in 256MB strips for an astounding $33 at various online vendors........including some ECC registered RAM. Of course, most was that cheap Micron brand, so I suppose you just had to go to BB or CC and pay more for less. C'est la vie.

 

[MisterJackson]

🙁 My head hurts from goku's hgih school logic/debate skills.

 

[loup garou]

God this kid is so obnoxious. Hey goku, get a clue. You need massive horsepower to encode/decode/timeshift video (HD especially). Everything else you've rambled on about was incoherent hormone-induced childish babble. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about, which somehow set you off on another MS/Vista bashing tear, like the predictable simpleton you are.

Now, if by some stroke of genius, software engineeers were able to design super-efficient code that would encode/decode video with minimal hardware, you'd pay for their work, probably just as much, if not more, than the equivalent hardware upgrade.

You remind me of the other moron kid in the dell=honda thread (boy, surprised you never showed up in that one) who complained that his inspiron was a piece of crap and that Dell should use metal for their laptop casings, but didn't understand that if they did, the price would be higher, and he wouldn't have been able to afford one.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: loup garou
God this kid is so obnoxious. Hey goku, get a clue. You need massive horsepower to encode/decode/timeshift video (HD especially).

You don't think I realize that? Where did I say that video encoding wasn't resource intensive?

Everything else you've rambled on about was incoherent hormone-induced childish babble. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about, which somehow set you off on another MS/Vista bashing tear, like the predictable simpleton you are.

Now you're just poking fun, this was completely unnecessary and rude. Ass.

Now, if by some stroke of genius, software engineeers were able to design super-efficient code that would encode/decode video with minimal hardware, you'd pay for their work, probably just as much, if not more, than the equivalent hardware upgrade.

Learn to read the flameposts, where did I mention that I thought it was completely unnecessary for video encoding to require high end processing/great amounts of system resources? I've never debated that things like that are resource intensive, my complaint was that operating systems these days are filled to the brim with bloatware and can use a hefty 200MB+ after starting up with no programs running. Personally, I think video encoding programs are pretty close to maximum efficiency across the board, and anyways encoding speeds are determined by codecs not by the editing program so much...

You remind me of the other moron kid in the dell=honda thread (boy, surprised you never showed up in that one) who complained that his inspiron was a piece of crap and that Dell should use metal for their laptop casings, but didn't understand that if they did, the price would be higher, and he wouldn't have been able to afford one.

Like I said, a rude and unnecessary comment, you've yet to disprove that you're an ass. I hope you read this post and realize what my intentions were so that you take back what you said.

Video encoding=extremely resource intensive depending on many factors=pretty much as optimized as it's going to get (they could start off loading parts of it to graphics card and now physics cards I suppose....)

Operating systems=resource intensive for what they are, becoming more and more inefficient, denial or not, companies are purposely slowing down computers so that people will feel the need to upgrade.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: MisterJackson
🙁 My head hurts from goku's hgih school logic/debate skills.

Yeah, well my head hurts from your spelling...

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Hummin
I fail to find that you spent $100 on a 128MB or a 256MB stick or RAM to be anywhere near the truth. I have found, in the last two minutes, several sticks of PC100, low density SDRAM in 256MB strips for an astounding $33 at various online vendors........including some ECC registered RAM. Of course, most was that cheap Micron brand, so I suppose you just had to go to BB or CC and pay more for less. C'est la vie.

I had to go to frys because he needed it ASAP and it was corsair value-select(sp?) so thats why it wasn't exactly "cheap" but like I said, $40 to $100, doesn't matter, most people just don't want to fork over money for something when they can't see why they should...

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: loup garou
God this kid is so obnoxious. Hey goku, get a clue. You need massive horsepower to encode/decode/timeshift video (HD especially).

You don't think I realize that? Now, name all the people you know of that plan on doing all of these "things". Go ahead, do it, and they can't be tech savvy at ALL.

I stopped reading right there, because obviously you're too fvcking stupid to realize what this thread is even about.

Once again, you've gone off on some long rambling rant about sh1t totally unrelated to the topic at hand. Somehow, you've spouted off a dozen or so posts of several hundred words based off of my simple statement that I am going to purchase a new machine (a Dell, too, shock, horror) for Vista's new MCE features. Lay off the caffeine, kid.

 

[pulse8]

There's a lot of redirected anger in this thread.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: loup garou
God this kid is so obnoxious. Hey goku, get a clue. You need massive horsepower to encode/decode/timeshift video (HD especially).

You don't think I realize that? Now, name all the people you know of that plan on doing all of these "things". Go ahead, do it, and they can't be tech savvy at ALL.

I stopped reading right there, because obviously you're too fvcking stupid to realize what this thread is even about.

Once again, you've gone off on some long rambling rant about sh1t totally unrelated to the topic at hand. Somehow, you've spouted off a dozen or so posts of several hundred words based off of my simple statement that I am going to purchase a new machine (a Dell, too, shock, horror) for Vista's new MCE features. Lay off the caffeine, kid.

Read the edit.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: loup garou
God this kid is so obnoxious. Hey goku, get a clue. You need massive horsepower to encode/decode/timeshift video (HD especially).

You don't think I realize that? Now, name all the people you know of that plan on doing all of these "things". Go ahead, do it, and they can't be tech savvy at ALL.

I stopped reading right there, because obviously you're too fvcking stupid to realize what this thread is even about.

Once again, you've gone off on some long rambling rant about sh1t totally unrelated to the topic at hand. Somehow, you've spouted off a dozen or so posts of several hundred words based off of my simple statement that I am going to purchase a new machine (a Dell, too, shock, horror) for Vista's new MCE features. Lay off the caffeine, kid.

Read the edit.

You done here now?

 

[Anubis]

i dont even know what VIIV is so im gonna go woith NO