Tale of computer building skills

[0roo0roo]

<---- MFW

XP is stable, fast as hell, and ultra-compatible. I don't need a new rig as I've got one hell of a backlog of legacy games to clear before I'd care about anything modern. (last game finished was The Witcher. Currently on KOTOR.) Windows 7 will do nothing for my current rig but slow it down and break the games I want to play. 7 is a Fischer Price OS and can barely compete with a standard install of XP, never mind a tweaked one. I used Vista for over a year, I've played with 7 installs, and so I know for a fact that I can't do a damned thing with either of them. I'd need to double my hardware specs to get them to run like I have my XP running.
I don't have the hardware that needs a 64 bit OS nor a usage pattern that would really benefit from superfetch. The security model of 7 won't do much for me -- most vulnerabilities still allow free access to the user space and the user space is the only thing I care about. So 7 would have no upside, and it breaking compatibility means it has a rather large downside, which makes spending $100 on the thing a total waste of money.

stable? if video driver fails you reboot that black screen xp. no way is xp more stable than win7.

you've "played" meaning no long term use, you've not learned the shortcuts and features the way you've learned xp. i've been on 7 for a while, theres no way i'd go back to xp at this point, its clearly inferior. you may have had a point with vista and that era of hardware, but now its getting silly holding onto something that old and patched to hell.

 

[DominionSeraph]

not as stable, fast, or compatible as win 7

lol, you obviously dont know how to use the OS features.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

thats your problem, not the OS. they are both much better than xp.

You having no idea how to run XP and so needing a Fischer Price OS is not the fault of XP.

doubtful

Here's a hint:

so you dont have an ssd? because win 7 is the only windows version that supports TRIM, which is a vital feature. and ssds blow hdds out of the water.

Look above. I can beat a SSD.

stable? if video driver fails you reboot that black screen xp. no way is xp more stable than win7.

Video driver... failing? Are you running an OS with a fail driver model or something?
I had that problem with Vista. With XP things are rock solid.

you've "played" meaning no long term use, you've not learned the shortcuts and features the way you've learned xp.

No, as in 7 and Vista simply cannot be tweaked like XP. You can't get rid of the bloat or lay things out like you can with XP. There's no automated tools and if you try to rip things out manually you break the OS.

What a waste of RAM.

Idiots everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_cache

 

[brianmanahan]

Look above. I can beat a SSD.

actually, no, you can't. you can equal SSD boot speeds (i boot win 7 in about 13-14 seconds), but only by stripping everything out of your OS. and you still wont get anywhere near the random access times when starting real programs or loading real files. SSDs are vastly superior to HDDs.

but if you dont have money to buy a copy of win 7, im guessing you dont have money to buy an SSD

 

[bearxor]

Look above. I can beat a SSD.

I don't think you can. I have a Turion X2 2.5 with a SSD that boots my install of 7 in less than 10s. Its not a very remarkable HP laptop either. My 2.4 C2D MBP will boot Lion in like 5 or so.

But you know who you remind me of? All of the "leet" computer users in 2002 that called windows XP a "Fisher-Price OS (that is how that is spelled, btw)" that was so full of bloat and how they were going to hold on to their installs of Windows 2000 Professional.

Technology is cyclical, right?

 

[PottedMeat]

what's the big deal about boot times? other than installing the occasional driver, i turn on mine once in the morning (~< 30 seconds ) and go into standby ( usable in ~2 seconds ) whenever i don't need it.

 

[Minerva]

Using boot speed tests to say XP is better than 7? Who are you again?
If you are complaining about speed you need to replace your computer, it's a piece of shit, honestly.

Beat a SSD? What do you do reboot your PC all the time?
Oh yeah you're an XP loser that's what you have to do.

This threat is about people having skilz not retards bragging about how they can run a 12 year old os on a piece of shit computer they pulled out of the dumpster for the sake of Christ...

I think those queer ass purple ponies have sat on your face too long and your brain is now jelly beans.

 

[zanejohnson]

this thread is lolz...

7 is > xp end thread... unless your hardware is insuffecient...and in all honesty.. 7's still a better choice...

 

[Raduque]

<---- MFW

XP is stable, fast as hell, and ultra-compatible. I don't need a new rig as I've got one hell of a backlog of legacy games to clear before I'd care about anything modern. (last game finished was The Witcher. Currently on KOTOR.) Windows 7 will do nothing for my current rig but slow it down and break the games I want to play. 7 is a Fischer Price OS and can barely compete with a standard install of XP, never mind a tweaked one. I used Vista for over a year, I've played with 7 installs, and so I know for a fact that I can't do a damned thing with either of them. I'd need to double my hardware specs to get them to run like I have my XP running.
I don't have the hardware that needs a 64 bit OS nor a usage pattern that would really benefit from superfetch. The security model of 7 won't do much for me -- most vulnerabilities still allow free access to the user space and the user space is the only thing I care about. So 7 would have no upside, and it breaking compatibility means it has a rather large downside, which makes spending $100 on the thing a total waste of money.

Your avatar is 100% applicable.

RE: the bolded: That's exactly what everybody said about Windows XP when it came out.

I'd upgrade to Windows 7 solely for Jumplists and App Pinning. XP has NOTHING that can ever compare to those two W7 features.

 

[Joseph F]

No, as in 7 and Vista simply cannot be tweaked like XP. You can't get rid of the bloat or lay things out like you can with XP. There's no automated tools and if you try to rip things out manually you break the OS.[/url]

I think you ought to look into Tiny7 sometime. It's like MicroXP, in that it's a stripped-to-the-bone install of 7.
Just add all the drivers you need, and you've got some extreme performance on your hands, while still using a modern OS.
The guys who made it say that it only uses 145MB of RAM and has 24 processes running after installation.

 

[chisaipete]

Heck, even if he was using all cores at full power, I don't think you should be seeing that kind of temperature.
And I've got 80 processes going right now. CPU usage - it's hovering below 10%. (No temperature monitoring software though, so I don't know what it is. I still haven't stopped mourning the end of MotherBoard Monitor.)

With no airflow the case may allow convection to take a stab at the CPU temps.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

what's the big deal about boot times? other than installing the occasional driver, i turn on mine once in the morning (~< 30 seconds ) and go into standby ( usable in ~2 seconds ) whenever i don't need it.

Because we can.

My computer boots windows 7 with firefox fully open, a few background processes ( steam origin yadda yadda) in about 14 seconds flat from full cold.

 

[Jeff7]

what's the big deal about boot times? other than installing the occasional driver, i turn on mine once in the morning (~< 30 seconds ) and go into standby ( usable in ~2 seconds ) whenever i don't need it.

I have a problem with boot times when it gets ridiculous. My work PC is on the order of about 5 minutes from power-on to usability.

But I also see it as terribly slow because of my home PCs. I haven't used a single-drive system at home since 2004, when I got a RAID5 card. Since then, it's either been a 4-drive RAID5 setup, or an SSD in my most recent system. Even my "mass storage subsystem," consisting of mechanical drives, is RAID5 setup.
A system with a single mechanical drive feels so very sluggish now, and I don't like having a computer hold me up because it's the thing that's too slow. Capable of many many millions of operations for second, but it's being held up by a glorified record player.

 

[Nebor]

This thread is lulz. It's like you guys are driving by some nut on the highway in a horse drawn carriage, shouting about what an idiot he is, meanwhile he's giving a long, ridiculous speech about how his horses don't use any gasoline.

 

[Udgnim]

My work PC is on the order of about 5 minutes from power-on to usability.

you sure that length isn't due to the workstation loading up scripts/Group Policies?

 

[Jeff7]

you sure that length isn't due to the workstation loading up scripts/Group Policies?

Quite possibly. Or that it's almost 7 years old. Or that there something like 8 different AVG processes to load. Or the various useful utilities I have installed.

Either way though, I very much want an SSD on that PC.

 

[0roo0roo]

Video driver... failing? Are you running an OS with a fail driver model or something?
I had that problem with Vista. With XP things are rock solid.



No, as in 7 and Vista simply cannot be tweaked like XP. You can't get rid of the bloat or lay things out like you can with XP. There's no automated tools and if you try to rip things out manually you break the OS.



Idiots everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_cache

crashes do happen, look at the team fortress 2 nvidia issue that has been around for quite a while now. has nothing to do with system stability, but win 7 is able to recover from such crashes whereas with xp you can kiss your ass goodbye.

boot time? sorry i rarely reboot, most people get away with suspend now or hibernation and frankly its a poor example of superiority.

theres no automated tools? what are you talking about. you can boot a bare minimum os, so what do you win? we have 4+ cores these days and so fixating on seconds of boot time is ocd nonsense to be frank.

things like aero peek are invaluable on laptops and such constrained displays, even works great with regular desktop.