Operation system

[Slamman]

It's rather amusing... I vote for Windows ME as my OEM version from eMachine NEVER crashed, and I defy, strongly, any objection based on my personal experience, the OS works, dammit!!!

 

Also, Where's the love for Windows 2000? I know it's slow as hell booting up and loading Network support, but it works nearly as well as Windows XP if you ask me. I know I felt it lacking in the end, and XP Home is my preferred choice, not sold on SP3, however

[Accountclosed]

Installed Windows 7 x64 yesterday and GOD DAMN!!!!

It's so flying high fast, that I can't keep up with it!

Local data transfer, network transferring, errors, crashes and general use of windows has been improved by 200% if not more.

I think Windows 7 is a great OS.

[Slamman]

Yet another happy customer, even the tech sites are happy with the buzz over it, but aren't jumping off their desk tables about it. Trying to keep a firm lid on hype.

 

I am a firm fan of MS' Windows, even though I think they outright stole the idea from Apple, Apple got it from Xerox beforehand!

[drakic]

I use XP for long time now, I've also tried Vista before, but I think XP is better.

[Democrab]

Yet another happy customer, even the tech sites are happy with the buzz over it, but aren't jumping off their desk tables about it. Trying to keep a firm lid on hype.

 

I am a firm fan of MS' Windows, even though I think they outright stole the idea from Apple, Apple got it from Xerox beforehand!

That post was not needed...

 

Personally, I think anyone using Vista or 7 32bit needs to be shot, 64bit is the future and practically every app runs in the 64bit windows anyway.

 

I only use 7 now, even on older PCs it runs nice, like Vista did after SP1.

[SyphonPayne]

Yet another happy customer, even the tech sites are happy with the buzz over it, but aren't jumping off their desk tables about it. Trying to keep a firm lid on hype.

 

I am a firm fan of MS' Windows, even though I think they outright stole the idea from Apple, Apple got it from Xerox beforehand!

That post was not needed...

 

Personally, I think anyone using Vista or 7 32bit needs to be shot, 64bit is the future and practically every app runs in the 64bit windows anyway.

 

I only use 7 now, even on older PCs it runs nice, like Vista did after SP1.

What a dumb statement. You just got through talking about Vista and 7 running on older PCs, yet you forgot that there are older PCs that are 32-bit only? So users of those machines should be shot?

 

What about people with less than 4GB of RAM? Yeah there are still programs that don't get along with 64-bit either. Don't get me wrong, I'm currently on 7 x64 with 6GB of RAM, but that's quite a statement saying people should be "shot" for using a 32-bit operating system.

[Saggy]

What about people with less than 4GB of RAM? Yeah there are still programs that don't get along with 64-bit either. Don't get me wrong, I'm currently on 7 x64 with 6GB of RAM, but that's quite a statement saying people should be "shot" for using a 32-bit operating system.

Especially when you consider that some people may have no need for 64-bit other than higher ram capacity. I have 4 GB of RAM on my laptop, but I'm still using 32-bit Linux because 1) I don't need that much RAM and 2) the 64-bit versions take a little longer to download because they're more popular.

 

But, yeah, to me it seems like using 64-bit is only really something to do if you need to use more RAM.

[Democrab]

Yet another happy customer, even the tech sites are happy with the buzz over it, but aren't jumping off their desk tables about it. Trying to keep a firm lid on hype.

 

I am a firm fan of MS' Windows, even though I think they outright stole the idea from Apple, Apple got it from Xerox beforehand!

That post was not needed...

 

Personally, I think anyone using Vista or 7 32bit needs to be shot, 64bit is the future and practically every app runs in the 64bit windows anyway.

 

I only use 7 now, even on older PCs it runs nice, like Vista did after SP1.

What a dumb statement. You just got through talking about Vista and 7 running on older PCs, yet you forgot that there are older PCs that are 32-bit only? So users of those machines should be shot?

 

What about people with less than 4GB of RAM? Yeah there are still programs that don't get along with 64-bit either. Don't get me wrong, I'm currently on 7 x64 with 6GB of RAM, but that's quite a statement saying people should be "shot" for using a 32-bit operating system.

It's true, I also upgrade the RAM to 4Gb so they have use of it and I have a lot fo spare DDR2 RAM (Most of these computers are Pentium 4 era PCs)

 

Anyone who has less than 4Gb RAM has no real business running 7, they should stay to XP, especially if they're the kind of person who has a Core i7 with 3Gb RAM, that's just plain idiotic.

 

And Sag, while you might not use the RAM, it's better to have it available than to run out on the one occasion you'll need it.

 

My point is that they're holding back progress, native 64bit programs can run faster and execute more code at once than 32bit programs, not just the extra RAM. (Which can be activated by PAE either way)

[leik oh em jeez!]

Yet another happy customer, even the tech sites are happy with the buzz over it, but aren't jumping off their desk tables about it. Trying to keep a firm lid on hype.

 

I am a firm fan of MS' Windows, even though I think they outright stole the idea from Apple, Apple got it from Xerox beforehand!

That post was not needed...

 

Personally, I think anyone using Vista or 7 32bit needs to be shot, 64bit is the future and practically every app runs in the 64bit windows anyway.

 

I only use 7 now, even on older PCs it runs nice, like Vista did after SP1.

What a dumb statement. You just got through talking about Vista and 7 running on older PCs, yet you forgot that there are older PCs that are 32-bit only? So users of those machines should be shot?

 

What about people with less than 4GB of RAM? Yeah there are still programs that don't get along with 64-bit either. Don't get me wrong, I'm currently on 7 x64 with 6GB of RAM, but that's quite a statement saying people should be "shot" for using a 32-bit operating system.

It's true, I also upgrade the RAM to 4Gb so they have use of it and I have a lot fo spare DDR2 RAM (Most of these computers are Pentium 4 era PCs)

 

Anyone who has less than 4Gb RAM has no real business running 7, they should stay to XP, especially if they're the kind of person who has a Core i7 with 3Gb RAM, that's just plain idiotic.

 

And Sag, while you might not use the RAM, it's better to have it available than to run out on the one occasion you'll need it.

 

My point is that they're holding back progress, native 64bit programs can run faster and execute more code at once than 32bit programs, not just the extra RAM. (Which can be activated by PAE either way)

PAE is used on Windows XP, But Microsoft programed a memory cap into the OS, probably planning ahead to give users more reason to go buy a new 64-bit OS.

 

Also, People are going absolutly insane with the craving for more RAM. I remembar five years ago, some of the new PCs had 1024Mb, most had 512Mb, laptops only had 256Mb. People that had 2Gb back then have 12Gb now, and would add more if they could. Even though chances are they're running 90% of the same apps they were before.

[nixxio]

Windows 7 Ultimate 64

Windows XP 64

Windows XP Home

 

Win7 was my main OS, until I re-installed my XP installations for boring and stupid reasons, so now I have to use boot manager or some sh*t but I can't be arsed, sooo.

Voted for Win7 on the poll, since overall it's the better OS.

 

[Democrab]

Also, People are going absolutly insane with the craving for more RAM. I remembar five years ago, some of the new PCs had 1024Mb, most had 512Mb, laptops only had 256Mb. People that had 2Gb back then have 12Gb now, and would add more if they could. Even though chances are they're running 90% of the same apps they were before.

The people like me who fill their RAM slots with as much RAM as possible are the people who most of the time, can use that RAM.

 

I regularly break 7Gb without my pagefile on, I don't even photoshop!

 

Heck, my mum broke 3.7Gb yesterday from multi-tasking her accountant stuff, she uses a lot of excel docs, MYOB, etc.

[Saggy]

Also, People are going absolutly insane with the craving for more RAM. I remembar five years ago, some of the new PCs had 1024Mb, most had 512Mb, laptops only had 256Mb. People that had 2Gb back then have 12Gb now, and would add more if they could. Even though chances are they're running 90% of the same apps they were before.

The people like me who fill their RAM slots with as much RAM as possible are the people who most of the time, can use that RAM.

 

I regularly break 7Gb without my pagefile on, I don't even photoshop!

 

Heck, my mum broke 3.7Gb yesterday from multi-tasking her accountant stuff, she uses a lot of excel docs, MYOB, etc.

The idea of using 3.7 gigs of RAM with applications such as the ones you suggested is surprising to me as a Linux user, because I use 1310/1977 megs of RAM ( 1026/5000 of swap ) running all of my usual stuff. Which includes 2 virtual machines allocated to 512 MB of RAM, my media player that's usually playing something standard def but does get high def content a lot, an FTP and a web server, torrent clients, email and web clients, multi-protocol chat client, IRC client, and on top of that doing general computer maintenance or programming and compiling stuff. So... There seems to be a difference in how OSes utilize their RAM and how much they need.

 

I still haven't got a straight story on how much RAM Windows Vista or Windows 7 requires to run, but all I know is that the defacto "two gigabytes" that everyone states as a bare minimum, is actually kind of excessive in an OS with less memory usage and maybe better management. I bring up better management, because the thing I've noticed with Linux... Swapping does not slow the whole system down like it does with Windows. The programs that are actually in heavy usage will have their caches in RAM, while mostly unused data will be stored to the swap. Anyway, I bring that up because if/when I ever need more than 2 Gigs of RAM, I can just activate another swap partition. Not only that, but I can actually use the memory from my video card as swap space, so I can activate swap space that is not even bottlenecked by disk speed.

 

Yeah, I don't use my computer lightly, and in the last two years of using Linux, I haven't once had a desire to have more than 2 gigs of RAM. If only I weren't the only Linux user ( apparently ) someone might be able to share their experience in that regard. I've set friends up with Xubuntu on their P3 512 MB RAM comps and they say things like, "Oh, wow, it's like you made the computer faster or something." Though that's purely anecdotal, and I doubt they ever do much more than download and watch sh*t off the internet...

 

 

That's not a "this OS is better" argument though... Because hell, I sure would like to play games with all that terrific RAM management, but I can't. As much as Linux geeks will try to put this on the developers for not developing for Linux, I don't really think Linux is standardized enough for game developers to want to really bother at this point. That's another point all together though...

 

 

Also, from what I've noticed, 64-bit applications don't perform even 25% better than their 32-bit counterparts in the few circumstances there is a significant performance boost. I've even noticed that in some cases, there are performance regressions, which is kind of weird. However that's based off of Linux benchmarks off of Phoronix Test Suite results, and that might be flawed.

[poopskin]

Fun fact: To the people who claim Vista/7 stole 3D chess from Leopard, If you use that logic then Leopard stole 3D chess from OS/2 Warp 4! Of course, OS/2 is the zoidberg of OSes...

Edited November 10, 2009 by poopskin

[Democrab]

Also, People are going absolutly insane with the craving for more RAM. I remembar five years ago, some of the new PCs had 1024Mb, most had 512Mb, laptops only had 256Mb. People that had 2Gb back then have 12Gb now, and would add more if they could. Even though chances are they're running 90% of the same apps they were before.

The people like me who fill their RAM slots with as much RAM as possible are the people who most of the time, can use that RAM.

 

I regularly break 7Gb without my pagefile on, I don't even photoshop!

 

Heck, my mum broke 3.7Gb yesterday from multi-tasking her accountant stuff, she uses a lot of excel docs, MYOB, etc.

The idea of using 3.7 gigs of RAM with applications such as the ones you suggested is surprising to me as a Linux user, because I use 1310/1977 megs of RAM ( 1026/5000 of swap ) running all of my usual stuff. Which includes 2 virtual machines allocated to 512 MB of RAM, my media player that's usually playing something standard def but does get high def content a lot, an FTP and a web server, torrent clients, email and web clients, multi-protocol chat client, IRC client, and on top of that doing general computer maintenance or programming and compiling stuff. So... There seems to be a difference in how OSes utilize their RAM and how much they need.

 

I still haven't got a straight story on how much RAM Windows Vista or Windows 7 requires to run, but all I know is that the defacto "two gigabytes" that everyone states as a bare minimum, is actually kind of excessive in an OS with less memory usage and maybe better management. I bring up better management, because the thing I've noticed with Linux... Swapping does not slow the whole system down like it does with Windows. The programs that are actually in heavy usage will have their caches in RAM, while mostly unused data will be stored to the swap. Anyway, I bring that up because if/when I ever need more than 2 Gigs of RAM, I can just activate another swap partition. Not only that, but I can actually use the memory from my video card as swap space, so I can activate swap space that is not even bottlenecked by disk speed.

 

Yeah, I don't use my computer lightly, and in the last two years of using Linux, I haven't once had a desire to have more than 2 gigs of RAM. If only I weren't the only Linux user ( apparently ) someone might be able to share their experience in that regard. I've set friends up with Xubuntu on their P3 512 MB RAM comps and they say things like, "Oh, wow, it's like you made the computer faster or something." Though that's purely anecdotal, and I doubt they ever do much more than download and watch sh*t off the internet...

 

 

That's not a "this OS is better" argument though... Because hell, I sure would like to play games with all that terrific RAM management, but I can't. As much as Linux geeks will try to put this on the developers for not developing for Linux, I don't really think Linux is standardized enough for game developers to want to really bother at this point. That's another point all together though...

 

 

Also, from what I've noticed, 64-bit applications don't perform even 25% better than their 32-bit counterparts in the few circumstances there is a significant performance boost. I've even noticed that in some cases, there are performance regressions, which is kind of weird. However that's based off of Linux benchmarks off of Phoronix Test Suite results, and that might be flawed.

Yeah, Linux is a lot better with hardware in general, the only problem is that it's not exactly easy to use for the average PC user and there isn't a replacement app for everything.

 

 

And yeah, test suites are known to have bias' and not be a statement of real life, there is definitely improvement in the way 64bit Vista uses RAM over 32bit Vista (Haven't used 32bit 7), while it does use a little more, I've noticed that in general applications use less total.

[Slamman]

My impression is memory does weigh heavier in regard to Win Vista more then the others, but is obviously prized for any apps intensive desktop work, it benefits over all speed, but it can't take care of all ends where bottlenecks and shortcomings crop up.l

 

This G3 PowerMac I came upon, had two sticks PC133 @ 256MB, so with four slots, it could run 1GB of RAm, this in the year 1999!! Then, the Power PC CPU from Motorola has 1MB of L2 Cache, at the time, that's mighty impressive, and it alternated with some models, but I believe you got 1.5mb or nearly 2Mb, not far off. The CPU itself was around 300 to 500 Mhz only!

 

I also got into a funny discussion with a guy here to pick something up off Craig's List the other night (I made a sale!) about Windows ME and the fact my machine equipped copy never crashed, he said his did about 10 times a day! Wow, I just don't know why that is