I am bound to disagree with a lot of experience, but everyone is allowed to have their opinions. Haven't seen even one thing on Vista that would be 'fail'.Gooners wrote:
I was referring to XP. Vista is just an overall fail.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
yeah I love to lose performance and 3GB of my ramGooners wrote:
64 is quite fail, I'm switching to 32 as we speak.
then you need one of theseGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I am bound to disagree with a lot of experience, but everyone is allowed to have their opinions. Haven't seen even one thing on Vista that would be 'fail'.Gooners wrote:
I was referring to XP. Vista is just an overall fail.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
yeah I love to lose performance and 3GB of my ram
hahahahahahFinray wrote:
Higher computing, zing.Uzique wrote:
christ spare me the next 3 pages of poorly-understood 64-bit 'geek-talk' attempts from finray.
he gets his computer knowledge and pro-gaming kudos from reading other people's posts on internet forums, ffs.
Ehh?.Sup wrote:
then you need one of theseGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I am bound to disagree with a lot of experience, but everyone is allowed to have their opinions. Haven't seen even one thing on Vista that would be 'fail'.Gooners wrote:
I was referring to XP. Vista is just an overall fail.
http://z.about.com/d/homerepair/1/5/9/2 … es_3_4.jpg
My eyesight is excellent, thanks for asking. But everyone who has come at me crying how sucky Vista is have either had hardware or user related error..Sup wrote:
then you need one of theseGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I am bound to disagree with a lot of experience, but everyone is allowed to have their opinions. Haven't seen even one thing on Vista that would be 'fail'.Gooners wrote:
I was referring to XP. Vista is just an overall fail.
http://z.about.com/d/homerepair/1/5/9/2 … es_3_4.jpg
To be quite brutally honest with you, unless you take the higher you don't have a fucking clue. I didn't know shit about binary, memory adress registers, floating point numbers, clock speeds, FLOPS, or any other shit I have learned in computing before I took the class.Uzique wrote:
hahahahahahFinray wrote:
Higher computing, zing.Uzique wrote:
christ spare me the next 3 pages of poorly-understood 64-bit 'geek-talk' attempts from finray.
he gets his computer knowledge and pro-gaming kudos from reading other people's posts on internet forums, ffs.
oh shit finray has a shitty scottish higher-education qualification in 'higher computing'. they barely cover that shit in 'higher computing', i know my fair share of dumbasses that did BTEC diplomas in ICT, you've hardly studied core architecture at fucking MIT. take your "zing" and shove it, you get all of your gaming and computer knowledge from fucking google, you're a poseur and it's painfully obvious to everyone as soon as you open your mouth and start yapping on incessantly about 'xyz' bullshit.
for the record: vista is better than xp. if you dont like vista, the problem is YOU.
64-bit is better than 32-bit, if it doesnt work, the problem is YOU or YOUR shitty apps, failing that it's your failure in choosing windows 64-bit instead of OSX which is the killerest most awesome 64-bit OS in the motherfucking occidental world.
I wouldn't be surprised, you're a Norwegian...Jenspm wrote:
Ehh?.Sup wrote:
then you need one of theseGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I am bound to disagree with a lot of experience, but everyone is allowed to have their opinions. Haven't seen even one thing on Vista that would be 'fail'.
http://z.about.com/d/homerepair/1/5/9/2 … es_3_4.jpg
I MUCH prefer Vista over XP...
Take your... caps lock to.. the... caps lock... forum.Gooners wrote:
OK FOREAL TAKE THIS TO TECH
i dont care. im laughing at the fact you use a shitty scottish higher to qualify your statements about 64-bit as DIVINE TRUTH. yada yada i have an a-level in law but it doesnt mean im on par with the attorney general when it comes to making judgements, does it? yeah highers and a-levels are great... not. worthless.Finray wrote:
To be quite brutally honest with you, unless you take the higher you don't have a fucking clue. I didn't know shit about binary, memory adress registers, floating point numbers, clock speeds, FLOPS, or any other shit I have learned in computing before I took the class.Uzique wrote:
hahahahahahFinray wrote:
Higher computing, zing.
oh shit finray has a shitty scottish higher-education qualification in 'higher computing'. they barely cover that shit in 'higher computing', i know my fair share of dumbasses that did BTEC diplomas in ICT, you've hardly studied core architecture at fucking MIT. take your "zing" and shove it, you get all of your gaming and computer knowledge from fucking google, you're a poseur and it's painfully obvious to everyone as soon as you open your mouth and start yapping on incessantly about 'xyz' bullshit.
for the record: vista is better than xp. if you dont like vista, the problem is YOU.
64-bit is better than 32-bit, if it doesnt work, the problem is YOU or YOUR shitty apps, failing that it's your failure in choosing windows 64-bit instead of OSX which is the killerest most awesome 64-bit OS in the motherfucking occidental world.
I will agree with your latter paragraph, that was quite well put.
Don't be ignorant. If you say Vista has less issues than XP you're either extremely lucky or all you do is OC your PC from BIOS and never actually enter Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
My eyesight is excellent, thanks for asking. But everyone who has come at me crying how sucky Vista is have either had hardware or user related error..Sup wrote:
then you need one of theseGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I am bound to disagree with a lot of experience, but everyone is allowed to have their opinions. Haven't seen even one thing on Vista that would be 'fail'.
http://z.about.com/d/homerepair/1/5/9/2 … es_3_4.jpg
Last edited by .Sup (2009-09-12 15:16:25)
indeed, 64-bit discussion has been done countless times already.Gooners wrote:
OK FOREAL TAKE THIS TO TECH
I was just highlighting the difference between getting bullshit from the web and actually getting taught in a council-governed curriculum environment.Uzique wrote:
i dont care. im laughing at the fact you use a shitty scottish higher to qualify your statements about 64-bit as DIVINE TRUTH. yada yada i have an a-level in law but it doesnt mean im on par with the attorney general when it comes to making judgements, does it? yeah highers and a-levels are great... not. worthless.
TAKE MY COCK IN AND AROUND YOUR MOUTHFinray wrote:
Take your... caps lock to.. the... caps lock... forum.Gooners wrote:
OK FOREAL TAKE THIS TO TECH
if that's your reasoning then all you anti-mac fanboys are "ignorant" too..Sup wrote:
Don't be ignorant. If you say Vista has less issues than XP you're either extremely lucky or you just OC your PC from BIOS and never actually enter Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
My eyesight is excellent, thanks for asking. But everyone who has come at me crying how sucky Vista is have either had hardware or user related error.
Or... your not a dumbass..Sup wrote:
Don't be ignorant. If you say Vista has less issues than XP you're either extremely lucky or all you do is OC your PC from BIOS and never actually enter Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
My eyesight is excellent, thanks for asking. But everyone who has come at me crying how sucky Vista is have either had hardware or user related error.
OMFG YOU MADE ME A LAUGHTER..Sup wrote:
Mr. Genital Gargoyle?
I'd so go to OSX if it worked well on a PC, tbh.Uzique wrote:
if that's your reasoning then all you anti-mac fanboys are "ignorant" too..Sup wrote:
Don't be ignorant. If you say Vista has less issues than XP you're either extremely lucky or you just OC your PC from BIOS and never actually enter Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
My eyesight is excellent, thanks for asking. But everyone who has come at me crying how sucky Vista is have either had hardware or user related error.
'less issues'? god if you really cared all that much you would have picked up OSX years ago. bullshit reason. vista is more stable nowadays than xp.
How did you measure stability in XP and Vista Uzique?Uzique wrote:
if that's your reasoning then all you anti-mac fanboys are "ignorant" too..Sup wrote:
Don't be ignorant. If you say Vista has less issues than XP you're either extremely lucky or you just OC your PC from BIOS and never actually enter Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
My eyesight is excellent, thanks for asking. But everyone who has come at me crying how sucky Vista is have either had hardware or user related error.
'less issues'? god if you really cared all that much you would have picked up OSX years ago. bullshit reason. vista is more stable nowadays than xp.
someone will care there.Gooners wrote:
OK FOREAL TAKE THIS TO TECH
Last edited by .Sup (2009-09-12 15:21:23)
LOL I don't want to sound dickhead, but that was a quite a bit wrong lolFinray wrote:
Advantages of 64 bit -
The data bus is basically a cable from your CPU to your memory. The amount of data that travels along it is govnered by the bittype of your OS. If you have a 32-bit OS you can only use 32 bits on your data bus. If you use 64 bits then you can utilise all 64 bits on your bus. This makes barely any difference when surfing the net or downloading porn, but when you try to display graphics then it makes a whole lot of difference. It more than doubles the speed at which data can be read/written from the memory, leading to a faster, smoother graphic onto the screen.
Advantages of 32 bit -
More shit is supported, but when Windows 7 comes out, I'm betting almost all of the mainstream computers (£600 Dell laptops) will use 64 bit, therefore 64 bit will become the more popular operating system, and so people will stop designing applications to run solely on 32 bit computers, and start designing them as 64 bit default.
