BF2S Forums Tech: Open thread

it did. i refused to use vista and only upgraded from xp to 7.

XP still owns on machines supporting it and for applications that run on it. if not for lack of support there would have been no reason whatsoever to switch to vista or seven.

Last edited by Shahter (13 years, 1 month ago)

except for requiring much more memory ergo, i would put it on a notebook nps

FatherTed wrote:

except for requiring much more memory ergo, i would put it on a notebook nps

Windows 7 has much better memory management than Vista did and doesn't overload the computer. When you don't have a lot of RAM (but come on, if you don't have at least 2-4GB of RAM nowadays, you're an idiot), then Windows 7 is still quick. I had a friend who had one of the first EEE PCs with Win7 on it and it ran just fine on the normal HDD that was in there.

XP is an utter bucket of shit with shitty driver support. Anyone that hasn't made the switch to Win7 by now is an idiot (unless you're forced to use it for whatever technical reasons). I hated XP with a passion.

FatherTed wrote:

except for requiring much more memory ergo, i would put it on a notebook nps

nah not if you turn off aero and all the unnecessary stuff

Finray wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

except for requiring much more memory ergo, i would put it on a notebook nps

nah not if you turn off aero and all the unnecessary stuff

then you end up with something not much better than XP, which still takes more ram, and takes more HDD space

ergo....

i would put it on a notebook

Shahter wrote:

XP was the best operating system produced my microsoft so far. is had everything "new" systems have and consumed less resources. the only reason to switch from it is lack of support. anybody who tells you vista or seven or anything else microsoft-made is better is an idiot who knows nothing about what an operating system is supposed to be.

Yes, because user friendliness, security and reliability have absolutely nothing to do with what an operating system should be. Tool.

EDIT:
One last thing, since this is something that a lot of people here really fail to grasp: Windows 7 (and Vista) uses RAM in a very different way than XP does. While XP doesn't put things into RAM very much, Windows 7 (and Vista) make much more efficient use of your RAM. Using RAM as a cache is what it was designed to do and XP never really took advantage of the speed that RAM offers versus a normal HDD. If you'll pay attention to how Windows 7 uses your RAM, you'll notice that when you're working, it's using RAM very dynamically whereas XP does not do any of this.

This the same kind of technology that you find in SSDs. The basic hardware on all SSDs is the same but what is key is the controller that handles the SSD's memory. Here is where you truly see the benefits of software design in relation to speed. Truly efficient and smart algorithms. It's the same thing with Windows 7. It's the same thing with Google. Why do you think that Google is so damned good at predicting what you need? The algorithms.

Instead of clinging to technology that is over a decade old and is so clearly obsolete, you might actually study the benefits that newer technology brings. Yes, XP is leaner and has a much smaller footprint than Windows 7 does. That's fine and ten years ago, that was important. Nowadays, however, HDD space and RAM is dirt cheap. OK, HDD space last fall wasn't that cheap, but that's Mother Nature doing her thing by wiping out hard drive production capacity. Look at what prices were before the tsunami - you could have 2TB for under €70 for crying out loud! I got 16GB of RAM for €62 just back in the fall. Hardware is cheaper than it ever was!

If you honestly think XP is the best OS, fine. I'm sure you're also still watching movies on Betamax or Laser Disc and listening to your music on tape or even 8-tracks...

Last edited by CapnNismo (13 years, 1 month ago)

CapnNismo wrote:

Shahter wrote:

XP was the best operating system produced my microsoft so far. is had everything "new" systems have and consumed less resources. the only reason to switch from it is lack of support. anybody who tells you vista or seven or anything else microsoft-made is better is an idiot who knows nothing about what an operating system is supposed to be.

Yes, because user friendliness, security and reliability have absolutely nothing to do with what an operating system should be. Tool.

"user friendliness" is subjective. personally, i find post-xp ui's ugly and completely devoid of improvement over their predecessors.
security? give me a break. if uac and "improved" windows firewall is security them i'm bill gates on a white camel.
reliability? pffft. xp installation on my brother's machine is 7 years old, it went through two hardware migrations (amd-intel-back to amd) and it's still rock solid and lightning fast. and with firewall and anti-virus off it only occupies about 70mb of memory.
security and reliability my ass. tool yourself and go teach you mom how to make sandwiches or something.

<here be enormous EDIT-thing about memory and other bullshit>

mega-fetch, uber-fetch, superduper-fetch and whatever else they have in there comes at a price - reduced lifespan of your hdd or ssd, and i'd take that over a fraction of a second improvement it gives me in application loading time any day, thank you very much. plus, with ssd drives getting cheaper and more available all this "pre-loading" crap has already become redundant.

anyway, operating system is not there to assume control over your machine - it's there to give you control over it. xp was the closest to be the best of both worlds among microsoft os'es, hands down. and if you so happen to prefer an os for housewives you should have gone for mac anyway.

Last edited by Shahter (13 years, 1 month ago)

done!

yeah i got the email at work tonight

CC-Marley wrote:

I need a new Dell monitor. Replacing my S2309W. I was thinking of a U2312HM. Any ideas on it?

It's rather unfortunate that you aren't in the EU or UK, because I would personally never pay the extravagant prices that Dell asks for its Ultrasharps (which would be the next logical upgrade from a TN Film/PVA/etc). Hazro make some incredible screens (I have a 27 inch H-IPS, LED backlit 10bit monitor from them) and are a fraction of the price. I could never justify the 27 inch or 30 inch from Dell because their prices did not match performance. The only reason they could add such a premium price onto it was because of the "Ultrasharp" brand. But in reality the Dell Ultrasharps have more issues than pro's. I'd personally look into getting an HP panel.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr2440w.htm

TFT Central should be your holy grail for all monitor information. There is no better site on the net to talk about monitors, and the guy that reviews them is constantly active on the forums to answer any questions. I myself asked and he recommended me the Hazro... I couldn't be happier with my purchase.

You are physically swapping the GPU's?