Hard drive
|
Silver Member Username: CblazeRock island, Tenesssee Us Post Number: 961 Registered: Sep-07 | i got a inspiron labtop.did have vista on it and it was slow as windows 98,cant remember if this was b4 or after i doubled my memory,went from one to 2 gb,but my hard drive aint but 40 gb,i thought i got 120,but didnt, if i was to go up to 100 or 120 gb would it make it any faster on vista or it would it just be a waiste of money? |
|
Gold Member Username: Nd4spd18Northwest PA Post Number: 4755 Registered: Jul-06 | Bigger hard drive won't make it faster, it just gives you more storage space. What would make it faster is get rid of vista  |
|
Silver Member Username: CblazeRock island, Tenesssee Us Post Number: 963 Registered: Sep-07 | i dont have vista anymore and i didnt thank the hard drive would help lol just making sure |
|
Gold Member Username: CarguyPost Number: 6890 Registered: Nov-04 | Downgrade to Windows XP with service pack2. For Vista to run at a "normal" speed, you will need at least 2GB of ram, dual processor 3.0Gz or more, 100GB HD. It is one of the $hittest product ever made by $hittysoft. This is why pc manufacturers were allowed to downgrade OS with Microsoft's permission. People need to stop buying $hittysoft's products. They're too greedy now. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nd4spd18Northwest PA Post Number: 4763 Registered: Jul-06 | I won't be buying Vista for quite a while. Although, I didn't buy XP until 2 years after it was out either. |
|
Gold Member Username: CarguyPost Number: 6893 Registered: Nov-04 | Wait 2 years and Vista will be gone, replaced by a suppose to be "better" than Vista crap according to $hittysoft. They're already working on it. I hope I'm not the only one ticked off at $hittysoft. They charge way too much money for $hitty Office package, OS Vista, Licenses, $hitty training certifications (that expires so you have to spend $$$ all over again). I'm glad I bought Mac. Their OS is 64bit, runs under Unix, and it costs $129! No bs like "home", "Business", "Ultimate", "professional" editions. |
|
Gold Member Username: Tatonka-[Team Audib... Post Number: 1170 Registered: Mar-07 | YES! Lets all sit on our windows machines and bash windows! "you will need at least 2GB of ram, dual processor 3.0Gz or more, 100GB HD. It is one of the $hittest product ever made by $hittysoft. This is why pc manufacturers were allowed to downgrade OS with Microsoft's permission." 3.0 dual core is a little bit overkill. You would be fine with 2gb of ram and a 1.6dual core. As far as HDD space goes, that is user preference, just depends on what you are using the computer for. Don't brag about a 64bit OS, there isn't much software yet available to it. In 2 years, Vista will have a second service pack and will have absolutely no bugs. The first service pack currently makes it run as smooth as windows xp and it is still in beta! I don't see how someone can insult a new OS and compare it to an OS that has been out for years and years. BTW, No, I'm not much of a windows guy, I am more for Linux but I just wanted to make a few points. |
|
Gold Member Username: CarguyPost Number: 6894 Registered: Nov-04 | "In 2 years, Vista will have a second service pack and will have absolutely no bugs" Name me one product from $hittysoft with absolutely no bugs in it. I dare you. "I don't see how someone can insult a new OS and compare it to an OS that has been out for years and years. " $hittysoft promised the "new" OS Vista was much better than XP, will run faster, no bugs, user friendly, innovative, cutting edge technology, will run fast with minimum hardware. Now whose fault is it that it failed on almost every promise? Mine? "OS that has been out for years and years" Just how old do you think XP is? I'll give you a clue; it wasn't built in the 80s. The way you describe it, it sounds like it's been around for decades. "Don't brag about a 64bit OS, there isn't much software" Tell me something; what's the most important software in any machine? Is it $hittysoft's Office? Lotus? Nero? If you don't have any clue, it's the OS! So for you to day don't brag about 64bit OS, doesn't make any sense. Just what other 64bit software are you waiting for? FYI, OS is the glue that holds everything together. You seem like an intelligent person, and yet there is some odd quirkiness in your view/logic. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nd4spd18Northwest PA Post Number: 4770 Registered: Jul-06 | Windows OS always suck when MS first releases them, due to bugs and driver issues. Around the time they release the first service pack is about the time to upgrade. Thats when the bugs are worked out and most hardware manufacturers have updated drivers out by then. |
|
Gold Member Username: Tatonka-[Team Audib... Post Number: 1175 Registered: Mar-07 | "Name me one product from $hittysoft with absolutely no bugs in it. I dare you." Windows Calculator. But seriously, Vista is already smoother than XP with the first service pack, just image the second one ;) "$hittysoft promised the "new" OS Vista was much better than XP, will run faster, no bugs, user friendly, innovative, cutting edge technology, will run fast with minimum hardware. Now whose fault is it that it failed on almost every promise? Mine?" It already is better than XP IMO. It does run faster with the right hardware. Can you show me where they said it was supposed to run faster with minimum hardware and have no bugs? Because their specifications they were suggesting before vista even came out were much higher than minimum. "Just how old do you think XP is? I'll give you a clue; it wasn't built in the 80s. The way you describe it, it sounds like it's been around for decades." Windows XP came out in 2001. Do you see a pattern? How about I give you a clue. Not one Windows release has came out to not be extremely buggy in the beginning. Every windows OS is buggy when it first comes out. Vista happens to be one of the most quick improving out of other releases. The way you think I describe its age as being decades is your opinion. I just said years and years. "Tell me something; what's the most important software in any machine? Is it $hittysoft's Office? Lotus? Nero? If you don't have any clue, it's the OS! So for you to day don't brag about 64bit OS, doesn't make any sense. Just what other 64bit software are you waiting for? FYI, OS is the glue that holds everything together." There is no "most important software". Everyone's use of a computer differs. An OS with nothing on it is pointless, you have to have software to make it what you want it to be. There is plenty of older software that doesn't support 64bit. It seems as if you try to make it sound like having a 64bit OS is the best thing ever. There is NO difference right now besides some hardware compatibility and software compatibility. "You seem like an intelligent person, and yet there is some odd quirkiness in your view/logic." How exactly are my views quirkiness? I give you the facts. |
|
Gold Member Username: CarguyPost Number: 6895 Registered: Nov-04 | And I thought you were serious. Is that the best you can do with your bold statement of "Vista will have a second service pack and will have absolutely no bugs"? A Windows Calculator? Very disappointing. I thought you were going to teach me something new. I guess there are always some odd people in the world. From all the tech guys that I've dealt with, 80% of them hate Vista. Your statement "Vista is already smoother than XP" is again a first. Tell me you don't work for $hittysoft or get royalties from them. FYI, I didn't say $hittysoft made products that were great, you were the one supporting them. I pointed out how poorly they've performed. Now why are you trying to school me on Window's OS buggy problem history? Wasn't I the one bashing $hittysoft? I don't get it. If you're a power user, how in the world can you try and downplay the importance of OS?? It doesn't matter what everyone does/uses the computer for. Surely you're not implying that 32bit is better than 64bit? Were you the same person that was around when 16bit OS ruled the world? Lot of those old f@rts said the same thing about 32bit OS. I'm really trying to understand your point of view. You claim 64bit OS makes "NO" difference right now. Can you then tell me what happens inside a computer when it boots up? What processes run in the background? What handles all your IO and memory requests? Again, is it Microsoft Office? Lotus? If you strongly feel 64bit OS makes no difference, then can you please first run some tests on 2 machines. One 64bit OS, 2nd 32bit OS. Tell me which runs faster for IO and memory requests. According to your logic, they should both run the "same". Let me ask you a question, do you know some real tech guys? Ask them which OS they prefer, 64bit or 32bit and why. Then tell them it'll make no difference. You say you're giving only the facts, and yet I don't see it. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just want to understand why anyone tech savy, would downgrade 64bit OS. If you can, feel free to enlighten me. I'm always willing to learn something new. FYI, I own 3Ghz 8core machine with 64bit OS AND 32bit OS PCs. I've done my research and tests. So don't take it the wrong way if I don't agree with your views. |
|
Gold Member Username: Tatonka-[Team Audib... Post Number: 1176 Registered: Mar-07 | I was exaggerating when I said NO bugs. Figured you would get that when I kiddingly said "windows calculator" In my experiences, Vista runs better than xp with the beta SP1. And that's not a first for me. I do have some tech friends that say the same thing. No, I never said they were the same thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that their only differences were hardware and software. I know this because I do run both with no noticeable speed differences, but allot of the software I use is not 64bit compatible. I can understand in the future when they only start making 64bit compatible software, but I don't see that coming right now. Yes, I do only give the facts. "Tell me you don't work for $hittysoft or get royalties from them." Ok, I don't work for $hittysoft or get royalties from them. |
|
Gold Member Username: Tatonka-[Team Audib... Post Number: 1178 Registered: Mar-07 | Ok, before you type up some long post, I'll answer your question. "I'm not trying to pick a fight, just want to understand why anyone tech savy, would downgrade 64bit OS. If you can, feel free to enlighten me. I'm always willing to learn something new." Since you won't believe me, here it goes: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-versus-Windows-or-32-bit-versus-64bit-134 9.shtml "In this moment, Windows XP 64 bits is not an option for AMD 64 owners. The incompatibility with 32 bit programs is one of the problems of Windows XP 64 bits. For programmers things are different, the compiling of the programs being done much faster. The optimization for 64 bits is clearly a step forward, but momentarily, the only benefit you can obtain by installing this operating system is the possibility of administering more than 4 GB of RAM. The test pointed out that as long as there isn't a wide range of 64 bit applications, migrating from Windows x32 to Windows x64 is not yet justified, the complications regarding drivers and incompatibility being major disadvantages." Proving my point even more about the only differences being mainly software and hardwire compatibility. Still don't believe? http://blogs.msdn.com/maoni/archive/2007/05/15/64-bit-vs-32-bit.aspx "From this perspective you should get a performance gain when you move to 64-bit - I want to emphasize the "this perspective" part because in general things tend to run slower on 64-bit. The perf benefit you get because of GC may very well be obscured by other perf degrades. In reality many people are not expecting perf gain when they move to 64-bit but rather they are happy with being able to use more memory to handle more work load." Like I said, I only give you facts. |
|
Gold Member Username: CarguyPost Number: 6904 Registered: Nov-04 | Hey, I'm not a physic, just wanted to make sure you were joking about windows calculator. What machines were you running Vista on? Just curious. On a standard computer, it wasn't as good as you claimed. On my 8core machine, it's as fast as XP. I didn't put words into your mouth. You did say there's no "difference" besides hardware and software compatibility. I'm saying there is when you use features that come with the OS. What do you mean it's not "compatible"? 32bit software will STILL run fine. It just won't be maximized. Just what software are you running? If it's a word processor, then yeah, you won't see any difference cause no matter how fast a computer is, it's limited by your typing speed. What tests have you done to warrant such strong opinion? I'm curious, if you can, tell me in detail with proof. So far your answers have been vague. If you say something's something, then back it up with evidence. I've seen some articles on 64bit vs 32bit with test results in detail. Since you're doubting it, convince me as to why it's not accurate. Like I said before, I'm open minded, so show me. |
|
Gold Member Username: Tatonka-[Team Audib... Post Number: 1179 Registered: Mar-07 | I just posted articles on 64 x 32bit. Their results was the same as I was telling you. Isaac, we might just have to agree to disagree lol. 64bit and 32bit OS have its disadvantages and advantages. In the future, when more RAM and such will be necessary, 64bit will be a MUST. Just like the update between 16bit and 32bit like you were describing. You really don't see 16bit software anymore. In time you will only see 64. The computers I build as a hobby for the locals will only have a 64bit processor and a 32bit OS on it. I agree in getting ready for the future. Good thing 64bit processors are backwards compatible. |
|
Gold Member Username: CarguyPost Number: 6908 Registered: Nov-04 | Why would you load 32bit OS on 64bit machines? You can get 64bit Vista already. As for my 64bit computer, it's running 64bit OS. Anyhow, it's been interesting. Hopefully more 64bit software will be released very soon. That way, we can send away the 32bit where it belongs, right next to 16bit. |
|
Gold Member Username: Tatonka-[Team Audib... Post Number: 1181 Registered: Mar-07 | "Why would you load 32bit OS on 64bit machines? You can get 64bit Vista already" Simply software. Isaac you know there is a much more variety of 32bit software than 64bit at the moment. But I still use 64bit processor because in time 32bit will be outdated in every way. "Hopefully more 64bit software will be released very soon." I agree. Then I would update to 64bit OS, and so will everyone else. Moving ahead in technology |
|
Silver Member Username: CblazeRock island, Tenesssee Us Post Number: 964 Registered: Sep-07 | im prolly gonna upgrade a bunch on this computer,then maybe get vista back,its just not upgraded enough yet,lol scrathed up computer missing f9 &f10 key,looks like totoal crap and im gonna upgade everythang on it soon lmao |
|
Silver Member Username: CblazeRock island, Tenesssee Us Post Number: 967 Registered: Sep-07 | how much of a difference would going from a 5400 rpm to a 7200 rpm hardrive make,is it worth the cash?im all about speed |
|
Silver Member Username: CblazeRock island, Tenesssee Us Post Number: 986 Registered: Sep-07 | nvm i just got a 80 gb hard drive on the way and imo ms u can tell a diff with a small hard drive,when u fill mine up to not even half way everythang is slow |
|
Gold Member Username: CblazeRock island, Tenesssee Us Post Number: 1132 Registered: Sep-07 | i upgraded the hard drive,and now am on vista with everythang on my computer again,and its running faster than xp,vista just needs ugrades,if u remember,everytime a new version of windows come out u need upgrades to run it |
|
Gold Member Username: CblazeRock island, Tenesssee Us Post Number: 1135 Registered: Sep-07 | hate to say it ms but you where wrong,the bigger hard drive made my computer super fast |