Doctor Who?
Dragon Ryder
 
Offline
Posts: 6548
Movie snob and proud of it!
|
 |
« Reply #930 on: November 07, 2009, 11:06:20 AM » |
|
Yeah, that's what I've got on all my computers; XP Pro 32 bit versions with 2-3 gigs of DDR2 RAM and Core2 Duo & Quad Core processors and they're all functioning Great.. I agree with Mojo.. Just go with 32 bit XP Pro and you'll be fine there Doc  Ok thanks. I was leaning toward 32 bit any way because it was cheaper so that is what i will get.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You knew that when you tried to shut me up. Twice. But your attempts at censorship will never work. Mystic Studios Productions will always prevail. The spirit and truth will never die!
|
|
|
TripeHoundRedux
Tells No Tales
Offline
Posts: 24365
... helped the pilgrims to survive, was a red man
|
 |
« Reply #931 on: November 07, 2009, 03:06:33 PM » |
|
Yeah I reinstalled the 32 bit because many of the programs simply didn't work with 64 bit installed.
What's the point of creating an OS if it doesn't work as well as the OS for half the bits?
That's Bill Gates way of making money by 'forcing' you to upgrade to the newer version OS  Well no, this one came with the computer, luckily I had the install discs for the 32 bit lying around. Well, you still payed for the new version theoretically.. Would there have been a price difference if you requested the 32 bit version instead? Or did you even ask that before buying? Yeah probably but it was one of those bundled deal things, I don't know if I could have opted to not have had the other os.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ortega
|
 |
« Reply #932 on: November 07, 2009, 03:48:31 PM » |
|
While i can't speak for the x64 version of XP, i'm currently running Vista x64, and i haven't had any issue with programs not running. with the exception of 1 install disc that came with my netgear router( which you really don't need to do anyway). Vista has two separate folders for 64bit and 32bit programs. iTunes, games, printer, scanners, I've been able to install and function without a hitch in 64 bit( And i would say about half of the programs installed are 32bit). If you have a 64bit processor, which if you've purchased a computer in the past 3 years, chances are you do, its not a bad thing to go for the x64 OS. In my experience, it tends to load a bit faster, and can handle a good bit more multi tasking.
Quite honestly, i really don't get the problem people have with Vista. Sure, during the first 8 months it was out, it was a bit of a headace, but after the first year, i haven't had any major problems with Vista. And it is a bit easier on the eyes. Its hard for me to even look at XP nowadays.
I got my hands on an "evaluation disc" for Windows 7. My verdict: I wouldn't fork over the money to upgrade, but if you were in the market for a new computer, it wouldn't be such a hassle to get stuck with it. Though the best bet would be to wait until 7 has been out a few months for all the kinks to get worked out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Imrahil
Disembaudio's Squadio
Offline
Posts: 12759
Gobble Gobble
|
 |
« Reply #933 on: November 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM » |
|
Quite honestly, i really don't get the problem people have with Vista. Sure, during the first 8 months it was out, it was a bit of a headace, but after the first year, i haven't had any major problems with Vista. And it is a bit easier on the eyes. Its hard for me to even look at XP nowadays.
I got my hands on an "evaluation disc" for Windows 7. My verdict: I wouldn't fork over the money to upgrade, but if you were in the market for a new computer, it wouldn't be such a hassle to get stuck with it. Though the best bet would be to wait until 7 has been out a few months for all the kinks to get worked out.
I've never had a problem with Vista that I haven't had with other Windows releases. In fact, Vista solved a shit-ton of problems I had with my last XP install. I suspect it's a case of people being massively influenced by hype. Thanks for the words re: Windows 7. I'm still annoyed that they dropped the classic Start Menu (which I use on Vista) and that "dock" feature is something I'd immediately disable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mojo Filter
Disembaudio's Squadio
Offline
Posts: 35
|
 |
« Reply #934 on: November 08, 2009, 07:50:21 AM » |
|
While i can't speak for the x64 version of XP, i'm currently running Vista x64, and i haven't had any issue with programs not running. with the exception of 1 install disc that came with my netgear router( which you really don't need to do anyway). Vista has two separate folders for 64bit and 32bit programs. iTunes, games, printer, scanners, I've been able to install and function without a hitch in 64 bit( And i would say about half of the programs installed are 32bit). If you have a 64bit processor, which if you've purchased a computer in the past 3 years, chances are you do, its not a bad thing to go for the x64 OS. In my experience, it tends to load a bit faster, and can handle a good bit more multi tasking.
Quite honestly, i really don't get the problem people have with Vista. Sure, during the first 8 months it was out, it was a bit of a headace, but after the first year, i haven't had any major problems with Vista. And it is a bit easier on the eyes. Its hard for me to even look at XP nowadays.
I got my hands on an "evaluation disc" for Windows 7. My verdict: I wouldn't fork over the money to upgrade, but if you were in the market for a new computer, it wouldn't be such a hassle to get stuck with it. Though the best bet would be to wait until 7 has been out a few months for all the kinks to get worked out.
Yeah, Vista gets a bad rap but it's really not that bad. It's been around quite awhile now so they've had a chance to fix a lot of the problems people initially had with it. As for 64 bit Vista, here's a lot more support for it than there was for xp64. Like you said, Vista comes bundled with the 32 and 64 bit versions on the same disk and most people with a modern computer will have 64 bit capability. So when people are installing they get to choose which version. Of course they're going go choose 64 because that's twice as much as 32! As for Windows 7, I've tried the RC. It's darn good. It's pretty like Vista, but runs like XP. I'll probably buy it when I have money. Though none can hold a candle to my beloved Ubuntu. Anyone tried 9.10 yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
spaceforarent
|
 |
« Reply #935 on: November 10, 2009, 12:15:05 PM » |
|
Windows 7 is up and running. Don't really like the new taskbar, but I can get used to it. Now I have to go about reinstalling everything and adding my files back. This may be a while...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Green to bluebird, this is Mr. Fabulous, we are go for cheesing it. "
|
|
|
MSTJedi
The FBI Pays Me to Surf
Offline
Posts: 2761
|
 |
« Reply #936 on: November 10, 2009, 12:21:46 PM » |
|
Windows 7 is up and running. Don't really like the new taskbar, but I can get used to it. Now I have to go about reinstalling everything and adding my files back. This may be a while...
Yeah, any install/reinstall of an OS and all your programs is an annoying, long process. I had to do it a while back because my USB drivers got all wonky for no reason and I had no other way to fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
". . . many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." 
|
|
|
|
Minnesota
|
 |
« Reply #937 on: November 10, 2009, 01:12:44 PM » |
|
I used to have a pretty nice Vista HTPC setup, but I killed the computer by spilling a can of Coke on it lol. Anyway, I loved Vista and it looked and ran really great on a modern computer. Anyway after the Soda incident I've downgraded a bit to an old Pentium 4 gateway with XP installed... I didnt dare try to bog that thing down with Vista, but with Windows 7 I decided to upgrade it. Been running for a couple days and the only issue is the sound wont show up, so I'll have to go driver hunting one of these days. That aside I like 7 so far. Its fast and stable from what I can tell. BTW... those looking to upgrade on the cheap, this is where I bought it... ONLY $30 (so long as you have a valid .edu email) http://windows7.digitalriver.com/store/mswpus/en_US/DisplayHomePageedit: link fixed
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 01:14:31 PM by Minnesota »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thrifty
|
 |
« Reply #939 on: November 10, 2009, 02:41:29 PM » |
|
I still, seriously, don't understand why anyone would want to switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista or Windows 7. I guess I just hold pretty firm to the idea that if it aint broke, don't fix it.
And why is it called Windows 7?
1) Windows 3.1 2) Windows 95 3) Windows 98 4) Windows 2000 5) Windows XP 6) Windows Vista 7) Windows 7
Makes some sense. But where does Windows NT fit in there? Where does Windows ME fit? Why is the first version of Windows called 3.1?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RVR II
|
 |
« Reply #940 on: November 10, 2009, 02:46:53 PM » |
|
I still, seriously, don't understand why anyone would want to switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista or Windows 7. I guess I just hold pretty firm to the idea that if it aint broke, don't fix it.
For Once, we agree! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve-O
|
 |
« Reply #941 on: November 10, 2009, 04:07:48 PM » |
|
I still, seriously, don't understand why anyone would want to switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista or Windows 7. I guess I just hold pretty firm to the idea that if it aint broke, don't fix it.
I guess it depends on how one defines "broke." You could say that XP is broke because it's inherently insecure. Vista fixed some of that, but broke performance and the user experience along the way. So Windows 7 fixes what Vista broke whilst fixing what was broke in XP. Broke. And why is it called Windows 7?
1) Windows 3.1 2) Windows 95 3) Windows 98 4) Windows 2000 5) Windows XP 6) Windows Vista 7) Windows 7
It's the major version number of the codebase. It actually breaks down more like this: 1) Windows 1.x 2) Windows 2.x 3) Windows 3.x: Windows 3.0/3.1/3.11, Windows for Workgroups, Windows NT 3.0/3.5/3.51 4) Windows 4.x: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0 5) Windows 5.x: Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Server 2003 6) Windows 6.x: Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008 7) Windows 7.x: Windows 7 Fascinating, no? Why is the first version of Windows called 3.1?
It wasn't. There was a Windows 1 and a Windows 2. They just weren't widely used, as most people with PCs already knew their way around DOS and didn't see much point in a slow, buggy collection of desktop accessories.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mojo Filter
Disembaudio's Squadio
Offline
Posts: 35
|
 |
« Reply #942 on: November 10, 2009, 04:11:39 PM » |
|
I still, seriously, don't understand why anyone would want to switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista or Windows 7. I guess I just hold pretty firm to the idea that if it aint broke, don't fix it.
For Once, we agree!  Microsoft is already winding down support for XP. I believe mainstream support has already expired and now you can only get security updates. While, I'm sure you won't have any trouble in the near future, even mighty XP fall to the wayside eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RVR II
|
 |
« Reply #943 on: November 10, 2009, 04:14:52 PM » |
|
I still, seriously, don't understand why anyone would want to switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista or Windows 7. I guess I just hold pretty firm to the idea that if it aint broke, don't fix it.
For Once, we agree!  Microsoft is already winding down support for XP. I believe mainstream support has already expired and now you can only get security updates. While, I'm sure you won't have any trouble in the near future, even mighty XP fall to the wayside eventually. Eventually.. But Not tomorrow 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Imrahil
Disembaudio's Squadio
Offline
Posts: 12759
Gobble Gobble
|
 |
« Reply #944 on: November 10, 2009, 04:20:50 PM » |
|
Windows 7 is up and running. Don't really like the new taskbar, but I can get used to it. Now I have to go about reinstalling everything and adding my files back. This may be a while...
There are workarounds for that taskbar. I for one will not be using it; I fucking hate the "stacking icons of same type" feature as well and eliminate that whenever it's on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|