|
Arts & Entertainment Give meaning to your life or distract you from it for a while |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-21-2004, 12:32 PM | #16 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
I've been thinking of upgrading. Unfortunately, I'll probably need a new MB, CPU, and RAM. What a pain...
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
07-21-2004, 01:26 PM | #17 | |
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
|
Quote:
|
|
07-21-2004, 01:50 PM | #18 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
It's the research and installation that's the pain. The actual getting and using wil be great.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
07-21-2004, 02:01 PM | #19 | |
Syndrome of a Down
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: West Chester
Posts: 1,367
|
Quote:
(Even so, I smell a "how about this config" thread or two coming up in Technology.) |
|
07-21-2004, 02:42 PM | #20 |
Syndrome of a Down
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: West Chester
Posts: 1,367
|
Looking on GameStop's site, it lists one more requirement:
* Operating System: Microsoft Windows 2000/XP CRUD. That's one more "upgrade" necessary, as I'm clinging onto 98SE for dear life. |
07-21-2004, 03:11 PM | #21 |
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
|
If you've got enough cpu muscle to handle it, 2000 and XP are actually very nice. They are much more stable than the 95 derivatives. Also, XP is much more game friendly than the previous NTs.
|
07-21-2004, 03:21 PM | #22 | |
Syndrome of a Down
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: West Chester
Posts: 1,367
|
Quote:
* Windows apps (other than Doom 3) that I want to run that will run under 2000/XP: all of them. * Windows apps (other than Doom 3) that I want to run that will run under 98SE: all of them. So I'm paying $100 to... er... run exactly the same apps that I run now, with the exception of one game. Doom 3 may be spectacular, but paying $100 for XP on top of its $54.99 list isn't on my to-do list. I clung to WfWG 3.11 on my old PC (P-133) until absolutely everything required 9x, and still have 95 on it to this day. When I bought my current system, I specifically got 98SE instead of Me or 2000, and haven't regretted it. |
|
07-21-2004, 03:26 PM | #23 |
I am meaty
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,119
|
Ain't it great how Microsoft takes it upon themselves to chew up any spare CPU cycles you might have? They seem to have the mentality that as CPUs grow faster, their kernel must grow proportionally. As a result, compuers never really seems to run any faster unless you run an old version of Windows on new hardware.
__________________
Hot Pastrami! Last edited by hot_pastrami; 07-21-2004 at 03:33 PM. Reason: Fixing bad grammar and typos... me tired today |
07-21-2004, 03:28 PM | #24 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Worse than that, my cool joystick isn't supported under XP, as I discovered when I made the switch.
But, on the whole, I'm happier with XP. I don't play many joystick games.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
07-21-2004, 03:30 PM | #25 |
whig
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
|
and yet OSX manages to get faster and add new features with every major release.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain |
07-21-2004, 03:32 PM | #26 | |
Syndrome of a Down
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: West Chester
Posts: 1,367
|
Quote:
When the same program that runs fine with 128MB under 9x requires 256MB under XP to avoid chugging heavily, something's seriously wrong here. My father-in-law has an entry-level Dell that's somewhere in the 2000s -- I think it's a 2.5Ghz P4, running XP. Since we both have 128MB of RAM, even though his is DDR and mine is PC133, my system runs almost _everything_ more efficiently than his. I'm in the process of ordering a new 256MB stick for him, which should be thoroughly unnecessary but isn't. |
|
07-21-2004, 03:34 PM | #27 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Don't denigrate 98's ability to fill all available cycles as well. Heck, I bet Workgroups could operate slowly on a P4, given half a chance.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
07-21-2004, 03:37 PM | #28 |
Syndrome of a Down
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: West Chester
Posts: 1,367
|
I'm not saying that there's ever been an efficient version of Windows -- far from it. It would be nice to see new versions of Windows be at least _more_ efficient than those before them, however. Maybe Me->XP, but that's because Me was so horrible to begin with.
|
07-21-2004, 03:38 PM | #29 | |
I am meaty
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,119
|
Quote:
Apple's OSX is also bloated, but at least they're moving the right direction.
__________________
Hot Pastrami! |
|
07-21-2004, 04:11 PM | #30 | |
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
|
Quote:
I thought there was something you didn't like about 2000 or XP. I know they require more muscle than 98. I'm willing to pay the price for the improved stability. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|