So far I have such a good experience with W7 64 and 32 bit versions. On the discussion on memory, just get as much as you can and you will be in much better shape than running it on 1Gb of RAM. That is the very issue why Vista didn't work well, without extra memory. It is fact, modern systems and applications need extra RAM, so trying to hold on old standards it is not going to work. On my machine with 8 Gb of RAM W64 works like a champ.
From the hardware standpoint, I would strongly advice anyone - just buy Mac and run Windows off the boot camp. In many cases will work better than PC machine. Dedicate one hard drive to it, start from there and it is not simulation, or virtual machine, it is just like starting from any other PC. That will give you many benefits, in the first place you could experience what good system could do, (here I am talking about OSX
) and it gives value two in one - Mac and PC. Lastly it will give you a pleasure of using a fine designed piece of equipment.
Lastly I would say, Microsoft finally started clearly thinking. W7 is really well design, in many cases the look and functionality is very similar to OSX. Also they went the same rout that Apple did when they made drastic switch between OS9 and OSX. They provided back support for older apps for some time. The same feature exists in W7, through Virtual PC. Within Virtual PC you could instal complete XP set of apps and run them from there. I have been running W7 last 5 -6 months and I would say do not bother installing XP unless you really have to for some reason.
Maybe this will give you idea where things are going. In 2002 - 2003 Microsoft was aprox 800 x bigger in revenue than Apple. Now the ratio is 1.5 times. (one and a half!)
From the hardware standpoint, I would strongly advice anyone - just buy Mac and run Windows off the boot camp. In many cases will work better than PC machine. Dedicate one hard drive to it, start from there and it is not simulation, or virtual machine, it is just like starting from any other PC. That will give you many benefits, in the first place you could experience what good system could do, (here I am talking about OSX
) and it gives value two in one - Mac and PC. Lastly it will give you a pleasure of using a fine designed piece of equipment.Lastly I would say, Microsoft finally started clearly thinking. W7 is really well design, in many cases the look and functionality is very similar to OSX. Also they went the same rout that Apple did when they made drastic switch between OS9 and OSX. They provided back support for older apps for some time. The same feature exists in W7, through Virtual PC. Within Virtual PC you could instal complete XP set of apps and run them from there. I have been running W7 last 5 -6 months and I would say do not bother installing XP unless you really have to for some reason.
Maybe this will give you idea where things are going. In 2002 - 2003 Microsoft was aprox 800 x bigger in revenue than Apple. Now the ratio is 1.5 times. (one and a half!)
Considering that Macs are all intel hardware, it's smarter to just build an intel system and run windows off it. I don't mean "intel compatible" of course; actual intel motherboard should be used if you want the best stability (though, in the case of dual processors, it may be necessary to use a different company that makes dual-CPU capable boards, depending on your specific needs). This really does make a stable system. A little googling and you can find what was used in a mac, and get the appropriate equivalent parts. This can literally save you several THOUSAND dollars in a top end system and honestly get you the same stability. I do build systems. It's very easy to build a system just as stable (or moreso) than a mac, assuming you put in the research. Macs are there for people who either refuse to do the research and build their own, or don't know better (and that's okay). Great systems, but overpriced for what you get.
besides...
The stability of a Mac system is mostly in the OS, as it was written to be used only with specific parts, whereas in Windows-based systems everyone and their russian grandmother makes parts for it and has to be supported. And even if all the parts are supported, its way too easy to download browser helper objects and other crap on your system that screw things up (kids are great at this) because the user doesnt know any better. One system I helped restore had, I kid you not, 9700 infected files on it from more than 50 different unique viruses. In no way was this the hardware's fault. If the user had been using a mac with bootcamp, I'm willing to bet the problem would have still existed for this user.
having both OS on one machine is a plus though. Is it worth the price, though? That's for each buyer to consider, as it will be different for us all.
besides...
The stability of a Mac system is mostly in the OS, as it was written to be used only with specific parts, whereas in Windows-based systems everyone and their russian grandmother makes parts for it and has to be supported. And even if all the parts are supported, its way too easy to download browser helper objects and other crap on your system that screw things up (kids are great at this) because the user doesnt know any better. One system I helped restore had, I kid you not, 9700 infected files on it from more than 50 different unique viruses. In no way was this the hardware's fault. If the user had been using a mac with bootcamp, I'm willing to bet the problem would have still existed for this user.
having both OS on one machine is a plus though. Is it worth the price, though? That's for each buyer to consider, as it will be different for us all.
perhaps you can buy an apple cinema dispaly (pc screens aren't as good as apple's), the apple wireless keybord, the multitouch mouse... than hide the computer somewhere and you will not notice it isn't a mac. but if you can't hide it the money on an imac 27 is worth every buck
also notice that audio wise you will have to search a bit for a fan so quiet like the one in the macs for the processor and the videocard
also notice that audio wise you will have to search a bit for a fan so quiet like the one in the macs for the processor and the videocard
no you won't. Scythe Gentle Typhoons, Skarkoon Golfballs, Yate loon's from Petra's Tech shop, Scythe Kaze-Jyuni's, Scythe S-Flex (and in some cases the Kama Flex), Nexus makes some great ones, and many others are just fine. get the 1000rpm versions, or downclock the faster ones with a fan controller, and set them to be thermally controlled from the bios. You can also use PWM fans (also not hard to find) and iirc you can clock them even lower, though you tend to lose performance quickly the farther you downclock.
Currently for cooling intel processors, the top heatsinks that take 120mm fans are Prolimatech Megahalems, ThermalRight HR-01 Plus, Xigmatek HDT-S1283 and ThermalRight Ultra 120 Extreme (also called the TRUE). Check out places like SPCR and Extremesystems for information on quiet computing and comparisons of performance versus noise (extremesystems will also show you all sorts of crazy crap, so, beforewarned that it's not all quiet computing. I linked direct to the latest fan test. It uses radiators, but just like a heatsink, it's still a slightly restricted airflow, and thus indicitive of performance).
Last edited:
Banned
Joined 2002
It's a good thing, know lots of tech that buy macbooks and dual boot for work then run x at home
It's a good thing, know lots of tech that buy macbooks and dual boot for work then run x at home
For some of us Windows is the only choice.
I develop software for the Windows PC which is a massive market.
macbooks and netbook PC's frighten me to death as they threaten my software market. I write software for designing PCB's and that needs a fairly powerfull WIndows based PC.
Thank goodness for the games market as that also requires powerful Windows based PC's.
Banned
Joined 2002
You can still write your software, just write it so it works on mac and pc, now a days a macbook/ pro/ or not is bascially a pc any ways with the white logo on it.
If not for the game market we would not need multiple cores and gigatexel video
cards. Another entity to thank is the advertisement/streaming video community,
with flash 10 , one needs all that CPU/GPU "horsepower" to show you things and sell you things
. If the internet remained how it was in the 20'th century , a single core P3 with win2K and IE6 would of sufficed. NOW.. it is like dang TV with a million freakin' ads , constant CSS script surveys, and other irritating "bells and whistles".
I have the first core 2 (conroe - 2006)
, and man I thought it was fast with the 2006 web content. Now , I can see it begin to "strain" with certain 2008-9 software and massive web content. Same with the OS'es , a Nvidia Gforce 8500 is needed to keep up with all the HQ flash AD B$
and to render the pretty AERO right.Soon a quad core CPU / 9000 series GPU will be minimum for the "new web". What really gets me is that all this so called advancement does not enhance productivity , help the earth (500+ watt PS'es) .. but just irritates the user and requires more patches/bandwidth/security just to lamblast you with ever more sophisticated "clutter". ARggggg !
OS
My software was originally a 300,000 line DOS program running in 500K.
I the moved over to Delphi (PASCAL) when I converted to Windows.
A bit later Microsoft were giving away Visual C# Express so I converted it again. I found this needed the .net framework installed to run my programs which was a nuisance as XP needed to intsall that first.
The .net framework is very powerful and is good for my graphics.
However the runtime package seems to be growing massively.
I have just moved upto .net 3.5 and taht is around 200megabytes to install !
Microsoft seem to be into bloatware. I suspect this is due to trying to keep out competition. Drawing a few windows is pretty basic but adding all the extras like .net framework etc is a major task.
They now have .net4 (300+ megs) . Even as it is a beta , the rail simulator game (railworks) needs IT installed (even on win7)...
Endless bloat in a world of terabyte storage devices , the B$ "scales up" so nicely , eh?
For just audio and movies , luckily I can "slim things down" and enjoy with a much smaller footprint .. even with 7.
OS
Attachments
Last edited:
It's very disappointing just how inefficient desktop software is. I have worked with OpenWRT and it's amazing just what can be done with just a few MB of Flash and RAM. A friend of mine put together an OpenWRT distribution for a V3 WRT54G (16MB RAM, 4MB Flash) and the entire image file was about 2.7MB even though it included the basic OpenWRT code, a web UI with statistic monitoring, and even a picture Easter Egg in the UI.
For what it's worth, I have seen old Pentium 3s with Linux run faster than brand new PCs with Windows. (And a new PC can be really fast with Linux!)
For what it's worth, I have seen old Pentium 3s with Linux run faster than brand new PCs with Windows. (And a new PC can be really fast with Linux!)
The massive growth is was due to iPod and later iPhone. Once users realized how cool their gadgets were, they started switching from notebooks to MacBooks, to iMacs... Than they realized the pleasure of just turning the machine on and not bothering with drivers, printers... Setting up a network printer on OSX vs. doing the same task on XP is laughing matter. Unfortunately, I loved Mac being the underdog. Once it becomes the mainstream we will have the same problem Windows users are having with viruses, trojans, e.t.c. So lets enjoy while we can.
We will undoubtedly have more, but i doubt it will be as bad as Windows.
Windows was written as it was a grass shack in Fiji (you mean there are supposed to be doors & windows in those holes in the walls? What's a lock?)
UNIX was written from the get go, with doors & windows, locks & bars. Open Source underpinnings mean the code gets poured over for holes... which are quickly fixed quite quickly.
dave
Linux is cool , some of my best 3'rd party programs were ported from linux. privoxy (attached- 1) has no dependencies , is light on memory (1meg) , and can be set to a port that will fool an infected XP workstation (plus logging/bans - all scripted) ..
This is so much better than windows connection sharing. Google chrome is also open source and can "sandbox " the worst sites that will crash or infect IE , I think chrome is safari.Win 7 is good just as a core OS , I don't use any of the "features" (media player - yuk
) IE is a joke of a browser , etc. I agree , on XP ,you had to know something .. but if you did, a few minutes was all it took. On win 7, all I did was plug it in , 7 already had the HP USB generic driver for it. After that 7 asked if I wanted to allow the home network to share it ,I said yes .. all done in 40-50 seconds , 2 clicks,no disks .. WOW.There is one good thing about running the most popular OS. The linux and mac developers are much more likely to port works TO windows than for windows developers to port to mac and or linux , resulting in a VERY good selection of windows software.
I have not checked for a while , but mac and linux are catching up in total software. 4 years ago windows was ahead 10-1 in total software .. now mac and linux combined are slightly ahead of windows in total offerings(attached - 2)
.I have tried Ubuntu on my main system and have been impressed by the speed and proper operation "out of the box" .. BUT , nvidia graphics driver issues drove me away from its use as a HT platform.
OS
Attachments
Banned
Joined 2002
Linux is cool , some of my best 3'rd party programs were ported from linux. privoxy (attached- 1) has no dependencies , is light on memory (1meg) , and can be set to a port that will fool an infected XP workstation (plus logging/bans - all scripted) ..
Win 7 is good just as a core OS , I don't use any of the "features" (media player - yuk
There is one good thing about running the most popular OS. The linux and mac developers are much more likely to port works TO windows than for windows developers to port to mac and or linux , resulting in a VERY good selection of windows software.
I have not checked for a while , but mac and linux are catching up in total software. 4 years ago windows was ahead 10-1 in total software .. now mac and linux combined are slightly ahead of windows in total offerings(attached - 2)
I have tried Ubuntu on my main system and have been impressed by the speed and proper operation "out of the box" .. BUT , nvidia graphics driver issues drove me away from its use as a HT platform.
OS
Just join their forum ask the problem with in 24 hours or LESS, its usually answered with great detail how to fix, I LOVE ubuntu and Mandrivia, next year in my work field ill end up buying a 17" hp laptop comes with windows 7, but ill make a restore set, then format clean and install ubuntu, ill use it for our scope / software for programing alarm panels.
I do agree with a few of your last posts, weren't computer's suppose to get more efficient ? I remember building towers for a living back home and we were using nice Deer 300watt psu's, now they are up to 1000watt, like common, that's alot of power just for a computer, can't these graphix car guys make a better design with lower power requirements. If laptop's can do it why can't full desktop cards do it.
I have not checked for a while , but mac and linux are catching up in total software. 4 years ago windows was ahead 10-1 in total software .. now mac and linux combined are slightly ahead of windows in total offerings(attached - 2)
What happens to the numbers when you eliminate all the Windows anti-virus programs & all the virus, trojans, etc from the list.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.