Maybe not better, but cooler looking..
Most Windows 7 PCs max out memory
- Thread starter taodr
- Start date
Maybe not better, but cooler looking..
Don't you think car makers are missing the boat by not bringing back a classic style with all the modern improvements?
I don't mean the half-assed T-Bird POS Ford tried... rather a replica of something like a '56 T-Bird... or split-window Stingray.... maybe a '32 Ford Roadster ragtop. Wouldn't those sell like hot cakes?
Cars... being a total waste of money.... I'm stingy with money I spend on them. However, I'd pop for a COOL retro replica.
I rather liked the SSR, but not enough to pay $50K for one... but a "little deuce coupe"? I'd be in.
It depends on what chipset and hardware you are running the OS on. To compare apples to apples you need to be on the same hardware.
First, you have to recognize that XP is from 2001 era and W7 is 2010 and both were designed to run on hardware from the time they were released.
Apples to apples if you compare XPx86 to W7 32-bit on an E8400 or Q9650 with DDR2 RAM XP will probably use less system resources - I have not personally tested so I don't really know.
I have compared XPx64 to W7 on both an E8400 and Q9650 CPU and XPx64 hands down is the better OS. That said, W7 vs. XPx64 on an i7 with DDR3 RAM and W7 will blow away XPx64.
It depends on the operating system and the hardware combination not just newer/older is better.
Also, the 32-bit operating systems are just that 32-bit or have a 3.2gb kernel and therefore can not use more than 3.2gb of RAM.
First, you have to recognize that XP is from 2001 era and W7 is 2010 and both were designed to run on hardware from the time they were released.
Apples to apples if you compare XPx86 to W7 32-bit on an E8400 or Q9650 with DDR2 RAM XP will probably use less system resources - I have not personally tested so I don't really know.
I have compared XPx64 to W7 on both an E8400 and Q9650 CPU and XPx64 hands down is the better OS. That said, W7 vs. XPx64 on an i7 with DDR3 RAM and W7 will blow away XPx64.
It depends on the operating system and the hardware combination not just newer/older is better.
Also, the 32-bit operating systems are just that 32-bit or have a 3.2gb kernel and therefore can not use more than 3.2gb of RAM.
Actually 32-bit OS can address 4GB of RAM without resorting to PAE, the reduction down to 3.x GB usable is caused by the OS reserving space for addressable devices, primarily video card memory.
There is an excellent article here by Mark Russinovich for those interested in the nitty gritty: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
Reading that article leads to a correction of my previous statement - as not every 32bit version of Windows is limited to 4GB usable, Win2000 Advanced Server for instance can address 8GB and the W2k data center edition can address 32GB. Its easy to think that 32bit OS's are limited to 4GB but with PAE that is not the case.
XP is a piece of shit as far as ease of use is concerned.
Win2 K is head and shoulders above it and it's super fast.
My dream is a Win2k install in state of the art hardware, that machine would fly. that's what I think I will do on my next machine if developers allow it. But my next ivestment will be to
add RAM to my 2001 Win2k machine (bought used in 04) , it's still good, doesn't run with as much stuff as it used to of course but that's mostly because of developers using new technology on websites and slowing down the net to a crawl.
Even XP Pro with newer browser seems slower on many sites than Win2k with IE 5 back in 2003 or so.
XP pro makes you work for MrSoftie , constantly asking you to send them reports. Who gives them the right to put users at work like this ? It also comes with all sorts of annoying new features that were thought as improvements but really waste your time (automatic updates, messages of all kinds etc.) .
That was the start of the current trend which has reached the point where you hand over your computer and your life to developers. I hear Win 7 now tracks you everywhere you are.
Such arrogance from these developers . They think they own you.
I estimate that without upgrading anything on a voluntary basis, I still spend one or two days per year working on problems created by developers, upgrading stuff and fixing the problems caused by those very upgrades .
Win2 K is head and shoulders above it and it's super fast.
My dream is a Win2k install in state of the art hardware, that machine would fly. that's what I think I will do on my next machine if developers allow it. But my next ivestment will be to
add RAM to my 2001 Win2k machine (bought used in 04) , it's still good, doesn't run with as much stuff as it used to of course but that's mostly because of developers using new technology on websites and slowing down the net to a crawl.
Even XP Pro with newer browser seems slower on many sites than Win2k with IE 5 back in 2003 or so.
XP pro makes you work for MrSoftie , constantly asking you to send them reports. Who gives them the right to put users at work like this ? It also comes with all sorts of annoying new features that were thought as improvements but really waste your time (automatic updates, messages of all kinds etc.) .
That was the start of the current trend which has reached the point where you hand over your computer and your life to developers. I hear Win 7 now tracks you everywhere you are.
Such arrogance from these developers . They think they own you.
I estimate that without upgrading anything on a voluntary basis, I still spend one or two days per year working on problems created by developers, upgrading stuff and fixing the problems caused by those very upgrades .