WinDoWsMoNoPoLy
Posts: 237 +0
I would probably go with Linspire. There are no alternatives to Windows that are as easy as Windows though, be prepared to learn some bash if you do go linux.
Switch to Mac or stick with Windows
- Thread starter AMDIsTheBest010
- Start date
- Status
DragonMaster said:I think it's mostly due to hardware. There are some computers that run Windows and Linux without ever crashing or whatever, while there are some where Linux runs fine but Windows like a PoC.
So true I am a proud user of Windows XP SP2 I've had my HP 510N sence 2000 And have yet to have any problems out of it and if so it was my fault (A software Problem)which takes me less than 5 mins to address....Linux is ok but I dont really like the interface(Guess I've been using Windows to long) It's a very stabled OS (in my view) I just chose not to use it do to the fact that it's barley no software availabel compaired to Windows ..Linux also takes alot of memory and a strong cpu to run at optimal speed....I had no hardware problems when using Linux all of my hardware was sucessful detected without the use of 3rd party drivers (surprised) ...The Mac OS has always and will always be garbage to me ....just like a few ppl said above if i application crashes etc u have to re-install the entire OS which automatically eliminates this OS from my selection......
My PC Spechs....
1.2 Intel Celeron (overclocked @ 1.7 GHZ using Thrusmaster water cooling system) Very Stabled performance cosidering my cpu only reach a max heat tempature of 38 degrees (Yes I Actully place ice cubes in the compartment for additional cooling
512 MB of system memory with ECC
128 MB Geforce MX4000 Overclocked using Coolbits Core 367MHZ Memory 512MHZ.....
Software encode Pixel Shader 2.0 (so I can play all of the latest games using the Geforce)
40 GB Seagate 7200 Rpm 8 mb cache hardrive
60 GB Maxtor 7200 Rpm 16 MB cache hardrive
Hi-speed on board realtek networking card
V92 56-k Voice/Data/Fax Modem
Logictec Driving Force Wheel And Pedal Set
12 Button Game Controller
Logitec Digital Camera/With Built In microphone
.............Windows Xp Tweaked out for performance still with all of the cool graphical effects..............
Pc runs quick as lightning & Have not updated anything Sence the Geforce MX4000 Came out.....
D
DelJo63
holiday112284 said:Hearsay.DragonMaster said:if it were true, I would agree, but it aint so
DragonMaster
Posts: 323 +1
Which interface? There are tons of them. (KDE, Gnome, XDM, Xfce, iceWM, WindowMaker, Afterstep, Enlightenment, etc.)
SNGX1275
Posts: 10,615 +467
jobeard said:I was going to call him out on that too if you hadn't, well I guess I am goign to anyway.holiday112284 said:Hearsay.
I've ran 6.0.2? through 8.5.5 then started up again at 10.4 and have not had to reinstall the OS because a program crashed. Hell back in the classic (pre 10) if one crashed you just upped the memory usage set for it. Now in the new ones that is all automatic (dynamic). If a program starts crashing on me now, well I haven't had any do that except Adium, and each time its began crashing I've found there was an update for it, which eliminated the crashes (usually due to some chat network changing how things work which upsets how adium works).
The ONLY other program I've had crash itself in OSX is Opera9 beta. (for some reason the alpha I was running was stable, but these betas seem off). But Opera9 isn't even released officially so I can't expect it to be perfect.
D
DelJo63
sorry, urban legend but also not so. With the FreeBSD(Unix) at the core, OS X 10.* is now exposedJulian309 said:
for Unix style bugs ... eg; the zlib buffer overrun.
AMDIsTheBest010
Posts: 359 +0
WinDoWsMoNoPoLy said:
umm dont know if windows just hates you or something like that b/c i have been using windows since 3.1 and well heres a rundown
3.1: not really to much to crash on this OS
95: fairly reliable, much nicer UI compared to 3.1 (also loved the "start" menu)
98 and 98SE: upped reliability even more when compared to 95, interface is pretty much the same except they added "active desktop"
Windows Me: i will admit this was the absolute worst OS ever created, upgraded from 98SE and within a week removed Me and re-installed 98SE
Windows 2000: used on my office computer, very reliable and stable never once had a crash on 2000
Windows XP SP2: this is by far the best OS ever that microsoft has created, extremely stable on my system, never crashed much nicer UI than previous versions
Base Specs:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+
1GB PC3200 RAM
160GB HD
Nvidia GEFORCE 6100SERIES
oh and by the way if u have many "backround" programs running then why dont u just end them???
ctrl alt delete, press "processes", then end the process you dont want
WinDoWsMoNoPoLy
Posts: 237 +0
They are ended, permanently.
Go into the Windows forum and then tell me that windows is reliable.
On a new topic. VISTA! Sngx just installed it and tells me its slow as hell. Anyone have any feedback?
Go into the Windows forum and then tell me that windows is reliable.
On a new topic. VISTA! Sngx just installed it and tells me its slow as hell. Anyone have any feedback?
DragonMaster
Posts: 323 +1
Windows Explorer turned to Internet Explorer also.
I've only had problems with XP SP2 computers, but 98SE and Win2k machine with no hardware problems are very stable. The XP machine with problems seem to have trouble with hardware, but it was OK with 2k.
DragonMaster
Posts: 323 +1
Maybe SNGX has hardware or driver problems?
SNGX1275
Posts: 10,615 +467
Audio driver doesn't work. Everything else should be fine with it.
CPU: A64 2800+ @1.98ghz
Ram: 1 gig of some Mushkin
Vid Card: EVGA 7800GS SC
HD: Main one is a 200gig SATA, then I have 1 other sata and 2 IDE drives, all 7200rpm.
Motherboard: Asus K8N-E Deluxe
So its not the fastest machine ever, but it should be running 64bit vista far better. Currently its acting like XP on a 400Mhz K6-2 with 128 megs of ram. (I would know, I ran XP on a system like that)
CPU: A64 2800+ @1.98ghz
Ram: 1 gig of some Mushkin
Vid Card: EVGA 7800GS SC
HD: Main one is a 200gig SATA, then I have 1 other sata and 2 IDE drives, all 7200rpm.
Motherboard: Asus K8N-E Deluxe
So its not the fastest machine ever, but it should be running 64bit vista far better. Currently its acting like XP on a 400Mhz K6-2 with 128 megs of ram. (I would know, I ran XP on a system like that)
DragonMaster
Posts: 323 +1
I ran Win2k for years on the same machine ---> SLLLOOOOOWW! (I just upgraded the RAM since. Not as slow as Win2k on a Pentium 150 with 64MB of RAM, I did it too. 6 hours just to install it.)
Weak points seem like the CPU and amount of RAM. What does Vista say about your RAM, is it always full? As for a CPU... picking up an X2 4600 in August wouldn't do any bad!
About audio, if it's Realtek, they've got drivers for Vista. What about chipset, cool'n'quiet, sata drivers?
SNGX1275
Posts: 10,615 +467
I guess I could look into all that mess, but I really don't feel like it - if it bothered me enough I'd make a new thread or post in the vista beta 2 thread. After I get home from work I want to use a system that just works without spending time troubleshooting. Troubleshooting is maybe something I'll do on the weekend.
Basically, I don't care enough about vista at this point to look into it during my evenings when I could be doing something more relaxing.
Basically, I don't care enough about vista at this point to look into it during my evenings when I could be doing something more relaxing.
D
DelJo63
this is a prime motivator for Mac users -- use the system, not manage it :giddy:SNGX1275 said:
stmt of fact: My wife's Mac takes 1/10 the mangement time of Win/XP
DragonMaster
Posts: 323 +1
Well, in fact, managment on OS X can be long(To get all it's performance). Like with Windows, they don't give every tools you need to manage it properly.
Instead of running Ad-Aware, chkdsk, etc. you run OnyX, disk utility, monolingual, and a lot others I forgot their name. (They are all used to clean everything and optimize your files. It can take more than an hour to run all this, and at least you see a performance difference.)
With Linux, all my apps are upgraded with the same utility, the file system needs no optimizations, and needs no checkup after an unclean shutdown (It will check everything in a few seconds and correct it if there's a problem, all the apps are always properly placed, there's a different partition for swap, programs, boot, system, and your own config/personal files.)
Instead of running Ad-Aware, chkdsk, etc. you run OnyX, disk utility, monolingual, and a lot others I forgot their name. (They are all used to clean everything and optimize your files. It can take more than an hour to run all this, and at least you see a performance difference.)
With Linux, all my apps are upgraded with the same utility, the file system needs no optimizations, and needs no checkup after an unclean shutdown (It will check everything in a few seconds and correct it if there's a problem, all the apps are always properly placed, there's a different partition for swap, programs, boot, system, and your own config/personal files.)
SNGX1275
Posts: 10,615 +467
Ok, Vista's piss poor performance was on its first boot, I should have realized this as a potential problem before I spoke too harshly about it. But admitedly I was not the one that broke the news to TS about it being slow.
I've finally got a chance now to boot into it and install some stuff and actually get my sound to work. Everything appears to be working now except my SATA Raid (silicon something) but thats cool because I don't have anything connected to those 4 channels anyway. There are 2 other unknown devices in the device manager, I'm not sure what they are but I don't see it as a problem.. yet.
For the most part its much speedier now, but some things are incredibly slow still, like accessing the device manager, it thinks for a while (but doesn't even appear to be thinking, just feels like lag) then dims the displays to ask me if I for sure was the one that wanted to open device manager.
To answer your question earlier about how the ram looks - PF Usage is 1.09GB, Commit Charge is 1120/2311M (Peak was 1179596K). Avaiable Physical Memory is 558,548K. This is with mIRC, Trillian, 3 IE windows open, Device Manager, Task Manager, Control Panel -> Hardware and Sound, and 3 explorer windows open.
CPU usage isn't doing much staying pretty low, jumped to 17% for just a bit when alt tabbing (as it created the preview windows). So right now I think the lag I'm getting isn't so much hardware related as it is just a beta os.
I've finally got a chance now to boot into it and install some stuff and actually get my sound to work. Everything appears to be working now except my SATA Raid (silicon something) but thats cool because I don't have anything connected to those 4 channels anyway. There are 2 other unknown devices in the device manager, I'm not sure what they are but I don't see it as a problem.. yet.
For the most part its much speedier now, but some things are incredibly slow still, like accessing the device manager, it thinks for a while (but doesn't even appear to be thinking, just feels like lag) then dims the displays to ask me if I for sure was the one that wanted to open device manager.
To answer your question earlier about how the ram looks - PF Usage is 1.09GB, Commit Charge is 1120/2311M (Peak was 1179596K). Avaiable Physical Memory is 558,548K. This is with mIRC, Trillian, 3 IE windows open, Device Manager, Task Manager, Control Panel -> Hardware and Sound, and 3 explorer windows open.
CPU usage isn't doing much staying pretty low, jumped to 17% for just a bit when alt tabbing (as it created the preview windows). So right now I think the lag I'm getting isn't so much hardware related as it is just a beta os.
DragonMaster
Posts: 323 +1
- Status
Similar threads
