scouser 4 Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I see, thanks. Still interested though if anyone knows or has an idea! Link to post Share on other sites
journey_man 0 Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 I've built machines and I've bought machines. If you build a lot of machines and keep up with what components work well then you get ok savings, but as JA says you put your money into the bits that need to rock, so it's hard to compare apples with apples. No manufacturer would build machines for the masses with the spec of a home built machine. Get it wrong and you end up with a slow machine in spite of the specs, hardware incompatibilities and driver hell, especially with Windows. Linux is more accommodating. A flatmate attempted to build himself a high end Video Editing Suite. He bought an interesting mix of high end and cheaper parts and tried to put it together. To start with not all the parts fitted due to mechanical problems, which we eventually sorted. Then we couldn't get everything to work. It took a long week before we had it running. And even then while it worked acceptably, it certainly didn't boogie like it was supposed to. I don't think he'll do it again. I would compare it to building a kit car - if you're not into it, don't do it! Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Absolutely true, JM. My thoughts expressed much more eloquently (and with much more clarity) than I managed. Domo arigatou gosaimasu! The secret with building your own PC is to get the MoBo first, then check the specs of ALL the other bits carefully. That way you'll end up with a box that does the job. Take special care with selection of memory modules -stuff them up and you might as well stick tour head in the toilet for all the fun you'll get! Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 I like Vista, now REAL problems so far, not unlike with XP and trying to install a new internet company provider. Link to post Share on other sites
skiboggler 0 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I have a new notebook pretty top end and it has Vista Ultimate on it. Not one problem so far, looks good, printer scanner and everything working just fine. I'm happy with it. Link to post Share on other sites
BillTheBinMan 0 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Had a few issues at first (it was an upgrade) but they were fairly quickly sorted. Other than that, pretty decent I think. Link to post Share on other sites
the snowboarding vicar 1 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Looks like the next one will just be "7". A number of commentators point out that the release is not Microsoft's seventh at all, whichever way you look at it. The company has released Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3.0, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Vista. This new edition should therefore be Windows 8 if Windows XP is counted as a release. If Windows XP is not counted because it is Kernel 5.1, then 'Windows 7' should be Windows 6.1. "What will happen when the 'real' Windows 7.0 comes around in x years? Wait a second I thought Windows 7 was released years ago," said a posting under the name of 'PatriotB'. "I guess you guys thought Windows 6.1 didn't slip off the tongue. But still, don't lie to people and muddy everything up." Another reader, called 'Resplendent', said: "It does seem like an odd shift to go from 'names' (Millennium/XP/Vista) back to numbers again." Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Maybe they just ran out of exciting and innovative names - They could hardly call it "steven" now, could they?? Link to post Share on other sites
Amos in Utsunomia 0 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 So Windows XP mustn't have counted as a release then! Link to post Share on other sites
Ezorisu 0 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Or Windows 98... Link to post Share on other sites
Amos in Utsunomia 0 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 But wasn't ME the real "non-release"? Link to post Share on other sites
Ezorisu 0 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 ME! Man, don't remind me! I guess those and 2K are all built more-or-less on NT technology. Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Doesnt seem long since Vista. When is this due out? Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I only got mines last year and Vista was barely out then Link to post Share on other sites
keba 0 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Just took delivery of a new Sony Vaio with Vista preinstalled. I was a bit concerned about making the upgrade from XP, because I'm afraid of anything new. So when I opened the box to find an XP downgrade install disc, it was the first thing I did. Clean install, change the taskbar and folders to "Windows classic" mode.... ahhh, just like Windows 95 again. Like a comfy doona. That's how I feel about Vista. Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 You're a nutter, mate! You did that on a new (presumably) clean, powerful machine? Seriously, I have Vista and XP machines. I really don't like using the XP on now it really seems so dated, Vista is far more pleasant experience. Link to post Share on other sites
orinoco 0 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Got to agree. I can understand people not upgrading to Vista, but on a new machine?! I can't understand why anyone would prefer XP to Vista on a new machine that can cope with it. Link to post Share on other sites
keba 0 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Of course within a few minutes, Windows Update was malfunctioning, and I had to force a reintall of the Update Agent, but that's part of the charm of Windows. If I wanted a perfectly smooth-running OS, I'd get a Mac. Link to post Share on other sites
keba 0 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 New machines are never "clean", they're always loaded up with junk I never use. I prefered a clean OS install, and build up from there. It's not such a powerful machine either, 1.3GHz proc/2G RAM, one of the 11.1" ultraportables, so I reckon XP will be just fine for me, and the apps I run. The only "upgrade" I needed, was from a 40G HDD to a 120G HDD, to free up some space for my iTunes library. Link to post Share on other sites
2pints-mate 0 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Here is how to count Microsoft gives a version number to each operating system. First there was Windows 1.0, then Windows 2.0, then Windows 3.0. Forget all the point numbers like 3.11 for a moment. Because the next major release was Windows 4.0, which is better known as Windows 95. Every operating system up through Windows ME was built on the Windows 4 code, and it wasn't until Windows 2000 that Windows hit 5.0. Windows Vista was version 6. And the next OS will be Windows 7. So ignore Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows Home Server 2008, and pretty much everything you thought you knew about Windows. Because Windows 7 is the seventh version of the operating system. Link to post Share on other sites
Ezorisu 0 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Wow! Very informative. I didn't know how that actually worked (nor did I bother going to Wikipedia to find out)! I feel a little geeked out... Link to post Share on other sites
snowdude 44 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I have to comps, old desk top with XP and new laptop with Vista, and hardly use the desk top now, I like vista so much more. Where people might find a problem with vista is if they upgrade an old spec XP comp to vista, basically the older models haven't got the processing or graphics power that Vista demands. That is why all new comps come with eather dual or quad core processors 2- 4 gb memory and powerful graphics cards so that they can handle vista easily, thus giving a great computing experience. This goes with any windows, never good to upgrade to a later version on an old comp, because always the latest version hogs more memory and demands more processing power. Of all the windows that microsoft ever developed, win 98 was the worst ever, always crashing. Link to post Share on other sites
Ezorisu 0 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 My 98 2ED install was very stable: 95 on the other hand crashed on a frighteningly regular basis. Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 As an installer, I love Vista!! The XP installs used to get me an hour's work. New Vista installs take upwards of an hour and a half, more money for me ! Yeah!! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts