Which windows bit is the best? 64bit 86bit 32bit 128bit which bit would be the bestest!
Printable View
Which windows bit is the best? 64bit 86bit 32bit 128bit which bit would be the bestest!
Lol, i don't know where you got 128 and 84 bit windows from, Windows only comes in 32 and 64 bit. (x)86 an architecture for hardware. Dunno where you got 128 bit from.
The only real difference between 32 bit and 64 bit windows is hardware side. Well, at least that's what i notice. I think 64 has a newer kernel than 32 bit, but that's about it.
Like, look at this:
64 bit max virtual memory: 16TB
32 bit max virtual memory: 4GB
64 bit max paging file: 512TB
32 bit max paging file: 16TB
64 bit max paged pool: 128 GB
32 bit max paged pool: 470MB
64 bit max non-paged pool: 128GB
32 bit max non-paged pool: 256MB
64 bit max system cache: 1TB
32 bit max system cache: 1GB
Also to add in, 32 bit windows supports up to 4GB RAM, and 64 bit 128GB.
I found that here, it might be worth going over the site for more details.
I'm just going off the Microsoft website here man, but i do know that a lot of gamers use 64 bit windows because it supports more ram and is apparently more stable.
32bit is the same as x86
128bit windows doesn't exist.
64bit is basically an extension of 32bit which allows for more system RAM to be used.
Vista x 64 bit ....
support for SLI / Crossfire
Support for dual core/Quad Core
Support for Dx10/dx10.1 ( and drivers)
Support for 128 Gb of Ram...
Windows xp
Mediocre support for SLI
Mediocre support for new multiple core processors
No real support for Dx10/Dx10.1 and future.
Mediocre driver updates ...
And x64 bit is not only used to increase the amount of ram you can have.... x64 bit applications running in an x64 bit os/system will outperform there x32bit clones. x64 bit is 10 - 15% faster than 32bit.
And windows xp 64 bit sucks balls compared to the performance in vista 64bit...
Your better off using windows 2003 or windows server 2008 than you are using any flavor of windows xp.
your better off using windows 2000 if you have an old system.... xp sucks almost as bad as windows Me if you ask me... every time in install it i have to reformat in 2 months.
64bit - avoid like the plague.
I run x64 bit on 4 computers.... Runs great... maybe not on old clunker computers from 5 years ago. . . ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by SiGGy
Well, I Uno. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
There are just so many things wrong there its overwhelming. When I'm not so tired I'll point them out.
EDIT: Right, here we go:
XP Has plenty of support for SLI/Crossfire
XP Supports multiple core processors fine. What it doesn't support well is more than one PHYSICAL processor, aka dual/quad slot mobos
Yeah, it doesn't have DX10, but it's not really needed anyway.
It supports more than two cores fine.
It has plenty of driver updates
It can support 128GB RAM just like vista, there is 64bit XP you know :)
Xp being almost as bad as ME and you have to format every 2 months? You must be filling your computer with a lot of shit for that to happen.
ah another computer tech cowboy then ? Xenosaga21 self certified ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
this single post requires an hour to properly disect and tell you just how wrong you are, but i dont have an hour so .. you are wrong.
just stop posting crap. or just stop posting.
Windows Xp 32 bit only supports 2.7gb Ish
minus the fact that it counts video Card ram into that equation . . ..
if you have to video cards in SLI.... = 1gb
so 2.7 - 1gb = 1.7 GB Available out of the 3 or 4 you purchased.
---
windows Xp 64bit is not good... not good at all, You are much better off using Vista x64
dx 10 / 10.1 is a Vista only feature . . . there are ways to run dx 10 in xp but there is no driver support for it so GG there buddy . . .
Windows Server 2008 is a great os even for gaming. . .
and if you are really looking to save resources you should be using something like windows 2000 . . . 2003
No need for fancy gui .... just waste resources ....
so where am i wrong ?
Quad core runs way better on vista. . .
dual core is supported. . . in xp but why waste the money on a dual core cpu if your computer is going to be a door stop. :technolog
"dissect" away ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
You remind me a lot of SlaterKing with his useless replies that are completely wrong.
im soo pissed off at the retards that post nonsence here and the mods that dont prevent them from doing it...
i just dont have the strenght to educate people like xenosaga. xenosaga - google everything you posted and prove yourself wrong, its the only way you will learn. you do not deserve any of my, mazo's, or anybody elses time.
Ok whats wrong? and Why? educate me?
from Experience i can tell you that vista on modern hardware will far out perform Xp in terms of gaming and multy tasking...
I can also say that I 100% believe that windows 2000 runs WAY better for gaming on low end systems ( pre P4/ post PIII )
Windows 2003 is a great Server OS and when configured as a Workstation.... it is very low resource Hog/ And if you can find driver support. . . which most manufactures like Asus do support 2003... you can game on it VERY WELL!
Windows 2008 Is Another GREAT OS Needless to say it shares much with Vista but is from my testing (which is limited as i only have 4 computers here) very stable even for gaming.
Now to tackle windows xp
a) I have used it for YEARS
b) I know it has issues !
c) I know how to fix those issues!
d) I know not to bother fixing those issues anymore, because for me atleast in my case a tweaked copy of vista is FAR More hastle Free and FAR more intuative and responsive.
e) Driver support for Vista is continuously evolving and expanding...
f) Driver support and development for xp has reached its climax and is in a decaying state.
g) ALL the new hardware is now being designed with vista in mind...
h) ALL new video cards are now sli or crossfire capable...
i) Windows xp is limited in its ability (32 Bit) 2gb to 3gb memory limit...
anything that allows you to "bypass" this limit is fraudulent . . . and basically just lets you "see" memory past those limits but will not let you actually take advantage of it....
j) windows (all versions) have a limited system which is used to allocate memory to applications like games (INCLUDING ALLOCATION TO VRAM!)
which is part of the 32 and 64 bit memory limit if you will...
k) windows Xp 64 bit is NOT Good it lacks key elements of compatibility that may can have caused issues with programs in the past. . . I dont want to get started on this cause if i did i would post in the debate section and i really dont give 2 shits about windows xp 64bit as it is not even worth my time.
L) Sli from personal experience runs much better on non xp... systems.
M) Vista is written to be better at utilizing multi-core processors than XP is!
After all xp is a dinosaur from the era of single core home computing. . . small tweaks and leaps and strives have been made in service packs .. but eh why not just use the OS DESIGNED WITH THIS IN MIND IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Why limit your hardware because you where to lazy to learn a New Gui?
0o
I am done with my rant continue on with your delusional lives.
Welcome to one of the reasons why I'm a thread away from leaving ragezone. I got demodded based on what I do within a game, NoPeace left for reasons I won't discuss here. This section is just becoming hell, fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by omen
hey since no rules apply here, wanna go off topic & tell me whats o evil that u done ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazo
teabag somebody ?
XD Teabag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5svH...eature=relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by omen
WoW botter, Exy smites those little wankers down.Quote:
Originally Posted by omen
Well, Xenosaga21, gotta say was helpful in my topic. But i don't agree here. Vista is SHIT. EVERYONE knows that if you buy a computer pre-loaded with vista, and you scrub it and install XP, your machine will perform soooooooooo much better it's not funny. Tell me who agrees. More than 75% will.
EDIT: WHAA!!!??? When did NoPeace leave??? He was awesome help!
The reason vista gets a Bad rap is because 90% Of the people that Used it have gotten it from a pre-load on there new computers.... Or they don't have a computer that is vista capable.... no let me rephrase that they don't have a computer that "can take advantage of the performance and features vista has to offer" yes that is better. . .
Its just like when windows came out with the first GUI... old computers couldn't use the GUI cause they where too slow... but if your computer was fast enough you would be able to use the gui and get things done faster....
Vista has new ways of doing things that make your computer perform faster... the catch is that your computer has to be capable of utilizing these new abilities... and sadly most computers are too old... or not configured optimally...
first off when you buy a computer from Dell/Hp/ etc.
1) They install Home Premium or Home Basic version of vista which is garbage.
2) They install custom Branded junk like toolbars EVERYWHERE
3) They load a shit load of trial ware that you cant even fucking Remove...
4) They give you shit outdated Drivers and dont even configure your system to perform good.
Try using a REAL Sp1 MSDN copy of Vista Ultimate, x64 bit on a FRESH install with the correct drivers and it will blow your mind how fast vista is...
Even back in the day when computers where shipped with XP they sucked ass because of all the garbage the Name Brands like Hp etc put on it...
I reformatted my laptop Dual core/ 7600 2gb Ram 10 times testing what i wanted Xp or Vista... and in the end i chose vista because
1) it has a longer Half Life (so i have to reformat less often)
2) it is more responsive
3) the search feature with the indexing is no longer a real resource hog...
this makes finding a specific song in a pile of 20000 mp3's a lot faster.
I run Age of Conan on High Settings on my Laptop which only has a 7600 go 256 mb Graphics card, and i get over 35 fps constant...
even while running AoC i only use 1.6gb's of 2gb's
Soon im going to install 4gb's in my laptop and add a 64 bit processor just to use x64bit version of Vista cause it performs really great on my friends laptop....
I can tell you from experiance that if you know how to correctly setup vista and trim down the stuff that you dont need "like windows deffender" and fuckin UAC (the thing that pops up for noobs everytime u do something)
its so simple.....
you guys are just inexperianced with vista and are not willing to learn and give it a try... so thats why you will use xp and reformat every month from virus/bit rot / instability .....
I have not had BSOD while using vista,
It never crashes/ Never stalls / Never complains / never nags/ never gives me 100 error messages that mean absolutely nothing..
Xp ALWAYS CRASHES, ALWAYS BSODS, ALWAYS needs maintenance out the kazoo!
if you judge vista from experiences on a name brand pre-installed copy you are dumb.
My advice... If you have a computer faster than a Pentium 4 2.0Ghz, 1gb Ram and the equivalent of an x800 xt you should use vista, but if your computer has no video card and bellow 1gb ram, you should use Xp... just because vista needs an environment where it can function properly...
If you where a professional boxer, and they told you to fight rambo... you would say ok lets go....
But then they say but wait we only have these shoes with holes in them and only one glove, and btw we have no lights on the stage, .... you wont be able to fight effectively... and the well equipped rambo will rape ur ass and you wont even be able to stand cause of your shity shoes.
This is the same situation... if vista has no where to stand and is in an environment that causes it to be inefficient ... it wont perform well
Vista Needs resources and room to breathe, its like a thorough bread horse trying to breath underwater . . . it just drowns under all of your garbage computer parts.
Btw Me and nopeace disagreed on a lot, But I think even he would meet me half way on what I said here... he even used to talk about how well windows 2008 server was running some games... only thing me and him really disagreed on was how good/bad windows 2000 Was, and piracy ( we have diff views on the subject) on and the fact that xbox 360 is better than Ps3 ^^ ( I still prefer xbox360... better titles)
Most programs are designed for Windows XP in x32 bit. And less programs are designed for x64 bit. I have never used x64-computers myself, but I would stick to x32. It's the best, and 90% out of all programs are compatible with it. But it's really up to you whether you want to use x32 or x64.
You can use more Ram under 64 bit, Thus you can do more/Run More 32 bit and 64 bit programs at same time... 64 bit computing is more robust than 32 bit...
If you have a 64 bit CPU why not use it...?
vista has come a long way since release . . . over 8,000 tweaks/mods/bug fixes have been introduced in SP1 alone . . . countless fixes after...
Needless to say you always have the early adopters / later adopters of new technology . . . hell you even have people still actually using windows 95 or earlier. . .
if all you do on your computer is run word and note pad and listen to mp3's why use vista xp 2000 / 2003 or even 98 . .. windows 95 did all those things . . . and uses what 10mb ram ? ^^
64 bit has a larger Memory Allocation size and when running 64 bit applications / games, they will run much more stable apposed to 32... we are talking about the future of computing ... not just NOW/Today
As for me... Windows Vista x64 bit runs all my games and programs flawlessly on my desktop...
q6600 / geforce 8800 / 4gb Ram on a 680i chip
Btw many games already do run under 64 bit ...
half life 2 is one of them. . . consequently the mods of half life 2 like team fortress etc... should also be able to take advantage of 64 bit computing...
32bit apps can run on 64 bit windows, with some minimal configuration (google it),
i managed my windows XP like year ago to run 32 bit apps/games.
and still.. there was errors sometimes with some programs/games, but the most of them was working fine.
the best i don't know, depends for what u want it, if its not for big server or something then use 32bit
i give my vote for the 64bit ;)
p.s windows is not the best :D
was there ever a 16 bit windows?? if so when?
Ok, my first disowner. I have a clean install copy of windows vista business, straight from Microsoft. This is the PC, my dad currently has. Vista, was straight out SHIT on that thing. He bought it, it came with vista, IT WAS SHIT. Infact, the performance was SOOOOO bad, we thought it was a fault with the CPU. So guess what we did. We ripped out a good old copy of Windows XP Pro. Ohh shit..... whats this! The thing doesnt take 15 freaking minutes to boot up anymore through all the useless shit Microsoft put into vista just to make it look nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
2nd disowner. DUH! Who the fuck buys labelled computers anyway? Unless of course they are laptops, but be aware, not all computer companies clog your system full of shit. ( *Specifically points at Compaq and HP and smirks as he has a Toshiba laptop* )Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
Couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
What the HELL have you been doing to your drive man? Holy jesus. 10 reformats? What have you been doing? Chucking laptop harddrives out the freaking window man? Shit, my dads prior computer to what he has now only had XP reinstalled ONCE in 5 1/2 years! And he used the thing EVERYDAY!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
Here's a little test. Grab that little old laptop of yours, and set it up with a dual boot. Then post a screenshot of the FRAMERATE on XP compared to Vista. At the LEAST XP will add another 20FPS to that, simply because its XP, and it doesnt need all that freakin DX10 shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
Have fun! Do the same thing with XP though! And no doubt, its gonna run GREATER than your friends laptop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
Windows defender? UAC? LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
( No more needs to be said. )
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
1. What kinda fuckin virus protection do you use? Your left ass cheek?
2. Instabilities.... Ever heard of www.update.microsoft.com?
Well thats funny isnt it. I would say the exact opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
So is this what vista looks like during boot?Quote:
The Blue Screen of Death (abbreviated BSoD), also known as The Blue Screen of Doom, the "Blue Screen of Fun", "Phatul Exception: The WRECKening" and "Windows Vista".
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia.../97/Vista3.jpg
And this would be.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
So, please explain to me, WHAT THE HELL IS VISTA WHEN IT IS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
All i can do to your response is laugh really...
1) I have Run Dual Boot before and I had the same exact Fps in almost every Game... Some performed better in vista ... some in xp.. talking differance of -/+ 2 Fps....( the newer games performed a little better on vista...)( the older games like counter strike 1.6 had issues, with Fps that could be resolved by disabling vertical sync... then ran at over 100 Fps in developer mode... and 99 fps the physical maximum for that game in non dev mode...)
2) You probably didnt have SP1 or any of the drivers installed on your dads comp...
3) Vista needs a few hours of Running to get used to user habits and situate itself... its not as clear cut as install and your done at optimal performance..
4) If you have not reformated xp for that long then
A) you are a telling a lie.
B) you Restart the computer OFTEN
C) the computer is so slow that no one does anything on it but use word/firefox... so they wouldnt know if it was slow in the first place.
Vista functions optimaly under an environment between 1gb to 4gb of ram...
where it has a Processor that is atleast multi threaded... ( HT etc..)
The gui ( Aero if you enable it, needs a better graphics card) Vista Basic doesnt...
But i mean for God sake I have a Penitum 3 with 512 mb ram and a geforce 5200 video card ... Running vista Business edition NON SP1 and it STILL RUNS Reasonably well.... so
HOW BAD IS YOUR COMP LOL?
Proly a POS Celeron possessor
vista doesn't cost that much, Oem copies... (and Who actually purchases it anyways...?) I think i seen copies of ultimate selling for like 120$ ... less than what Xp pro used to cost. . .. *cough 200$*
vista with Sp1 Incorporated or slip streamed is much better than the ones they sell anyway...
Again you agree with me most people who buy computers from Hp/Dell/compaq etc have a shit load of garbage pre-installed.... or a version of vista that there computer cant even run.
As to you installing Xp and computer running great after, have fun installing it again in a week...
Again I ACTUALLY TEST THINGS, That is why I try Different Versions of XP vs. different Versions of vista....
There are hundreds of different types of pre configured Windows Xp installs that are out there.... I HAVE TESTED ALMOST ALL OF THEM AND WAS UTTERLY DISGUSTED THAT I DECIDED ON MY OWN ACCORD TO CUSTOMIZE MY OWN COPY OF VISTA, CAN YOU SAY THE SAME DIPSHIT? To me squeezing every bit of performance out of my portable gaming laptop is IMPORTANT... that is why i dedicated DAYS to the Task. In the end after almost a week and half and 30 DvD'Rs I came to the conclusion after benchmarking and 3dMark . . . that I was getting the Optimal gaming performance out of my 3 year old laptop With My customized Version of Vista 32 Bit SP1.... (Higher Fps, Faster game load times, faster file Transfers, Better multitasking, More responsive file indexing/searching through mp3s... and less crashes...) ... WHO THE HELL CARES if Your comp Takes an extra 9 Sec. To startup...
As long as it runs my games above my expectations I could Care less...
You are clearly completely biast in your view, I admit that Xp has its place... but it is NOT in any computer that you can build today for atleast 550$
How is it that I and 9 Other friends all GAME on My vista versions, have not reformated in 4 Months and Play every modern Game JUST FINE while you all cant seem to figure out how to even disable UAC...
O and for Anti-Virus,
a) I am not dumb enough to get a virus in the first place.....
b) I use Kaspersky suite... The best least intrusive antivrius.
c) Most of you still use a SOFTWARE firewall, because you are to dumb to realize that routers have a hardware one built in...
Other Software I use...
Hijackthis/Kaspersky/adaware/Spybot/Spyware Blaster
DUDE your an EPIC FAILURE AT LIFE, You dont know half the shit I do about OS'S/ Computer Performance... I built my First PC when I was just 5, Running Dos, I was spinning track Balls and double clicking when you where still sucking on your mothers tit.
Hell I could make my own OS if I wanted to. -_-
All I have been saying, is that in the cases of me and 9 of my friends comps, vista actualy performs BETTER than Xp.... Now for your computer / parts/ specific situation that may not be the case... maybe you have a shity chipset... maybe your computer has 512 mb ram... Maybe your dick got stock in your Usb slot while you where trying to have "Cyber Sex" causing a short.... given situations have a given solution, In your case your comp sucks so you have to use Xp.... GG now GTFO of here b4 I Slap you with my thumbdrive and teabag you.
PS: I have A CRAZY FAST DESKTOP WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I RUN ALL MY GAMES IN DX 9 Garbage MODE? 0o
If you have not played in Dx 10 you dont know wtf you are missing... the graphics look astounding especialy on my 32" LCD ^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
whooah, dont get this dude pissed....
anyway, with my hp gaming laptop (2gigs ram, 250 gig hd, amd 64 x2 turion nvidia go graphics) all i did was a reinstall of vista (trialware and shit?) and it worked fine. and for all u dip shits who miss xp, look up DUAL BOOT ON WIKIPEDIA.
Laterz,
Ninja
haha GO WITH 128 bit!!! IT ROCKS ZOMG!!! haha, seriously tho, obviously got with 64bit.
O God please delete this world and start over, you clearly fucked up the first time with the entire creation idea...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
Hmm. Well i got nothing against you as a person, but i sure as shit dont agree with you about vista. Because i still have common sense, im gonna leave it at that.
common sense? I highly doubt you are capable;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fatslob222
truth be told I don't care what you use... but just cause you have problems with vista doesn't mean the entire world does.... :bad:
LOL. Jesus, look at the statistics man. Almost EVERY poll you look at on the net, more than 70% ( give or take 10% ) will go for XP, about 25% vista, and about 5% Unix related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
Well yeah, from that, the world pretty much does have a problem with vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
Because 64bit drivers suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenosaga21
As for vista, I'ld rather not have 5gb of unused bloatware on my PC.
My entire vista install is less than 4gb's :happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by lukyjay
Polls mean nothing... if you put an option on every poll with the choice " I don't know wtf is going on " 90% of people will click it for fun ... ^^
vista Sp1 32bit/64bit is Fine there is nothing wrong with it you guys just buy into hype to much.
I ran all the Os's and find vista runs great.
aether way it doesn't make a sufferance everyone will use what they are comfortable with in the end... and everyone has there own opinions on the best setup....
Shall we all just agree to disagree?
i cant believe this thread is still alive ..
Xenosaga21 obviously sells ms vista and has erections all night long for vista.
everybody else doesn't like it. shall we end this then ?
Pitching a tent over vista? ive just bought a new rig and told Vista to GTFO
O yea me and vista get it on all night long... the orgasms are endless. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by omen
Also everybody else who? There is only 3 - 4 people posting in this thread and honestly I don't believe that they have computers capable of running any of the new games above low...
Anyways Curious enough i have been looking around for benchmarks for Xp vs Vista Sp1
Most of the Fps readings where within 1 - 2 fps from each other...
Load times where much faster for vista because of superfetch . . .
So Your looking at Faster Load times on vista with Comparable Fps... so whats the big fucking deal then ? why not use vista...
You may all be quick to judge, I have given tons of reasons showing the advantages of gaming on vista...only thing all of you have been able to say/do is offer no reason not to use vista other than stating your distaste for it...
im sorry but I will take my benchmarks as well as others benchmarks over "your distaste" I prefer tangible results over all of these intangible beliefs and misconceptions .
Here is a link to some alternate benchmarks ...
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...ad.php?t=72298
clearly the newer games performed better on Vista than they did on xp.. with a few exceptions ...
Load times for complex programs like Photoshop etc... where hands down best in vista... I mean 2 sec load time vs 8.5 sec on Xp...
Some of the benchmarks are also very close but questionable as the method he used to gauge them using fraps is not as accurate as i would like...
aether way I have done similar testing as to this guy... hands down i pick vista... also not to mention it is quite possible that this guy used a Beta candidate version of SP1 which was not finalized... a lot has changed since then...
Ps: something must also be wrong with that guys rig... cause I get an average of like 40 Fps on my Geforce 8800 in crysis on DX10 0o and i didnt even buy the game it's dl'd lol
anyways I still think windows 2000 server advanced was the best in terms of gaming. . . . large memory limit . . . good computability. . . low resource requirements ... rarely had any issues. . . just got tired of the Gui a little is all.... and all you had to do to get it up and ready for gaming was enable sound and turn on graphics acceleration... which are disabled by default.
Xeno, I don't know what you've been doing with XP, but I've never had to reinstall XP. Never. I did it once to upgrade from Home to Pro and once due to a hard drive crash (initiated by a worm.)
My current installation of XP Pro dates back to July 2005.
Don't blame the operating system if you can't properly maintain it.
As for all that crapware that comes bundled in OEMs from HP, Dell and other such companies, you can uninstall it all. Just because you don't know how, doesn't mean you can't.
Lol. Im gonna quote myself, because i can, and because the last couple of people just proved it lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatslob222
By the time you uninstall all that garbage, you could have formatted twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by fuckstick
Vista installs in under 15 min on my pc... and Sp1 already incorporates 95% of the latest drivers.+ I have integrated all my computers drivers that i need onto my Vista install DvD myself... Along with a few extra themes ^^..
2nd windows Xp has a shorter half-life than any other OS.
Bit Rot is windows xp's worst enemy due to its inefficient indexing and poor handling of the windows registry . . . Windows xp over normal use
4 - 5 Months will lose efficiency and NEED a complete format to get back to what it was when it was first installed...
Windows xp over time = MAJOR DATA CORRUPTION AND LOSS
Windows Vista has not overcome this problem but it has made great strides in progress... giving it a longer half life ...
A half life is like a bell curve .... Windows Gains efficiency for a certain time until it reaches its peak... at which point the system's errors and corruption/loss of data begin to hinder its performance...
We are not just talking about simple maintenance ... but the practical time it takes to maintain an OS... ie
sit there and reinstall The os ( and none of your programs if you backed up nicely which takes about 25 Min) or sit there every 2 days cleaning up the mess that Xp leaves behind as it works with files.
... Your computer on average makes 1000's of writes and reads to the harddrive every hour... you think it does a perfect job every time? If you believe it does... you are nuts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatslob222
like i said half the people don't know the first thing about there computer, so there posts/polls/votes/opinions are worthless to me.
most of them the only OS they have ever used is Xp..
I have Used
Dos
Windows 3.1x
Linux /redhat/ubuntu/etc...
Windows 2000 / advanced/datacenter etc.. (Advanced is better than Xp)
windows Me (worst of all)
Windows Xp Pro.... Home etc suck... so why bother talking about those
windows vista Ultimate/Business.... even the Kms editions for server side authentication..
Windows 2003 server (great for gaming when configured as a workstation...)
Windows 2008 server ( probably the best out of all of these ... maybe only equaled in performance only by 2000 advanced)
I have run benchmarks... tested/built/configured/troublshot almost every problem on each of these systems... from networking ... down to simple things... broken registry entries missing dll's.... so far the one that is the most hastle free is Vista ... -_-
I have nothing to gain from anyone believing me... I don't sell vista... I don't even own microsoft stock...in fact i hate microsoft ... i dont even buy most of there products, cause they are so overpriced.... and I get most of this junk for free... or Beta test it.... so
believe what you want... but if you had half the balls to prove yourself wrong you would sit there waste time doing what I did .... TEST IT.
Sorry for bring this back up but know one has answer it. Was there a MS 16 bit OS??
wahahahaahahaha, ure funny, WHTF, i agree with omen, if ure not shure of something just dont post.
It takes minutes, 30-45 minutes tops if it's a particularly large plethora.Quote:
By the time you uninstall all that garbage, you could have formatted twice.
Well, gee. I guess if even a small fraction of all of that were true, I'd be getting dozens of corrupt and orphaned files daily and constantly having to run chkdsk!Quote:
2nd windows Xp has a shorter half-life than any other OS.
Bit Rot is windows xp's worst enemy due to its inefficient indexing and poor handling of the windows registry . . . Windows xp over normal use
4 - 5 Months will lose efficiency and NEED a complete format to get back to what it was when it was first installed...
Windows xp over time = MAJOR DATA CORRUPTION AND LOSS
Windows Vista has not overcome this problem but it has made great strides in progress... giving it a longer half life ...
A half life is like a bell curve .... Windows Gains efficiency for a certain time until it reaches its peak... at which point the system's errors and corruption/loss of data begin to hinder its performance...
We are not just talking about simple maintenance ... but the practical time it takes to maintain an OS... ie
sit there and reinstall The os ( and none of your programs if you backed up nicely which takes about 25 Min) or sit there every 2 days cleaning up the mess that Xp leaves behind as it works with files.
... Your computer on average makes 1000's of writes and reads to the harddrive every hour... you think it does a perfect job every time? If you believe it does... you are nuts...
I run clutter maintenance every month and perfomance maintenance every 6 months.
I have yet to fall victim to any corrupt files on my system.
The most I get is a false positive (caused by software bugs) every few months.
Also, all the "MAJOR DATA CORRUPTION AND LOSS" bit rot woes you continually spit out are solved rather easily with a nifty little built-in Windows tool called System File Checker, which finds and replaces all corrupt/missing system files directly from your install disc, saving you the need of a reinstallation.