Gaming World Forums

General Category => Technology and Programming => Topic started by: Bondo on April 23, 2008, 07:04:46 pm

Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Bondo on April 23, 2008, 07:04:46 pm
That is the question.  Whether tis nobler to use XP...

I dual boot Windows XP and Ubuntu right now.  Windows is mainly my gaming OS, while Ubuntu is everything else.  The problem is, when I look into the future, I can already feel the pressure to upgrade windows to Vista.

Right now, I'm sticking with XP because it's faster than Vista, has better compatibility for older games and such, and uses a fraction of the resources that Vista uses.  But still, it's only a matter of time before Microsoft completely stops supporting XP, and games start requiring DirectX 10.

I don't want to add another OS to my boot loader.  Two versions of Windows is a bit much for me.  I'm even thinking of dropping Ubuntu just to centralize everything onto one OS.  While Windows will do everything I need (Games, word processing, internet, etc.) Ubuntu will not (Games... mainly.)

My PC specs are on the "Tell us about your computer" thread, here - http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=5129.0  As you can see, with 3 gigs of ram, I know that vista will run just fine.  I even researched all the devices on my machine, and discovered that everything but my TV tuner has 64 bit drivers available for it.  I don't use my TV tuner enough to care.

Reasons for each OS:

Windows XP:
Faster than Vista.
Better compatibility for older software.
Not held back at all for current games.

Windows Vista:
Increased potential for things that aren't out yet.
Support will eventually swing in this direction anyway.
Performance decrease is only marginal for games vs XP. (From benchmarks I've seen anyway.  A few games even ran a little better.)

What are your experiences with each OS?  Are there any other reasons why I should/shouldn't upgrade?  Should I throw away my computer and become a hunter/gatherer, lurking in the woods in search of berries and wild boar, living up in a tree?
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: local_dunce on April 23, 2008, 07:41:13 pm
Technically I don't know much about WHY THS WHY THAT but when Vista was released I saw no reason not to upgrade so I got myself a copy of Vista Ultimate and I've had no problems with it so far. It was a gigantic step up from XP in every way for me, it looked smooth and had a lot more great features and I've actually had BETTER compatability with older games, even ones that have said they have compatability issues. I've been running a lot of DOS games that I couldn't get working XP and every game that has popped up with the "This game has known compatability errors" dialogue has still run perfectly after you click "Okay." Vista has been faster than XP for me (I had a terrible version of XP apparently.) so I've been really happy with it.

The BIG PROBLEM I have been having is that for some reason I don't have permission to do anything on my computer anymore. Every time something happens it beeps, puts everything on standby and says "HEH YOU NEED PERMISSION TO DO THIS CLICK OKAY." so you do at which point it says PERMISSION DENIED and you have to go to the folder options and edit all the security settings which is seriously tedious every time you want to save something.

I think this is a problem with me though. Anyway I don't want to recommend Vista to you because a lot of people have had problems with it, but for me it's really been a drastic improvement.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: HL on April 23, 2008, 07:52:05 pm
OK it's basically really simple:

If your Windows XP is working just fine, keep it.
If your Windows XP is starting to not-work-so-hot (tons of Spyware, weird virii, etc) get Vista there is absolutely no reason not to besides having a working Windows XP.

Also Vista should work with every old game, the only reason it wouldn't is if your PC is too fast but there is programs to slow it down. It has compatibility modes just like XP does.

EDIT:
Also you can disable the things that make Vista take an FPS hit, as well.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Mama Luigi on April 23, 2008, 11:18:49 pm
I really hated Vista until I actually sat down and used it (I was having problems with my XP). I had the same fears as everyone: nothing would be compatible, games would run like ass, specs wouldn't be good enough, etc.

Those fears were all put to rest incredibly quickly.

Even with a 3 year old system (socket 939 AMD 4000+, 1.5 GB DDR 3200 RAM, 7800 GT) things run smooth and beautifully. My games run just as good as they did on XP - maybe a frame or 2 less a second but nothing noticable. My shit all still works (and I mean everything... I haven't run into a piece of software that hasn't worked on Vista). Some of the new features like superfetch are scary if you don't know what they are, but are easy to appreciate once you understand how they work. As a commercial artist, the improved Windows Explorer is great as is the ability to scale any of your icons with extreme ease. UAC can be turned off but I leave it on for the added security blanket (it really only bugs you when you're installing programs and when you're running something as an admin, so it isn't so big of a hassle). I used to use a pirated version of diskeeper to keep my hard drive's defragmented but Windows will do it for you automatically this time around. That's the nice thing about Vista - it does a much better job of taking care of itself. What else... oh god right the new integrated search feature - it's impressive to say the least. Windows key (start) + p + h + enter and Photoshop is firing up. Any program can be opened this way which is really nice.

Sorry to sound like a Microsoft representive or something but I must say that Vista refines Windows XP in a lot of ways. There are still some problems, for sure. One being the fact that it runs like ass on 512 megs of RAM... wouldn't ever recommend that. They also really screwed up the control panel and network settings to the point where it's inefficient. But overall I feel Vista is a great step up from Windows XP. Are any of the new features really worth spending $100 for? Well... probably not. I got my copy of Vista for free through my school. It's basically Windows XP with some interface upgrades. That said, these are nice upgrades which I can appreciate, and I would never go back to using XP on my own personal computer.


EDIT: Also, I have never ever encountered a BSOD on Vista... which is a nice change of pace because it happened every once in awhile on XP. Yeah, a lot of this post is sort of unnecessary and off-topic but I need to balance some of the trash-talk and negative shit I hear about Vista all the time. I, for one, really like it!
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Drule on April 23, 2008, 11:37:58 pm
I think Vista is horrible. It has tons of small glitches in the most commonly used functions and they will piss you off to no end. It also has a lot of retarded design implementations for inexperienced users that are about as annoying.

I wouldn't get it if I were you!
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Feldschlacht IV on April 23, 2008, 11:58:12 pm
Vista is really really slow and it eats up a lot of memory if your computer isn't up to snuff. There's no harm in waiting, at least.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Mama Luigi on April 24, 2008, 12:18:12 am
Quote from: Feldschlacht IV on April 23, 2008, 11:58:12 pm
Vista is really really slow and it eats up a lot of memory if your computer isn't up to snuff. There's no harm in waiting, at least.
On the memory issue - you may be talking about Superfetch, which again, is scary if you don't understand it. When your computer is idle, you may pop into Task Manager and... dear god, so much RAM is being used! Even the processor is working much harder than it would have been on XP. What Vista does is that it recognizes that you aren't using these resources, and instead of letting them just sit to waste it puts them to good use. As quoted from Microsoft's site:
Quote
Windows SuperFetch enables programs and files to load much faster than they would on Windows XP–based PCs.
SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them. Windows Vista also runs background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.
However, as soon as you start opening a resource hungry app, Vista quietly steps aside and gives you back your resources you weren't using.

After reading a myriad of benchmarks, the concensus is that XP is better at raw speed but lacks the reliable, consistant performance Vista has. This doesn't mean Vista is slow, as you assert, but is admittedly a bit slower than XP at certain things. For instance, Superfetch has 'learned' that I use that I use Photoshop a lot and it opens noticably quicker on Vista than it ever did on XP, which is very nice.

And on your comment about needing a computer that's up to snuff... it really isn't difficult to have a Vista-ready computer. 1GB of RAM and a decent processor (my 2.4 ghz single core works great) will run Vista as it should.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Ghost_Aspergers on April 24, 2008, 02:44:58 am
I'm still on Windows 2k!
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Mr. Actionist on April 24, 2008, 08:23:01 am
I think vista's ok, as soon as I disabled the security prompts, everything was fine. I think if you get Service Pack 1, it runs games and other 'resource hungry apps' slightly better.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Hundley on April 24, 2008, 08:36:15 am
honestly, i would suggest trying vista out first. seems to be hit and miss with a lot of people.

i strongly dislike vista, personally. it feels like they took xp and added all these needless GADGETS and shit that are only useful to people who aren't particularly interested in running an efficient system. it's like they made the whole damn process of using a computer more time-consuming and less intuitive because most computer users are DUMP AUDIENCE and would waste lots of time trying to find things anyway. i can't speak as much for how things actually run once you get them started but the organization and presentation itself is just lame and messy.

i mean, it's probably like xp where you can get the thing to work rather well if you get good at disabling all of microsoft's cute and useless bullshit, but it feels like a lot more stupid shit that you'll need to take care of with no noticeable upgrade in terms of the way the interface is put together.

so yeah, my advice is to hold off on it unless there's some actual REASON to get it, like a game or something you physically cannot run effectively(if at all) on xp. hopefully they'll iron out a lot of the glitches and provide quality fixes for the dumb shit in the near future.


oh yeah, it's worth noting that the various computer industries definitely aren't abandoning xp yet, so it's not like there's really a definitive REASON to get vista unless you like the interface or are getting a computer anyway and don't feel like postponing the inevitable.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Niitaka on April 24, 2008, 09:03:37 am
vista is a prostitute wearing way too much makeup and says, do you really want to fuck me? every time you touch her
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: goat on April 24, 2008, 10:48:21 am
If your focus is a gaming OS, you should be fine and dandy with XP. Since a majority of games not only run faster, but are more stable in XP, it's still the #1 choice for a PC gaming OS. The only lure it has for gamers right now is Direct X 10 which is right now not only barely optimized, but doesn't have much of a noticable advantage over Direct X 9 in most instances. Since Vista is shown to run just about everything slower than XP, if you have no problem with XP, just stay with it, and enjoy to soon-to-come SP3 for it. Just because MS Switches their support away from a product doesn't mean you won't find help on it (they also extended their support for XP until about 2009-2010, because of so many people refusing Vista). And don't assume that just because your hardware has a driver for Vista that it will run as well as it did on XP. There's still a lot of things Vista needs to work out. I'm with you that someday we'll all eventually be using it (or its successor), but that time is nowhere near soon.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Bart on April 24, 2008, 02:41:49 pm
do not get vista

I got it on my home pc and it's just crappy. I recently re-installed Ubuntu and favour it over Vista, but can't use it exclusively until I get dual monitors working (but I am lazy on doing that as it's not necessary to be done)

in my opinion stick with XP and be happy with it

hell even steve ballmer said vista is still not finished (http://www.cio.com/article/336925/Ballmer_Vista_is_a_Work_in_Progress_)
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Bondo on April 25, 2008, 03:27:42 am
Thanks for the feedback.  I think I'll hold off on Vista for the time being.  If I have an extra 130usd, then I may pick up a copy, but I don't think I'll make the extra effort and investment to make the move just yet.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: theHunter on April 25, 2008, 12:46:00 pm
I had Vista and it was using up like 20% of my CPU on idle and like 40% when I was in Firefox... I was like WTF? XP only uses like a max of 2%-5%.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: HL on April 25, 2008, 01:01:09 pm
Quote from: theHunter on April 25, 2008, 12:46:00 pm
I had Vista and it was using up like 20% of my CPU on idle and like 40% when I was in Firefox... I was like WTF? XP only uses like a max of 2%-5%.

SuperFetch.....
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: hero_bash on April 25, 2008, 06:51:26 pm
Get Vista now.. the only thing taht would stop you fromm upgrading will be hardware. But with your specs, it's a fine pc already. Softwares and technology are now starting the focus on windows vista. Sonn, xp will just be something like 98..
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: reko on April 25, 2008, 08:35:37 pm
Quote from: handsome lamb on April 25, 2008, 01:01:09 pm
SuperFetch.....
SuperFetch doesn't (or shoudn't) actively use up CPU. It just caches most used programs in RAM.

Anyway I like Vista as much as I did XP, or even more. It's a bit different and it seemed weird and hard to use first but after a day or two of use it was fine. I haven't noticed any horrible load times, lag or bad performance in games. I have a pretty good setup but I think a lot of people are exaggerating as well. But I can't say for sure since I haven't experienced the so called horrendous performance of Vista. The only shitty thing about Vista (especially the 64-bit version) was that a lot of drivers were incompatible with it, but now, a year and a half or so, you hardly have that problem anymore. At least I can easily find all the drivers I need for Vista and they work fine.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: goat on April 25, 2008, 09:23:23 pm
You cannot bank your opinion so much on personal experience. You may have had no problem with drivers but that doesn't clear others from having them. Even proud vista supporters wouldn't say the OS doesn't have a driver problem anymore. And with that said, I'm not saying vista is runs slower from personal experience, but it's a widely known FACT, that can be shown from countless XP vs Vista benchmarks. XP outperforms vista across the board in more than 90% of the tests, with vista only matching or barely beating out XP in the rest. There's no doubt in my mind that if XP was given DX10 it would also run it faster in most instances (but why would they give up one of the only few selling points of Vista). Vista uses more ram, and supports less applications than XP, so if your stuff runs fine in XP there is honestly no reason to get it at this point in time. Especially for gaming.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Neophyte on April 25, 2008, 09:30:34 pm
I think if you've got a solid system, Vista is a decent upgrade. It's probably not worth it just yet even with SP1, but I think in about a year I can see myself switching. Of course I can see some people not even bother with it. People used to come in where I used to work with Pentium II computers and 128MB of ram asking what the hell they needed for Vista. There's still so many users out there who don't meet the OS's requirements, and I think that's where the big issue is. But XP was like that when it first came out as well, so this was expected.
I've still got my Vista Home Premium sitting in my closet that I got from that retail edge. If any of you want it, I can give it away fairly cheap.

Also yeah, if DX10 went to XP, I would never switch until 2013.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: JohnnyCasil on April 25, 2008, 09:49:01 pm
Quote from: goat on April 25, 2008, 09:23:23 pm
There's no doubt in my mind that if XP was given DX10 it would also run it faster in most instances (but why would they give up one of the only few selling points of Vista).

Vanilla DX10 wouldn't.  DX10 takes advantage of Vista's new driver system to allow it to do things that cannot be done on XP due to limitations in XP's display driver system.  This is not to say that a working replica of DX10 could not run on XP, because this has already been done.  The problem is that some of the things DX10 does to be fast cannot be replicated on XP at all.  However, if the OpenGL ARB would get their act together, OpenGL 3.0 would more than rival DX10.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: zithe on April 26, 2008, 09:33:50 pm
Quote from: Bondo on April 23, 2008, 07:04:46 pm
*main topic*

The only reason anyone would want to downgrade/upgrade to vista is for Dx10, or if you´re an ATi fanboy and you only want vista because your 3000 series sucks in XP. NOONE upgrades to vista for MS Office or... security (MS LOL). Also, I´ve heard that 64bit hardware has notoriously bad support, so I´d stick to 32 bit since you really don´t get anything so great from 64. (not that I know of, at least) In my opinion, it´s just another thing to slow your computer down and ruin your experience.



Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Mama Luigi on April 26, 2008, 09:46:53 pm
Quote from: zithe on April 26, 2008, 09:33:50 pm
NOONE upgrades to vista for... security (MS LOL).
Vista undeniably has better security. Undeniably. UAC and Windows Defender are worlds better than what XP came with (hint: nothing!).

From my personal experience, Vista is practically as immune as a Mac when it comes to spyware and shit. I've been using Vista for probably around 7 months now, and I haven't gotten a single byte of malware on my computer. I was one of those people who - on XP - ended up getting lots of really bad shit. There were times where I wanted to throw my computer out the window in frustration when trying to deal with difficult spyware (you know, the shit that keeps reinstalling itself even if you delete it with 6 other spyware programs?). After several reformats, I kind of learned that you couldn't just go wherever you wanted on the internet through XP or you were asking for trouble. Sub-sequentially my final few months in XP after a reformat were problem-free so I do believe someone careful enough in the XP environment will not run into spyware (I know of at least one person who insists he never had spyware in XP).

I don't know if it's just that I haven't been visiting the right websites on Vista or what, but the fact that I haven't had any personal run-ins with spyware yet is a great sigh of relief for me. It might also help that I'm using the Opera browser as opposed to something less secure and more mainstream like Firefox and IE.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: `~congresman Ron paul~~ on April 26, 2008, 11:36:25 pm
Quote from: scubacoaster on April 23, 2008, 07:41:13 pm
Technically I don't know much about WHY THS WHY THAT but when Vista was released I saw no reason not to upgrade so I got myself a copy of Vista Ultimate and I've had no problems with it so far. It was a gigantic step up from XP in every way for me, it looked smooth and had a lot more great features and I've actually had BETTER compatability with older games, even ones that have said they have compatability issues. I've been running a lot of DOS games that I couldn't get working XP and every game that has popped up with the "This game has known compatability errors" dialogue has still run perfectly after you click "Okay." Vista has been faster than XP for me (I had a terrible version of XP apparently.) so I've been really happy with it.

The BIG PROBLEM I have been having is that for some reason I don't have permission to do anything on my computer anymore. Every time something happens it beeps, puts everything on standby and says "HEH YOU NEED PERMISSION TO DO THIS CLICK OKAY." so you do at which point it says PERMISSION DENIED and you have to go to the folder options and edit all the security settings which is seriously tedious every time you want to save something.

I think this is a problem with me though. Anyway I don't want to recommend Vista to you because a lot of people have had problems with it, but for me it's really been a drastic improvement.

You can, with a simple registry edit, change your access to Administrator and get past all the UAC bullshit.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: goat on April 27, 2008, 06:22:53 am
You can disable UAC (http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/12/19/turn-off-or-disable-user-account-control-uac-in-windows-vista/) in user account settings in Vista's control panel.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: theHunter on April 27, 2008, 09:53:20 am
Quote from: handsome lamb on April 25, 2008, 01:01:09 pm
SuperFetch.....

Ah well XP runs everything smoother on my rig + I can do more shit at once.  I'll prolly upgrade again sometime but not anytime soon.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: GameMX on April 28, 2008, 10:20:41 am
Back when I was playing around with Operating Systems more often, I literally enjoyed Windows Server 2003 over Windows XP. If you don't like the user friendly crap of Windows Vista, maybe Server 2008 IF it does well. I have not heard much news of Server 2008, though it seems to be like Vista minus alot of the User Friendly crap. Kind of like Server 2003 and XP.

Though you will find that it's set up as a server first (duh). If you use it as a personal operating system for gaming, you'll need to install quite a bit because alot is disabled at first, but literally I was in more control of what crap I wanted and didn't.

...But apparently there was a problem with Windows Server 2008, I'm not 100% sure, but apparently Windows Server 2008 reactivates itself(?) every 180 days, and that system was glitched, making it lock you out. You'll have to look into that if you want to choose that yourself.

Personally I pick Server 2003 first, XP next.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: `~congresman Ron paul~~ on April 28, 2008, 12:46:02 pm
Quote from: goat on April 27, 2008, 06:22:53 am
You can disable UAC (http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/12/19/turn-off-or-disable-user-account-control-uac-in-windows-vista/) in user account settings in Vista's control panel.

Seriously not recommended since it fucks with all of your program settings - if you installed a program with UAC on and turn it off it is likely to need reinstallation and vice versa.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Neophyte on April 28, 2008, 02:16:29 pm
Quote from: GameMX on April 28, 2008, 10:20:41 am
Personally I pick Server 2003 first, XP next.
Windows Server 2003 was so good. It really did function better than XP, and didn't use nearly as many resources. The only reason I switched from Server 2003 to XP was because some games and software wouldn't install on Server 2003. There were sometimes workarounds, but usually they took too much time.
Yeah, I also had to reinstall it every 180 days, which sucked sometimes because I'm unorganized and don't ever keep the disc in the same location.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Fish on May 01, 2008, 04:04:10 am
Quote from: benjamin franklin on April 28, 2008, 12:46:02 pm
Seriously not recommended since it fucks with all of your program settings - if you installed a program with UAC on and turn it off it is likely to need reinstallation and vice versa.

I haven't experienced anything of this sort. I think UAC is a pretty pointless thing to have active especially on a single user PC.

Speaking of which that fucking Mac ad pisses me off that makes fun of it, I'm all for Macs but those ads are such pretentious bullshit.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: dom on May 02, 2008, 05:55:01 pm
Quote from: Fish on May 01, 2008, 04:04:10 am
I haven't experienced anything of this sort. I think UAC is a pretty pointless thing to have active especially on a single user PC.
yes security is so useless

Quote from: Fish
Speaking of which that fucking Mac ad pisses me off that makes fun of it, I'm all for Macs but those ads are such pretentious bullshit.
stop
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Pulits on May 09, 2008, 04:18:59 am
I wouldn't recommend Windows Vista, not even to my worse enemy.

My experiencie with Vista: I bought a Dell XPS M1710, worth around $3,000 USD. 2GB of RAM, 100HDD, GeForce 7500 GTX, Centrino Duo @ 2.16. Yeah, a top notch laptop.
First thing I notice when I open my PC and transffer my old stuff: Windows Media Player LAGS. I'm like "wtf..". By the end of each song, the song lags. I googled it ASAP and it seems I'm not the only one with this problem. Ok, I get Winamp. Winamp closes every now and then.

Oh yes, another thing that I found extremly funny. My laptop arrived with Roxio Easy CD Creator. And although I've never used it, it marks an error everytime I log on my laptop.

By October or November, the first upgrades arrive, and since then... around 70% of these upgrades just won't install. And the PC unconvientenly reboots everytime I use it. Again, I have searched all over for solutions and it seems there are none. Just format.

About formating, my HDD ican hold 100GB, well... when I first got my laptop, around 20GB were used for installation and recovery. I remember XP only used 4GB.
Also, wtf with all the gadgets? Who uses them anyway.
I need to get an additional Hard Drive so I can get my stuff there, then format.

Although I may be being unfair with Vista and blame Dell, but yeah... half of the hardware isn't fully compatible. When I downloaded Crysis I couldn't play it... because of incompatibility issues with the graphics card. That just sucked. BIG TIME.

So yeah, an OS that can't updrade itself just sucks. End of story:
(http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5444/errorvf7.th.png) (http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=errorvf7.png)
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: goat on May 09, 2008, 06:58:56 am
Your laptop could hit 1920x1200? That IS pretty nice.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Is on May 20, 2008, 12:58:32 pm
Vista is nice.
It's not the horrible spaghetti coded piece of shit that slashdotters and digg users always say it is.
That being said, I still use XP, but I've used Vista.
The only problems I had with it was that I couldn't find drivers for my Chinese counterfiet PSX -> PC controller adapter.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: Neophyte on May 21, 2008, 04:53:48 am
Quote from: Pulits on May 09, 2008, 04:18:59 am
I wouldn't recommend Windows Vista, not even to my worse enemy.

My experiencie with Vista: I bought a Dell XPS M1710, worth around $3,000 USD. 2GB of RAM, 100HDD, GeForce 7500 GTX, Centrino Duo @ 2.16. Yeah, a top notch laptop.]
Wait.....um....top notch? And you paid $3,000 USD? I hope this was 3 years ago.
Yeah Crysis wasn't going to run well on that. Most of the stuff you mentioned didn't have much to do with the operating system at all.
t
I still use XP, but I wouldn't call vista a bad operating system. It's not worth the upgrade to me yet, but it's still a solid OS. I can see XP sticking around for a very long time, though.
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: HL on May 21, 2008, 05:13:19 am
holy fuck why would you pay 3000 USD for that. that's not even CLOSE to 3000 USD worth of parts...the PC I'm getting soon outdoes that and its like 1,000...and thats with a monitor and keyboard, the actual price of the tower is like, 800. *____*
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: goat on May 21, 2008, 05:40:40 am
So when are you getting this mystery PC handsome lamb, in time to run duke nukem forever?
Title: To Vista, or Not to Vista
Post by: HL on May 21, 2008, 05:42:23 am
Quote from: goat on May 21, 2008, 05:40:40 am
So when are you getting this mystery PC handsome lamb, in time to run duke nukem forever?

:P

It's not my fault, stuff comes up. I will have it ~ the 15th of next month, and I can't wait.  :)