I have Windows XP installed on my desktop. Soley and completely for games. It actually is a legal copy, but I didn't pay a dime for it. It was free swag as some Microsoft deal with some community colleges to get the students addicted... I mean give away free stuff. I got it for taking technology courses at my local community college, as well as another copy of XP, one of Microsoft's Virtual Machine(Sucks compared to VMWare), and the full VB Studio 6, I think. Only ones I used was the Windows XP CDs. I used one and gave my brother the other (We where both using pirated copies until then).
Aside from that, I avoid Windows as much as possible. Unfortunately, we run all Windows XP machines at work, but we will not be upgrading to Vista anytime soon(Probably not for several years), despite having 8 machines with free Vista upgrade vouchers.
My laptop currently runs Kubuntu, and I will probably remove the Windows partition soon to make room for more Linux stuff. I don't have to play games on my Laptop (Except for Solitaire while waiting for an oil change) so I have no reason at all to keep my Windows partition. Only problems I ever have are rooted in OpenGL errors, but that only affects Compiz.
512 MB for Home Basic, 1024 MB for Home Premium
2048 MB is better if you want to use Aero, though ~Kujila | |
Kujila wrote:
512 MB for Home Basic, 1024 MB for Home Premium I need to have 512 MB RAM for home basic?! What the heck is all that RAM used on? It's an operating system, not a 3D game! | |
Ram is basically dirt cheap, you can get a gig(1024mb) of low end ram for around 75 bucks on newegg, so i can't see the big deal about the ram issue and having 256mb ram on your graphic card is no big deal either, about another 60 bucks for a low end card. Now if your computer is to crappy to support that then just stick with XP for a few more years until you decide to get/build a new one.
Me personally, i am going to wait a good 6 months tell i upgrade even though i could run it right now, because with everything consoles, other software, ect theres always going to be issues at release time, People act like Microsoft is the only one who has trouble at release, hell even Byond has bugs when released, imagine building a whole OS system. | |
Android Data wrote:
I need to have 512 MB RAM for home basic?! What the heck is all that RAM used on? bigbrotherbot.exe | |
What we can't understand here, is why Windows would require 512mb. Linux, running Compiz(Eye candy better than Aero), and Swiftfox(Firefox optimized per processor) can run far faster on 256mb than XP does on 512mb, and Vista with 1GB. And Compiz can run on any graphics card capable of OpenGL. Even my i915 in my laptop runs Compiz pretty good(Can't turn up anti-aliasing without slowdowns, but it looks better without in my opinion).
Vista is a resource hog and requires far more power than it should. Just because hardware is capable of doing more doesn't mean that we should max it out automatically. I remember my 233Mhrz P2 processor running things on win98 better than many of the lower end P4 machines running XP. How is that? Shouldn't faster hardware=faster performance? Sure, there is something to be said for eye candy, but isn't it better to perform well? Perhaps Microsoft should have focused on optimizing it rather than making it look pretty. Hell, Linux's model of putting the graphical design job in the hands of the users seems to have done well, there are some great Linux themes for all kinds of desktop environments. Microsoft locks out custom styles, so you must break a file just to change the looks. Like I said, wouldn't it make more sense to just let the end users do all the tough design work? | |
PirateHead wrote:
bigbrotherbot.exe Pft, that name is far too logical for Microsoft. They would have to name it BBBQSZG.exe Standing for: Big Brother Bot [random gibberish to confuse end user] | |
Soldierman wrote:
Ram is basically dirt cheap, you can get a gig(1024mb) of low end ram for around 75 bucks... You might need to recheck your definition of Dirt-Cheap. And that's beside the point. What the heck can an OS be doing that means I just HAVE to have 512MB of RAM? | |
EXACTLY!
Why the heck is Vista using up so much memory? It can't just be ALL of the eye candy! Is Vista / Microsoft really trying to spy on us? o_o Mineing information for big companies? | |
Android Data wrote:
I need to have 512 MB RAM for home basic?! What the heck is all that RAM used on? It's an operating system, not a 3D game! http://www.newegg.com/Product/ Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145026 You're all idiots. | |
Repiv wrote:
Android Data wrote: That's not the point. Just because our computers HAVE that much RAM, doesn't mean it needs to use all of it up. | |
Flame Sage wrote:
Just because our computers HAVE that much RAM, doesn't mean it needs to use all of it up. Exactly! That's why I'm not going to get Vista. Probably never. If my computer needs requirements that would make Half-Life 2 run - twice - while playing Solitaire whilst they load (yeah, I know the reference. It was intended. -_-'), I'm sure as hell not switching to it. I don't want an operating system that eats up my RAM/CPU. I want an operating system that conserves it so I can use it for more important things, like Half-Life 2 or for you people with jobs/lives video editing. I understand the need for eye candy because people feel their computer isn't worth anything if it looks so bare, but it has to be optional. I wouldn't be complaining about this had Windows been "one of those operating systems". I'm complaining because Windows has become the operating system: most people on this planet use it, and I can't properly switch to Linux because developers refuse to make their applications work in Linux. | |
Microsoft disappointed me. I guess it took long enough, though. :P
I'll turn all of this around when I'm hired by Microsoft in about 6 years. Turns out some of the rumors I thought to be false were true. My suggestion is not to upgrade unless you absolutely need to. I doubt you would need to, though, because you can do a lot of the things you can do on Vista on XP, provided you have the right software. | |
I don't think that much of Window's processes and such have been updated for a long while to run at maximum efficiency. As someone argued before, you can program something to make it run first, then make it efficient if you need to. Well, I think OS absolutely need to, regardless of the fact that someone thinks it runs quick enough.
It is an insane amount of memory. | |
Xzar wrote:
Many report that it is in fact faster. Maybe it's because Microsoft requires you to have 512MB RAM. It's probably not all being used by the OS, maybe it's just something to make Vista seem faster. So those without it are upgrading to get Vista. They're probably getting double the required RAM, thinking Vista will use the other half. Vista could run just as fast as XP, maybe even a little slower. It's just an idea, though, so don't quote me. | |
Flame Sage wrote:
Wow.. Actually 5 versions, one is only available to 3rd world country and is somehow a worse version of basic, by the way basic and the 3rd world country version are the ones without aero. | |
Android Data wrote:
Kujila wrote: He was talking about XP, at least, thats what I gather. | |
- Miran94