Anyone See The Xbox One Reveal Yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arialmt

I wouldn't want to use Win8 without a touchscreen.

---

Me either I've tried is frustrating, with the touchscreen tho everything is smooth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Best 3 OS ever:
Windows 7
Windows XP
Windows 98

Worst 2 OS ever:
Windows ME
Windows Vista

I don't like Windows 8, but it's better than 2k.

---

You clearly never worked with windows 95. I never had issues with ME and I've never had issues with Vista.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

You clearly never worked with windows 95. I never had issues with ME and I've never had issues with Vista.

---

Actually I've been building computers since 95, and with your comment, I wonder how much you actually worked with Windows 95. As a matter of speaking, ask any programmer that grew up using Win 95 and it wasn't bad, yes it didn't have a lot of options but it wasn't bad. Anybody who really knows computers, and by this I don't mean turn it on and knows how to use one, I mean build wise. They all hate ME, it was a poorly designed system and rushed, just like Vista. Both of those OS were so buggy it wasn't even funny.

Vista 😡 my lap top that has vista is not my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

COD is the same rehashed garbage every year.

"There hasn't been a decent pc game since skyrim"
Where on earth have you been hiding?

Borderlands 2. Crysis 3. Bioshock Infinite. Far Cry 3. Sleeping Dogs. Max Payne 3. Hit Man 3. Darksiders II.

I just gave you 8.

---

Bioshock infinite was absolutely amazing!

sent from my Galaxy s3 using tapatalk2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Actually I've been building computers since 95, and with your comment, I wonder how much you actually worked with Windows 95. As a matter of speaking, ask any programmer that grew up using Win 95 and it wasn't bad, yes it didn't have a lot of options but it wasn't bad. Anybody who really knows computers, and by this I don't mean turn it on and knows how to use one, I mean build wise. They all hate ME, it was a poorly designed system and rushed, just like Vista. Both of those OS were so buggy it wasn't even funny.

---

Gimmie a break. You're not that much older than I am.

The first windows OS I dealt with was 95, and had the displeasure of dealing with it for about three years. It would constantly blue screen and was "catching crashes". I absolutely loathed that operating system. Frankly, you're the only person I've met that liked 95.

I currently run Vista on my laptop and I have since 2009. No reformats, nothing. Beyond slowing down a bit on start up compared to when I got it, I still have had no issues.

My thread has been derailed, but I approve! Win8 is before it's time. MS should have waited for touchscreen monitors to become commonplace. Win8 is magnificent with a touchscreen. Pretty crappy with a mouse and keyboard.

Speaking as a gamer...

Win7 is the best OS. Vista missed the marked greatly. Win7 is what Vista was supposed to be.
WinXP SP2+ is second. Very stable and consistent.
Win98 was the best of the 9X series. It was basically 95 fixed.
ME was a joke. A miserable fail fest.

As a programmer...

The Win9X series entirely sucked. Only the NT-based OSes up to Win7 are good. I haven't dabbled with Win8 coding yet since I don't like it and a PC OS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Gimmie a break. You're not that much older than I am.

The first windows OS I dealt with was 95, and had the displeasure of dealing with it for about three years. It would constantly blue screen and was "catching crashes". I absolutely loathed that operating system. Frankly, you're the only person I've met that liked 95.

I currently run Vista on my laptop and I have since 2009. No reformats, nothing. Beyond slowing down a bit on start up compared to when I got it, I still have had no issues.

---

I never said I liked 95, I said I didn't mind it. That is a huge difference. The only two OS's that I actually hated was ME & Vista. I never had any problems with 95, and most people that did was having issues with it due to hardware. When you compare 95 versus ME or Vista, yea then I would rather have 95, but that doesn't mean I liked it. Yea it had it's bugs, but at the same time it was better than Windows 3.1. If XP 64 bit had some of the options that Windows 7 has, then I would honestly not of moved from XP.

I never had to reformat 95, 98, I skipped ME & Vista, I didn't really like 2k. The only dealings I ever had with Vista or ME was on the work PC's or repairing other peoples PC's. The issue with ME is mostly hardware and lack of clarification on specs needed, but they had a lot of kinks in it. As far as Vista, I won't even get started on all the exploits it was vulnerable to as well as the never ending list of kinks, random crashes.

It was a pre-built and was too long ago for me to mention hardware, but remained stock through its entire life. Given the amount of issues I had with 95 (towards the end it would crash, on the dot, every four hours), I was more than happy when a more stable OS came along. Even after reformating the computer and installing 95 fresh, it still had issues.

I never dealt with 98, so I can't say anything about that, but if I recall, mom toyed with installing 98 over the 95 and it cleared up a number of the stability issues.

You know. People claim about kinks and random crashes on Vista. I've never experienced any with any frequency. What few things I have can be passed off as random hiccups which no OS is immune to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

It was a pre-built and was too long ago for me to mention hardware, but remained stock through its entire life. Given the amount of issues I had with 95 (towards the end it would crash, on the dot, every four hours), I was more than happy when a more stable OS came along. Even after reformating the computer and installing 95 fresh, it still had issues.

I never dealt with 98, so I can't say anything about that, but if I recall, mom toyed with installing 98 over the 95 and it cleared up a number of the stability issues.

You know. People claim about kinks and random crashes on Vista. I've never experienced any with any frequency. What few things I have can be passed off as random hiccups which no OS is immune to.

---

When not shutting the PC off for a week at a time, which when it comes to that I usually left the PC on always. I can do it with Windows 7 but since I watercooled my PC I don't just in case the pump was to fail while I wasn't here. With Windows XP & 7 I've left weeks on end with no issues without even a reboot. I've had Vista crash on me within hours of being loaded up.

EDIT:
It's like the Apple iPhone's. Most people who program or are really good on the PC will tell you an iPhone is junk. It was a poor design from when they first came out. Though many people will claim iPhone is awesome, it's because when you get deep down into an iPhone and you start doing heavily customization to it is when you notice how poor of a design it is.

..Funny. I leave my vista up and running for no less than a week at a time. I think the longest was a week and a half. The current up time right now? Right at a week. No issues, still runs fine. If I were to restart it, it'd do just fine.

Is this pissing contest still going on? No my OS is better!

Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2

It's no different than the pissing contest that goes on between Xbox and the PS3.

I'm honestly just shaking my head. If Vista was half as bad as Neal is claiming, surely I would have ran into some of these issues that they keep mentioning by now.

No, my OS is better!

Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2

......pc's suck :D

sent from my Galaxy s3 using tapatalk2

PCs = modded games
Console = no modded games

Yeah, if I could be spider Man driving an el Camino in skyrim on the PS3 I'd do it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2

I have yet to ever see an argument in favor of console gaming that actually hold water. I'll play my single player games offline thank you. And no, I don't need Microsoft datamining video from my livingroom.

I used to be for the 360 all the way but ever since I built my PC I haven't touched it. I don't need to swap out discs, I can still use a controller if I want, I can run console exclusive games in an emulator, I can use mods, I get free dlc, I get games cheaper. Where is the downside?

Become one with the PC master race! (Yes that is Gabe Newell of Valve leading the pack against the unwashed console masses)

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/186f...g/original.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

It's no different than the pissing contest that goes on between Xbox and the PS3.

I'm honestly just shaking my head. If Vista was half as bad as Neal is claiming, surely I would have ran into some of these issues that they keep mentioning by now.

---

Not everybody notices these issues. As a matter of fact I was just given a laptop for free that came with vista, and you know what OS was installed on it? XP.

But, yeah, my OS is better so.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Not everybody notices these issues. As a matter of fact I was just given a laptop for free that came with vista, and you know what OS was installed on it? XP.

---

XP was the the best, hence why it's still being supported (for a few more months). But yeah, Vista was an awful OS which is why they rushed out 7 so quickly and why they look so similar. It's just Vista fixed. To an everyday user it would appear there were no problems though.

And don't even get me started on 8. It makes a great mobile OS, but running it on my desktop? Would you run iOS on your desktop?

There is a reason that much of corporate America still uses XP, skipped Vista and went to 7 and is refusing to switch to 8.

But GNU is really where it's at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Not everybody notices these issues. As a matter of fact I was just given a laptop for free that came with vista, and you know what OS was installed on it? XP.

---

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what these issues are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what these issues are.

---

Well, first there's *screeeeeeech* wait I'm *screech* going thro *shhhhh* tunnel. Call you *shhhhhhhhhh* ater.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what these issues are.

---

There are many. One of the biggest is drivers. Another is how resource hungry it is. It performs slower than XP (6 years it's elder) for general tasks and gaming. For example, my parents crappy old laptop had Vista on it, it took around 7 min from power on to when you could log on and then another 3 after you logged in before you could do anything. I installed 7 on it and it's on, logged in and able to be used in under 5. The embedded digital rights management was another.

Why do you think when XP came out in 2001 they didn't put out a new OS until late 2006 (2007 for regular users)? But then from Vista to Windows 7 there was only a 2 year gap? From a regular user standpoint I would see how it would be okay but from an IT standpoint (which is the field I work in) it's a freaking nightmare. I have never heard of a business switching from XP to Vista, only from XP to 7. In the classes I take we don't even talk about it, we cover XP and 7 with a little bit of 8 thrown in. There isn't even a class I could take on it if I wanted to. The percentage of companies using it is so marginal that it doesn't make sense to have a class for it.

But like I said, to a regular user it wouldn't be an issue. If you like tinkering under the hood it's a mess. But yeah, resource hungry, driver issues, overpriced, the UAC, driver issues, needlessly complex menus to do simple tasks (when screwing with system settings I would usually just abandon the GUI and use command prompt), and oh yeah...driver issues.

There is a reason Microsoft continued to sell XP after they said they would stop and a reason they still support it today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what these issues are.

---

Now I mean this in the nicest way but since you want to basically call me out, I'll say something simple and I was hoping to avoid having to say.

My nephew who's 12 notices the issues in Vista, so if you can't then why even bother to explain? You obviously don't have enough computer knowledge to see the bugs/issues it has, so why am I going to waste my time with trying to explain to you? Google it if your curious, because I'm not going to waste my time on something pointless.

Edit:
mackynz told you some of the issues, and reiterated my point about it being a horrible OS from the knowledgeable standpoint.

I like Xbox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carlson

I like Xbox

---

I would like Xbox a lot more if Live was free. They have some nice games, but I think it's stupid I buy the game, the console and now I have to pay to play it online.

Ya the buying live aspect annoys me but I now put off paying for it as long as possible, it's set up to auto pay into an old account so it keeps trying to pay itself for little over a week it seems before it gives up an makes me pay for it another way. It's my way of winning ha I get 35 days maybe 37 for the price of a month, I could just be special an talking myself into believing things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carlson

Ya the buying live aspect annoys me but I now put off paying for it as long as possible, it's set up to auto pay into an old account so it keeps trying to pay itself for little over a week it seems before it gives up an makes me pay for it another way. It's my way of winning ha I get 35 days maybe 37 for the price of a month, I could just be special an talking myself into believing things.

---

LOL. I bought an Xbox 360 a few years back when Halo: Reach was brand new. I loved the game. One good thing about live though is that you don't have all the kids you have on PS3 online, and for that reason I still prefer to game on the PC. I have amazing BF3 stats on the PC.

Anybody else here play BF3 on the PC?

I wish the kids weren't on but now adays if I run COD or any other shooter like that I'm in a party with buddies so I don't have to argue with them anymore lol. I want to be the first person with the new Xbox logged into the newest game just so I can say I was that guy the first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

PCs = modded games
Console = no modded games

---

I had modded games on my xbox its called modio if you can still find it

I've been up for long time btw lol sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crepers86

I had modded games on my xbox its called modio if you can still find it

---

I think he meant comparatively the number of mods for consoles compared to is almost nonexistant. Plus it's a pain in the butt on consoles, you can get banned for modding a single player game and it's mostly just texture and save mods.

So much easier and more on PC that they sometimes become their own games like Gmod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

There are many. One of the biggest is drivers. Another is how resource hungry it is. It performs slower than XP (6 years it's elder) for general tasks and gaming. For example, my parents crappy old laptop had Vista on it, it took around 7 min from power on to when you could log on and then another 3 after you logged in before you could do anything. I installed 7 on it and it's on, logged in and able to be used in under 5. The embedded digital rights management was another.

Why do you think when XP came out in 2001 they didn't put out a new OS until late 2006 (2007 for regular users)? But then from Vista to Windows 7 there was only a 2 year gap? From a regular user standpoint I would see how it would be okay but from an IT standpoint (which is the field I work in) it's a freaking nightmare. I have never heard of a business switching from XP to Vista, only from XP to 7. In the classes I take we don't even talk about it, we cover XP and 7 with a little bit of 8 thrown in. There isn't even a class I could take on it if I wanted to. The percentage of companies using it is so marginal that it doesn't make sense to have a class for it.

But like I said, to a regular user it wouldn't be an issue. If you like tinkering under the hood it's a mess. But yeah, resource hungry, driver issues, overpriced, the UAC, driver issues, needlessly complex menus to do simple tasks (when screwing with system settings I would usually just abandon the GUI and use command prompt), and oh yeah...driver issues.

There is a reason Microsoft continued to sell XP after they said they would stop and a reason they still support it today.

---

Can't say I've ever had any issues with speed. My games and programs have always loaded quite quickly, but that's also dependent on ram/processor, as well as OS. Resource hungry? Can't say that it is, but that might be that I have enough ram that it doesn't matter. Mind you, I also tend to do a lot of resource intensive things. About the only time I can get my computer to start having problems is when I start rendering a 1000x1000 image. About the only resources issues I ran into had to do with my video card. Primarily a drop in fps back when I was running skyrim on ultra. Since I stopped doing that, I haven't had issues. UAC? Disable it. Complex menus? The default, yeah. Just switch it to classic.

Who knows? Maybe it's just the build I have.

Support for XP ends in April of next year, by the way.

I've messed with 7, and I quite honestly can't see very many differences, beyond aesthetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Now I mean this in the nicest way but since you want to basically call me out, I'll say something simple and I was hoping to avoid having to say.

My nephew who's 12 notices the issues in Vista, so if you can't then why even bother to explain? You obviously don't have enough computer knowledge to see the bugs/issues it has, so why am I going to waste my time with trying to explain to you? Google it if your curious, because I'm not going to waste my time on something pointless.

Edit:
mackynz told you some of the issues, and reiterated my point about it being a horrible OS from the knowledgeable standpoint.

---

I do all my own work on my computer and around the house. I'm also the one that fixes most of the issues with the computers. If I need to do any tweaking to get a game running, I do it. I do my own repairs, hardware upgrades, the rare virus removal, etc.

Prior to me having to ask, all you said were quote "crashes and glitches". I haven't encountered any of these with enough frequency to say that they were anything but hiccups. UAC, driver issues, etc, etc, aren't crashes and glitches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

I think he meant comparatively the number of mods for consoles compared to is almost nonexistant. Plus it's a pain in the butt on consoles, you can get banned for modding a single player game and it's mostly just texture and save mods.

So much easier and more on PC that they sometimes become their own games like Gmod.

---

Right. I know that consoles themselves can be modded, but I'm not entirely sure about the game itself, which is mainly what I was talking about. All my consoles are vanilla and the games I mod are on PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crepers86

I had modded games on my xbox its called modio if you can still find it

---

Basically, with PC game mods, you can just about turn the game into something completely different. Using Skyrim, for example, there are thousands of mods that do everything from: update textures, adjust the lighting, add new skills/magic, add new companions, add new items (food, armor, alchemy reagents, etc). There's even a mod to turn the dragons into Macho Man Randy Savage complete with voice.

Win7 is what Vista should have been. Vista certainly has resource issue. It couldn't even recognize all my RAM. And I had 4 Gig at the time.

I installed Win7 on the same machine and everything was faster. Especially my games. The OS alone jumped my games FPS rates by 10 FPS. That was pretty significant at the time.

The only thing I don't like about Win7, which persisted from Vista, is the Control Panel sucks. I had to enabled GodMode to see all the things I needed without having to navigate a seas on screens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Can't say I've ever had any issues with speed. My games and programs have always loaded quite quickly, but that's also dependent on ram/processor, as well as OS. Resource hungry? Can't say that it is, but that might be that I have enough ram that it doesn't matter. Mind you, I also tend to do a lot of resource intensive things. About the only time I can get my computer to start having problems is when I start rendering a 1000x1000 image. About the only resources issues I ran into had to do with my video card. Primarily a drop in fps back when I was running skyrim on ultra. Since I stopped doing that, I haven't had issues. UAC? Disable it. Complex menus? The default, yeah. Just switch it to classic.

Who knows? Maybe it's just the build I have.

Support for XP ends in April of next year, by the way.

I've messed with 7, and I quite honestly can't see very many differences, beyond aesthetics.



I do all my own work on my computer and around the house. I'm also the one that fixes most of the issues with the computers. If I need to do any tweaking to get a game running, I do it. I do my own repairs, hardware upgrades, the rare virus removal, etc.

Prior to me having to ask, all you said were quote "crashes and glitches". I haven't encountered any of these with enough frequency to say that they were anything but hiccups. UAC, driver issues, etc, etc, aren't crashes and glitches.



Right. I know that consoles themselves can be modded, but I'm not entirely sure about the game itself, which is mainly what I was talking about. All my consoles are vanilla and the games I mod are on PC.



Basically, with PC game mods, you can just about turn the game into something completely different. Using Skyrim, for example, there are thousands of mods that do everything from: update textures, adjust the lighting, add new skills/magic, add new companions, add new items (food, armor, alchemy reagents, etc). There's even a mod to turn the dragons into Macho Man Randy Savage complete with voice.

---

All of it can be categorized under those two. Glitches = bugs, bugs = programming error, lack of knowledge with programming, i.e. driver issues, eating resources. I didn't want to go into detail. I just did a general sum of it all as most people that knew what I was talking about would know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasonC2K

Win7 is what Vista should have been. Vista certainly has resource issue. It couldn't even recognize all my RAM. And I had 4 Gig at the time.

I installed Win7 on the same machine and everything was faster. Especially my games. The OS alone jumped my games FPS rates by 10 FPS. That was pretty significant at the time.

The only thing I don't like about Win7, which persisted from Vista, is the Control Panel sucks. I had to enabled GodMode to see all the things I needed without having to navigate a seas on screens.

---

I suspect you had Vista 32x. It doesn't reconize all the ram which is an issue inherent to the 32x operating system in general. Vista 64x doesn't have this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I suspect you had Vista 32x. It doesn't reconize all the ram which is an issue inherent to the 32x operating system in general. Vista 64x doesn't have this issue.

---

Vista 64-bit still eats resources, but it recognizes the proper amount of ram, 32-bit XP had the issue with not seeing 4gb of ram, but the 64-bit was fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Can't say I've ever had any issues with speed. My games and programs have always loaded quite quickly, but that's also dependent on ram/processor, as well as OS. Resource hungry? Can't say that it is, but that might be that I have enough ram that it doesn't matter. Mind you, I also tend to do a lot of resource intensive things. About the only time I can get my computer to start having problems is when I start rendering a 1000x1000 image. About the only resources issues I ran into had to do with my video card. Primarily a drop in fps back when I was running skyrim on ultra. Since I stopped doing that, I haven't had issues. UAC? Disable it. Complex menus? The default, yeah. Just switch it to classic.

Who knows? Maybe it's just the build I have.

Support for XP ends in April of next year, by the way.

I've messed with 7, and I quite honestly can't see very many differences, beyond aesthetics.

---

I'm saying that compared to 7 Vista uses more resources. For people like you and me that's not an issue, I have 16GB of RAM so I can run multiple VMs, so it's not a problem. 99% of what my computer does while I'm using it is nothing unless I'm playing Crysis 3 on ultra, then things slow down a touch. But someone on say a laptop with limited resources will have noticable slowdown.

You can disable the UAC, but it does serve some purpose. And you misunderstood what I meant by complex menus. Having the control panel look different is no problem at all. It's when you're trying to get to things farther down than that. I just made my own MMCs so I didn't have to deal with it as much. Having to use the Vista GUI in Server 2008 is probably the thing I dislike most about it. And I didn't realize they extended the support cut off for XP again haha. Time to delay the Win7 rollout at work some more.

And as far as not seeing many differences aside from aesthetics, if you are actually looking and this is the case then you aren't looking very hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I do all my own work on my computer and around the house. I'm also the one that fixes most of the issues with the computers. If I need to do any tweaking to get a game running, I do it. I do my own repairs, hardware upgrades, the rare virus removal, etc.

---

Me too! And at work since it's my job. But you brought up the good point of tweaking a game to get it running. That's another problem with Vista (Although 7 also has a lot, but less issues with it. Microsoft really dropped the ball) backwards compatibility is usually sketchy to noexistant for really old games. But even some 'newer' games like say Republic Commando have to be run on lower settings or they crap the bed. If you go too far back you end up having to use the DOSbox emulator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Vista 64-bit still eats resources, but it recognizes the proper amount of ram, 32-bit XP had the issue with not seeing 4gb of ram, but the 64-bit was fine.

---

And yes, 32-bit Windows cannot see more than 4GB of RAM whereas 64-bit can support up to I think it's 128GB. 64bit also uses a bit more ram. That being said, if you aren't really doing much but screwing around with the OS it's completely possible to run Win7 64-bit with only 1GB of RAM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

I'm saying that compared to 7 Vista uses more resources. For people like you and me that's not an issue, I have 16GB of RAM so I can run multiple VMs, so it's not a problem. 99% of what my computer does while I'm using it is nothing unless I'm playing Crysis 3 on ultra, then things slow down a touch. But someone on say a laptop with limited resources will have noticable slowdown.

You can disable the UAC, but it does serve some purpose. And you misunderstood what I meant by complex menus. Having the control panel look different is no problem at all. It's when you're trying to get to things farther down than that. I just made my own MMCs so I didn't have to deal with it as much. Having to use the Vista GUI in Server 2008 is probably the thing I dislike most about it. And I didn't realize they extended the support cut off for XP again haha. Time to delay the Win7 rollout at work some more.

And as far as not seeing many differences aside from aesthetics, if you are actually looking and this is the case then you aren't looking very hard.

---

For someone getting a modern laptop, it's not going to be an issue. Generally, most laptops, even lower end ones, are going to be pretty good compared to how they were even five years ago. On most, four gigs of ram is standard, and if it doesn't have that, you're not getting a very good deal. I've never found found the menus to be complex, if anything, it keeps people who might be using my computer from screwing up my settings.

Quote:

---

Me too! And at work since it's my job. But you brought up the good point of tweaking a game to get it running. That's another problem with Vista (Although 7 also has a lot, but less issues with it. Microsoft really dropped the ball) backwards compatibility is usually sketchy to noexistant for really old games. But even some 'newer' games like say Republic Commando have to be run on lower settings or they crap the bed. If you go too far back you end up having to use the DOSbox emulator.

---

I had to do that with just about any version of windows lol. I ran XP for six years and it had issues with backwards compatibility, as well. I remember buying an older game, installing it, and anytime I tried to run it, it'd blue screen the computer. I finally gave up. Quite honestly, I don't expect really old games to work on a newer system. It's going to cause the OS to take up even more room on the HD if they include everything that'll run 15+ years of games/programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

And yes, 32-bit Windows cannot see more than 4GB of RAM whereas 64-bit can support up to I think it's 128GB. 64bit also uses a bit more ram. That being said, if you aren't really doing much but screwing around with the OS it's completely possible to run Win7 64-bit with only 1GB of RAM.

---

Depends on the edition. Home Basic 8GB, Home Premium 16GB, and the rest 128GB. Meaning, I could, if I dished out the money, stuff an additional six gigs into my laptop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

For someone getting a modern laptop, it's not going to be an issue. Generally, most laptops, even lower end ones, are going to be pretty good compared to how they were even five years ago. On most, four gigs of ram is standard, and if it doesn't have that, you're not getting a very good deal. I've never found found the menus to be complex, if anything, it keeps people who might be using my computer from screwing up my settings.

---

If they don't know what they're doing they're no less likely to screw things up since they already don't understand it. I guess complex is the wrong word. Backwards would be better. I just use the Command line. I still don't think you're getting what I mean so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I had to do that with just about any version of windows lol. I ran XP for six years and it had issues with backwards compatibility, as well. I remember buying an older game, installing it, and anytime I tried to run it, it'd blue screen the computer. I finally gave up. Quite honestly, I don't expect really old games to work on a newer system. It's going to cause the OS to take up even more room on the HD if they include everything that'll run 15+ years of games/programs.

---

This is true to a degree. While it has gotten worse it probably (to me) felt like it wasn't so bad with XP because it hung around for so long. But as far as drive space goes, it's not really a problem today you only need 16GB or 20GB for 32 and 64-bit respectively. And it's hard to find a laptop with anything under 250GB, more like 500 now. Though I do agree less software bloat is a good thing (Another one I forgot about Vista) but having optional compatibility updates would awesome.

But then again, here we are lambasting game compatibility issues for PC when last time I tried to put an N64 cartridge in a Wii it didn't go over well :) and I can run any of those games on PC. And even now, you won't be able to play 360 games in the Xbox One er I mean Xbox TV.

Also, you get a gold star for getting in probably the most civil disagreement I've been involved in on the internet. :D

I don't see a point in getting into fights over OS. I like vista, people other things. It works for what I need and that's that lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

I don't see a point in getting into fights over OS. I like vista, people other things. It works for what I need and that's that lol.

---

What??? There's ALWAYS a point in getting into a fight over anything. Do you even lift, brah?!

Sent from microwave via Tapatalk ll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coleslaw007

What??? There's ALWAYS a point in getting into a fight over anything. Do you even lift, brah?!

Sent from microwave via Tapatalk ll

---

I see you Mirring brah, do you even make gainz?
..... Back to my point that consoles are better than PC's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coleslaw007

What??? There's ALWAYS a point in getting into a fight over anything. Do you even lift, brah?!

Sent from microwave via Tapatalk ll

---

Of course I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob

I see you Mirring brah, do you even make gainz?
..... Back to my point that consoles are better than PC's

---

They each have their uses. On the other hand, the computer is, for the most part, able to emulate every console game out there, so..