DescentBB

My new computer. Work in progress.

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.a ... 6811119068

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.a ... 6813130081

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.a ... 6819115016

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6835186134

http://www.ultraproducts.com/product_de ... ductID=389
Got mine for about $60-$70 at tiger direct.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822144701

-----------------------------------------------------------
Still need:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820211066

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6832116204

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814130286

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6835100007

------------------------------------------------------------
That should do it if i get those parts. These are not just links. More pics at: www.myspace.com/justinjolly

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6832116059

get that instead!!@!#@@!

BUBBALOU wrote:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6832116059

get that instead!!@!#@@!

x2 If you are building it yourself, you can avoid Vista which is a very good thing.

Also splitting thread...

I don't use my machine for anything but gaming/movie watching so I picked up this version of Windows XP. Has some added eye candy.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6832116049

whats this SP2B im all of a sudden seeing? new SP?

yeah. It's the beta for SP3 for XP. I'm a little trepidatous to install it before I know what MS has \"woven\" into it. Probably a lot of Vista related stuff.


Ok, I don't trust them.

im being told from some friends that its just a OEM Distributors SP. its for OEM's like Dell, Gateway, EMachines.....

Microsoft would never distribute a beta SP to a retailer, even if it is an OEM version.

i dunno, im just getting mixed messages from alot of people, one being that one, another being its a Vista patch hidden into XP, i dont know anymore!

Interesting.

Wonder if SP3 for XP will fix the RADIUS WEP authentication for 802.1x wireless networks when a user changes their domain password....

I am going to get vista 64bit because i want direct x 10 gaming and 64bit power. I also make music, do computer and graphics work. Those are starting to require 64bit OSes. Once you think about it, those things are a part of the future. The thing is when i got my computer in 2000 i wound up getting things much below the current standard. instead of 32MB vid card i got integrated 8MB graphics instead of windows 2000 i got 98se. So everything needs to be at least at a current standard or you will get left behind even more. So if you see what i am saying, i will not get xp for many reasons.

If you have anything to say, please give some feedback and discuss this.

If Vista really is the future; we are all doomed.

How are we all doomed? You do not have anything to back it up. I don't suppose you can tell the future to us. Can you?

Krom wrote:If Vista really is the future; we are all doomed.

I went to a 2 day Vista training course a few months back. The boss flipped the bill so what the hay.

Up front, we were given the "Rules of Vista"

Rule number one was "Vista breaks things."

It's true.

Here's the dude's website. He really did have some good insider tips on Vista and the utilities it ships with. The rule of thumb though is wait 1 year before upgrading, or at least until SP1.

http://www.minasi.com/

Nergen-Ak1-Defender wrote:How are we all doomed? You do not have anything to back it up. I don't suppose you can tell the future to us. Can you?

You're new to this forum so I'll let you know. a couple months back we had a thread that went into this very thing in minute detail.

There is plenty to back it up.

Duper wrote:Read This

Windows Vista SP1 (build 6001.16549) is distributed as a 3.07GB iso image for the 32-bit version and 4.3GB for the 64-bit version, while Windows XP Sp1 (Build 5.1.2600.3180) is distributed as a 350MB update which supposedly fixes over 900 issues with the popular operating system.

And people wonder why on Vista games run 30% slower than on XP....

AceCombat wrote:whats this SP2B im all of a sudden seeing? new SP?

Its just an updated version of SP2. Nothing more.

But really, You cant stay in the stone age forever (Win XP). You need to keep up with technology. Technology for one doubles every so often. So while its 2009 you'll still have XP 32bit while i will have vista on my computer keeping up to date with 64bit maybe even 128bit.

Nergen-Ak1-Defender wrote:But really, You cant stay in the stone age forever (Win XP). You need to keep up with technology. Technology for one doubles every so often. So while its 2009 you'll still have XP 32bit while i will have vista on my computer keeping up to date with 64bit maybe even 128bit.

You're assuming that Vista will still be on top by then. Vista is nothing more than XP done up like ME. Remember when WinME was considered the "future"? Six months later, and hardly anyone was still using it. Microsoft cut support for it before they cut support for 98.

You can polish a turd all you want, but its still a turd.

btw, the next time you buy a case, make sure it has a removable tray for the motherboard. You will be thanking me later. Makes assembling things soooo much easier.

All of these are assumptions. Nobody can predict the future. Remember that.

Nergen-Ak1-Defender wrote:All of these are assumptions. Nobody can predict the future. Remember that.

Try us.

I am going to make not one, but TWO predictions of the future right here in this post, and they will be undeniably accurate when the time comes.

The first one is: Vista will make your computer run slower than XP.

The second one is: You will not be using, or even able to purchase a 128 bit PC in 2009.

128 bit is at least 15-20 years away, probably much longer. The limitations of 32 bit x86 in the PC are only just now starting to show up (and ONLY in Vista mind you). 32 bit has been dominant since ~1985, 64 bit won't even be reasonably phased in for another 3-5 years.

BAHAHAHAHAH!! this is funny!


Defender, your dealing with real IT Professionals here... i dont think you can win this one.

Well anyway people, i got my hard drive in today. its this one. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822144701

I said this then I will say it now

Wait at least 1 Year for Vista

If you do not know PC's (cough) or you do not have the Grump for top of the line parts leave Vista alone

If you do not have the Brass or the know how to disable UAC system wide, wait 1 year for Vista

If you want to play or use anything that is not Vista Compatible stay away from Vista

Otherwise Dual Drive XP and Vista! (notice I did not say DUALBOOT@!)

When your ready to discard anything you have used in the past and only buy new plus at least Vista SP1 has been realeased then Move to the Future of Vista's short lifespan

MD-2389 wrote:Vista is nothing more than XP done up like ME. Remember when WinME was considered the "future"? Six months later, and hardly anyone was still using it. Microsoft cut support for it before they cut support for 98.

To think I actually put up with that turd for 3 years. Of course, there's always the Really Good edition...

If you ran all Intel hardware, ME wasn't that bad... it just doesn't network worth a crap with anything else. I spent 2 lans finding this out.

Read and learn. Vista is the LAST thing you'd want on your computer right now.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... _cost.html

Testiculese wrote:Read and learn. Vista is the LAST thing you'd want on your computer right now.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... _cost.html

[quote="Article -footnote"A""]At 44 pages, Microsoft's “Output Content Protection and Windows Vista” document squeezes out Labour's 37-page manifesto to take the crown.[/quote]

dddDDDddaaaaaaawwwwwwmmmmmmm......

I have experience with 95, 98, 2000, XP, 2003, and Vista. I can tell you that each time a new OS comes out, it initially has less stability/performance/support than the last, simple economics. However, it also sets the bar higher for better stability/performance/support. I don't care if you stick with XP or not. To me, an OS is one's private business. XP is for people who like today's games/entertainment. Vista is for people who want tomorrow's. Games like Halo 2, UT 2007, WIC, and Crysis play best on Vista because Vista enables DX10. Sure, the added effect is minimal, but to serious graphic lovers like myself, it is noticeable. And in the near future, DX10 will show a huge difference from DX9 (like DX9 showed a difference from DX8). Also, Vista is designed for HD content. With Windows Vista currently being the only OS that supports nVidia's PureVideo HD 2 technology (8500/8600), one gets the best Blu-Ray/HD-DVD performance with a Vista machine. By getting Vista now, you can already have better performance than XP when playing HD content.

I have to admit, struggling to get Battlefield 2142 to work on Vista is tiresome (I've been trying for 3 weeks now), but many of these game problems are not Vista's fault. They are the game developers' and GPU companies'. They need to start from scratch (well almost) and build stable drivers/patches that work under Vista parameters. The only real encouragement they have to do this will only come from the 5% of the computer market that have Vista. So as a Battlefield 2142 fan and a Vista enthusiast, I advice you to give Vista a try. However, I do not recommend the Home Premium version. If you are going to go Vista, make sure you go all the way with Ultimate. BTW, 64-bit works better on Vista than XP.

Aggressor Prime wrote:I have to admit, struggling to get Battlefield 2142 to work on Vista is tiresome (I've been trying for 3 weeks now), but many of these game problems are not Vista's fault. They are the game developers' and GPU companies'. They need to start from scratch (well almost) and build stable drivers/patches that work under Vista parameters. The only real encouragement they have to do this will only come from the 5% of the computer market that have Vista. So as a Battlefield 2142 fan and a Vista enthusiast, I advice you to give Vista a try. However, I do not recommend the Home Premium version. If you are going to go Vista, make sure you go all the way with Ultimate. BTW, 64-bit works better on Vista than XP.

You should read the articles on Anandtech about Vista and the 2 GB barrier in 32 bit software.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Aggressor Prime wrote:Vista is designed for HD content.

Yea...did you notice how? Any computer with an HD drive is immediately designed for HD, and better off for it too, with the horrid implimentation that Vista provides. When HDDVD or Blueray is cracked, and a user can make a copy that doesn't have to go through Vista's DRM gauntlet, then it will almost become a usable OS.

(Same thing with these HD disk players, there's no sane reason to buy one now, with the MPAA's ability to turn yours into a paperweight with a flick of a switch)

You should read my link and really see if you can hold onto that argument. I was ready to upgrade until I realized what garbage the pretty interface was hiding. I get Vista for free. I have the super-duper happy fun smiling enterprise copy and I wouldn't waste a machine on it.

okay. i need vista and DX10 for many reasons. First, i need it to play the modern games on my computer. Second, for 64bit, someone i know is offering me a very good version Cakewalk Sonar which some things on it have to work with 64bit. I do make music and 64bit is starting to become something in programs like that for example.

Yes, Vista is a memory hog. But it also opens the doors for more memory. Having 128GB of memory in Vista is better than 2GB in XP. (Or in my case an easy 4GB when I feel I need it.)

Concerning HD content:
Yeah, and by putting up all those barriers, Windows Vista follows HD content provider expectations allowing a safe way to view HD content without the risk of piracy. The only way HD content will work well on XP is if it is pirated, which is illegal.

</lurk>

Aggressor Prime wrote:Yes, Vista is a memory hog. But it also opens the doors for more memory. Having 128GB of memory in Vista is better than 2GB in XP. (Or in my case an easy 4GB when I feel I need it.)

Bah! I run 64-Bit XP with the same memory access capabilities as 64-Bit Vista but without all the baggage.

Aggressor Prime wrote:Concerning HD content:
Yeah, and by putting up all those barriers, Windows Vista follows HD content provider expectations allowing a safe way to view HD content without the risk of piracy. The only way HD content will work well on XP is if it is pirated, which is illegal.

Double Bah! Just more crap to break, but...

Arrr-bee-dar, I feel safer already!

<lurk>

</lurk>

Well...At least Agressor didn't use the word \"rich\" while quoting Microsoft's marketing tripe.

<lurk>

The edit button is there for a reason. =)

I just recently got a notebook PC, standard no big frills (except the 17.1\" screen). AMD X2 1.8 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 160 GB 5400 RPM drive, Geforce Go 7600. Unfortunately it came with Vista loaded on it, I was rather appalled when it took almost an hour to sort it's crap out and boot for the first time. And further appalled when it still took more than 3 minutes to boot normally even after I removed Norton Internet Insecurity. Even without running Aero it was sluggish on almost everything, even the graphical clock gadget would sometimes miss a tick or two. And it was Vista 32 bit, didn't even have any of the advantages.

It took a couple hours to format the drive and install XP Professional and dig up all the relevant drivers, now it boots in under one minute. And runs like a real machine, does everything I want with no hassle. It even gives several of the desktops around a serious run for their money.

Krom wrote:The edit button is there for a reason. =)

I know all about the edit button.

The second post was for effect...I guess the effect didn't work.

I would agree that nobody is going to be sitting on XP forever; eventually you will have to upgrade. Otherwise you'll wind up like the guys who are still running Windows 98 (yes I do know some); nothing new will run on your computer.

Just the way it is.

At any rate, would XP SP3 include the .NET 3 runtime built-in, or are they still requiring that as a separate download?

Yes true, but I know more people running Windows 98 than people running Windows ME...

Vista == ME

ME was killed by the subsequent emergence of Windows XP and the competition with Windows 2000, both of which were far better.

Vista doesn't HAVE any competing lines (2008 is based on Vista and is not suitable for the consumer market anyway) and doesn't have any replacement coming out next year. Probably not the year after that either.

Thus I really don't think the comparison works.