|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
posted November 04, 2009 09:34 PM |
|
|
Even though the colours sometimes went crazy when tabbing in and out of the game, I got Diablo 2 (LoD) running on W7 without much effort.
And @Corribus: You don't have to format, even though I recommend it. It's possible to keep both OS's on the same harddrive (especially if partioned), and only use one at the times or install one and then uninstall the other one. There'll of course be left overs that will take up space as well as being able to mess with the other OS.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 09:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Could someone run down the advantages and disadvantages of 32bit vs. 64bit? For example, why would I not install the 64bit version? After all, bigger number is better, no? 
Without any mess:
*32-bit allows 3,4-5 gigabyte of ram. And max 2 gigabyte of RAM assigned to each running application
*64-bit allows 17.2 billion gigabytes = 16.8 million terabytes = 16 exabytes of RAM. And applications run a tad faster
With mess(PAE, high memory, etc):
*32-bit can have up to 350 GB of ram assigned, and with highmem you can address more than 2 gigabyte to each application(64 gigabyte per application is the max at the moment).
Ofcourse, Windows don't come with PAE unless we are talking server. And Windows is 10 years behind common UNIX(lacks a proper multilib), and the PAE is horrible.
I can rant more.
BUT for the common user: Drop Windows, unless:
*You are game addicted AND your games don't run under WINE(Wine Is Not an Emulator)
*Hardware issues
*Life essential applications(which commonly just applies to professionals addicted to their tools)
*Your "tech savy" and can actually clean your computer, and survive with the mess
____________
|
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 09:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
32-bit allows 3,4-5 gigabyte of ram.
2^32 = 4294967296 bytes = 4GB at max.
On 64-bit system each memory adress is twice as big and may take more memory to store (effectively reducing your 4 GB to less). I don't think it may slow down modern processors though.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:10 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:12, 04 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
BUT for the common user: Drop Windows, unless:
* you don't want to learn the Linux terminal commands for configuring it.
* you prefer the "drive" system, which is much more logical from user point of view (not server-wise, which Unix is better).
and most importantly...
* you don't find proper drivers for your hardware in Linux...
@Warmonger: the problem is that OSes like Windows use maximum 3GB (and that's with a special switch in boot.ini) per app, because the upper part is for the kernel and system stuff. Also, the video card RAM eats up address space as well. Which is why if you have a 512MB card you'll usually have 3.5GB free or so out of 4GB, with a 1GB card you'll have only 3GB accessible for "normal RAM" since the 1GB upper address space is used up by the video card.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Even though the colours sometimes went crazy when tabbing in and out of the game, I got Diablo 2 (LoD) running on W7 without much effort.
 I tab quite a lot in games...
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
BUT for the common user: Drop Windows, unless:
* you don't want to learn the Linux terminal commands for configuring it.
Ah you mean >this, >this, >this? "Normal" user should not even attempt to touch them, and don't forget how inferior bat and CMD is compared to bash and sh
"Normal" users should use "friendly" distroes, like:
>Ubuntu
>Fedora
>openSUSE
Debian is a bizzaro middleground between the 2 extreme sides. It got elitist users and a friendly system for the most.
Quote:
* you prefer the "drive" system, which is much more logical from user point of view (not server-wise, which Unix is better).
At the least we got a proper folder structure, and a proper multi user environment.
Why on earth would you want to be outside your ~/(read: home folder) anyway? And that there is graphical tools.
PS: When will Windows have a "common" way of quick launching all applications?
____________
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
Edited by Shares at 22:37, 04 Nov 2009.
|
@Doomforge: It usually fixed itself whenever clicking something in the main menu or when loading. Tabbing in and out fixed it sometimes to. And dont forget that a lot of newer games might even crash when tabbing out. But yeah, it's a real pain in the snow!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
and don't forget how inferior bat and CMD is compared to bash and sh
who cares as long as the emphasis isn't even on it?
And I use automated batch scripts a lot, especially when dealing with 1000+ files at once (with a script), multi-move them based on wildcards, etc...
But not for simple commands to configure my computer. That should be done in GUIs, not text files.
Quote:
and a proper multi user environment.
That's exactly why Windows XP is much more friendly, because it doesn't have this "user permissions" crap. (Vista though...)
It's not for security because you shouldn't even have viruses in your computer, much less EXECUTE them. If you do have to execute something, do it in a sandbox first. But please, not the "multi-user" environment with "limited access". That just sucks.
Quote:
PS: When will Windows have a "common" way of quick launching all applications?
Start Menu is quick enough. If you have hundreds of apps like me, that is.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:50 PM |
|
|
Talking about sandboxes, could you recommend some? I'd prefer a light version that doesn't use up to much performance.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Doomforge: It usually fixed itself whenever clicking something in the main menu or when loading. Tabbing in and out fixed it sometimes to. And dont forget that a lot of newer games might even crash when tabbing out. But yeah, it's a real pain in the snow!
Fallout 3 crashes most of the time if you alt tab  Even with all patches and unofficial patch!
so for some games it can't get worse.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:50 PM |
|
|
Look, i also had Vista forced to me with my note...i also have 4GB and only use 3 cause the 32bit S.O. seems better as i work in my note and need to avoid uncompatible apps. I work with Visual Studio and SQL SERVER 05 PLUS lots more of crap...but deep inside im also afraid of not being able to run games  ...
Im cautious with Windows 7 cause all the users ive seen at work with it are complaining "Itīs the same Vista crap".
Linux is a good onion, every layer has been designed for a purpose and with care. Windows has a rotten core...so no matter what layers they want to make pretty...the inside is crap, rotten crap. Why have i a Microsoft S.O.? Again, compatibility and work.
TD...i read once an article about a certain "conspiracy" between MicroCrap and Hardware producers so as to raise profit...i think that is the main reason...its not like they didnt consider all that what u talk about(which i dont know ****).
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:54 PM |
|
|
Marketing is complex beyond comprehension. Yet simple as.. I can't think of something simple enough. I really can't.
Back on topic; W7 certainly has the same complex maze of preferences, but only sometimes. So you can never know wether it'll take hours or seconds to change simple settings.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Talking about sandboxes, could you recommend some? I'd prefer a light version that doesn't use up to much performance.
Sandboxie, very light and good. No 64-bit version though.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And I use automated batch scripts a lot, especially when dealing with 1000+ files at once (with a script), multi-move them based on wildcards, etc...
That was the bloody point of scriptfiles for sysadmins
Quote:
It's not for security because you shouldn't even have viruses in your computer, much less EXECUTE them. If you do have to execute something, do it in a sandbox first.
And guess what OS that got a major flaw in its base system? There is a reason that when Mac OS become OS X they got rid of all the viruses. Until Microsoft's OS gets rid of this flaw, it will be plagued by viruses.
Quote:
Quote:
PS: When will Windows have a "common" way of quick launching all applications?
Start Menu is quick enough. If you have hundreds of apps like me, that is.
That sounds VERY slow. Well, compared to what I do.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That was the bloody point of scriptfiles for sysadmins
Yeah, sad that some configurations are still needed from the command line in some distros. Or at least, so I heard anyway.
Quote:
And guess what OS that got a major flaw in its base system? There is a reason that when Mac OS become OS X they got rid of all the viruses. Until Microsoft's OS gets rid of this flaw, it will be plagued by viruses.
I can't believe you actually said that. Windows has an extremely good security set. Yes it is targeted by much malware, because it's the most popular by far. Mac has a TERRIBLE security system.
Linux is ok, but for people who don't know much about security, Windows is still better. Linux has the potential to be extremely strong for security but not many people are interested to learn all that, that's why.
Why do you think a custom (read: many stuff disabled) Windows XP was chosen for many military projects for its robustness?
Quote:
That sounds VERY slow. Well, compared to what I do.
3-4 seconds usually, remember, out of hundreds (I'm not kidding), it's actually pretty fast. But that's only because I put them very organized into subgroups and stuff. (yeah I'm a freak, I store everything organized, NOTHING on desktop, actually I can't imagine people who even use the desktop -- I don't even use the C drive at all).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Application Compatibility, or rather, compatibility with 32-bit applications.
Deathboy, could you elaborate?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 11:41 PM |
|
|
My sister has Windows 7 and she says it runs alright. I'm not getting it though. I'm happy with XP and it works. So I see no reason in upgrading.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:58, 04 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Application Compatibility, or rather, compatibility with 32-bit applications.
Deathboy, could you elaborate?
32-bit apps and 64-bit apps can't be mixed normally. You can't load 32-bit dlls in 64-bit apps, and you can't run 64-bit dlls in 32-bit apps (doh). The problem is that the system itself, and all OS functions, are stored in dlls. (for example, kernel32.dll is the most critical).
In 64-bit you have a "WOW" emulator that solves this, to an extent. Of course as no emulator is perfect, that's why you might have issues.
All dll calls are redirected to another folder instead of system32, where 32-bit .dlls are stored (in the normal system32 directory, there are 64-bit dlls... why they still used the system32 name for the folder is beyond me!).
Then there's the registry, where 32-bit apps are stored in another key (I don't remember the name), to not interfere with 64-bit.
obviously it should work, but it doesn't always, or so I heard. (I don't have any 64-bit stuff)
Also 64-bit can break some programs I have, and I am aware of that (not that you'd be interested, trust me, I bet ).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 12:13 AM |
|
|
If Windows 98 could support larger hard drives and more memory, and was more stable and had System Restore, I'd still be using that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 12:15 AM |
|
|
|
How weak is a S.O if it needs System Restore?
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
