mikedallos Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 Oh my........ .......[move]SP-1!!!![/move] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudmanc4 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 and were off............let the service packs begin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justinlay Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 Well my sp1 didnt fix anything or help out in performance. Good luck with your install Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 SP1 does nothing to help vista. Its just as much of a joke as vista it self is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justinlay Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 If I wasn't running a quad core ill be back on xp already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudmanc4 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 If I wasn't running a quad core ill be back on xp already You know, I'm still trying to understand something. You rarely hear about someone loving Vista, just google it, see what ya get, sure there are those who have no issues, but damn. M$ knows they have a pooper on there hands, so they keep the price way up on the thing to draw in more people that don't read. But what are they going to do with how many million copy's of Millennium revived once the cycle breaks of a buying frenzy. What are they thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xplornetsuck Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 I love Vista... I rarely ever experienced the Blue Screen of Death with my XP box. Vista Basic improved with a video card and needs at least 512 memory to run(thats for what programs are using at the start up). And I still am killing non-needed process's. I am waiting for at least another 3 weeks, just in case it needs a bit of a tweak of the service pack a touch more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudmanc4 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 I love Vista... I rarely ever experienced the Blue Screen of Death with my XP box. Vista Basic improved with a video card and needs at least 512 memory to run(thats for what programs are using at the start up). And I still am killing non-needed process's. I am waiting for at least another 3 weeks, just in case it needs a bit of a tweak of the service pack a touch more. So have they announced when service pack 2 is commin out yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedallos Posted April 13, 2008 Author CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 I love Vista... I rarely ever experienced the Blue Screen of Death with my XP box. Vista Basic improved with a video card and needs at least 512 memory to run(thats for what programs are using at the start up). And I still am killing non-needed process's. I am waiting for at least another 3 weeks, just in case it needs a bit of a tweak of the service pack a touch more. Well, today I'm initiating a complete back-up,restore point,etc. Wish me luck............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjageek Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 If I wasn't running a quad core ill be back on xp already Just wondering, ya happy with the quad?? I played with one computer that had it. Just I dont know, Not that impressed, I was probally expecting to much I guess. But you know how it is. Take a Clean single core computer up against a not so well maintained dual core computer, Wont notice much diffrence. I know amd is looking at going with 2 duals on the same mother board. That should be intresting. Not sure if the 2 dual cores on the same motherboard will happen, or even work out. While I may be wrong. Just seems like the quads, or even the 2 dual cores would have bottle neck issue. Could be wrong, but really data can only travel so fast. Kinda like have a car that will go 200 miles a hour and live in the midwest. No place you could get it that fast, for that long. The last, is microsoft smart enough to NOT release stuff that will mess up the timeing on the quads?? Well I call it timeing. it would be able to hit all 4 cores right instead of sending all the infor to one or 2 and skipping or forgetting the other 2. I still wonder about the duals, and I have one. I mean really trying to split data 4 ways and right. Im not so sure thats a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 Just wondering, ya happy with the quad?? I played with one computer that had it. Just I dont know, Not that impressed, I was probally expecting to much I guess. But you know how it is. Take a Clean single core computer up against a not so well maintained dual core computer, Wont notice much diffrence. I know amd is looking at going with 2 duals on the same mother board. That should be intresting. Not sure if the 2 dual cores on the same motherboard will happen, or even work out. While I may be wrong. Just seems like the quads, or even the 2 dual cores would have bottle neck issue. Could be wrong, but really data can only travel so fast. Kinda like have a car that will go 200 miles a hour and live in the midwest. No place you could get it that fast, for that long. The last, is microsoft smart enough to NOT release stuff that will mess up the timeing on the quads?? Well I call it timeing. it would be able to hit all 4 cores right instead of sending all the infor to one or 2 and skipping or forgetting the other 2. I still wonder about the duals, and I have one. I mean really trying to split data 4 ways and right. Im not so sure thats a good thing. I have a 8 core mac pro at work and I love it. I see a huge difference between it over a single dual core, or quad core. Now granted i'm using a OS that is designed to make programs take full advantage of all 8 cores. for most people there is no reason to get a quad core yet. Your never going to see the difference between a mid-high range dual core and the quad core. A low end dual core and you would see the difference. Vista is fully threaded, to take advantage of multiple cores, so it doesn't have a problem telling what core a program should use. Vista is just inherently slow, so it messes with things, and it doesn't help that majority of programs for vista are not threaded at all. AMD isn't doing the 2 dual cores on one motherboard anymore to make a quad core. It was a total flop. Thats not saying much either, there native quad core if a joke too when compared to intel. With quad cores and dual cores on the intel side there are very few bottle neck issues left. The last of the major ones is the internal memory controller. But when intel switches form "core" to the new "nehalem" at the end of the year that will be fixed. And all dual, quad, and 6 - core computers will be much faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjageek Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 With quad cores and dual cores on the intel side there are very few bottle neck issues left. The last of the major ones is the internal memory controller. But when intel switches form "core" to the new "nehalem" at the end of the year that will be fixed. And all dual, quad, and 6 - core computers will be much faster. Thats probally the most useful info I have seen anyplace yet on all the duals and quads. Had no idea the 2 duals on amd took a dump. Not surprised. Had no idea about the "nehalem". So if and when I do go for a new build. Which will be a couple of years yet. Think I will just stay with the dual if possible. Goodness only knows how it will all change by then. Or better yet, do some major looking around, make sure the cpu's are not gonna make another major change. I did not do that last time. I have the dual amd 4200 on xp. Its really nice. I am happy with it and it was top of the line at the time. I just hope the cpu's dont get to nuts. Ya know changing all the time to this or that. I did research the amd 4200 at the time, saw lots of good things, just did not find out if if the technology was gonna be switching soon. I do know the old debate of amd vs intel. IMHO its a coke or pepsi senerio.. Both sides will swear this is soooooo much better. I say find what fits your budget, research, and go for it. Rember with out protection on good power surge and its all gone. IM just a average user I guess. Some games. I do push mine at times. While I am sure I am dreaming, wonder if the new nehalem will still fit the the older motherboards or will all that have to be switched as well. Ah the times they are a changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buntz Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 Quote from: ninjageek While I am sure I am dreaming, wonder if the new nehalem will still fit the the older motherboards or will all that have to be switched as well. Ah the times they are a changing. Short answer is No. It will be using a new socket . [ LGA 1160 ] Intel says that it needs more pins for the internal memory controller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 and were off............let the service packs begin :haha: Sweet find Mike!! I have a 8 core mac pro at work and I love it. I see a huge difference between it over a single dual core, or quad core. Now granted i'm using a OS that is designed to make programs take full advantage of all 8 cores. for most people there is no reason to get a quad core yet. Your never going to see the difference between a mid-high range dual core and the quad core. A low end dual core and you would see the difference. Vista is fully threaded, to take advantage of multiple cores, so it doesn't have a problem telling what core a program should use. Vista is just inherently slow, so it messes with things, and it doesn't help that majority of programs for vista are not threaded at all. AMD isn't doing the 2 dual cores on one motherboard anymore to make a quad core. It was a total flop. Thats not saying much either, there native quad core if a joke too when compared to intel. With quad cores and dual cores on the intel side there are very few bottle neck issues left. The last of the major ones is the internal memory controller. But when intel switches form "core" to the new "nehalem" at the end of the year that will be fixed. And all dual, quad, and 6 - core computers will be much faster. Quit bragging, ya fat bastard. We all know your cooler than us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 Quit bragging, ya fat bastard. We all know your cooler than us. Who you calling fat, shamu jk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted April 13, 2008 CID Share Posted April 13, 2008 Think I will just stay with the dual if possible. Goodness only knows how it will all change by then. By that time, dual core will be a thing of the past. When intel releases "nehalem" at the end of they year there is going to be a quad core notebook processor, and that will start the end for dual cores. There is going to be 6 core processors by the end of the year, and 8 core sometime next year. 2009 will probably be the end of dual core processors except in the real low end maybe. And with that, we might see the death of the discreet graphics card for anybody but hardcore gamers sometime in 2009, since with nehalem intel is going to be putting a high performance graphics card into the CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjageek Posted April 14, 2008 CID Share Posted April 14, 2008 By that time, dual core will be a thing of the past. When intel releases "nehalem" at the end of they year there is going to be a quad core notebook processor, and that will start the end for dual cores. There is going to be 6 core processors by the end of the year, and 8 core sometime next year. 2009 will probably be the end of dual core processors except in the real low end maybe. And with that, we might see the death of the discreet graphics card for anybody but hardcore gamers sometime in 2009, since with nehalem intel is going to be putting a high performance graphics card into the CPU. Sweet information. Props to ya for that. Looking like a short 3 years and computers are really gonna smoke. Programs are gonna be flippin HUGE!! I know they are already selling a teribite, (sorry if thats the wrong word) harddrive. I have dual 250 gb and for me, Thats just almost to much space. Could run a small country from a monster compuer like that. Thanks for the useful information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedallos Posted April 17, 2008 Author CID Share Posted April 17, 2008 No issues.....no problems!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted April 17, 2008 CID Share Posted April 17, 2008 No issues.....no problems!! Sweet. I havent installed it yet. Been waiting for the good word. Kinda like FF3 latest beta. If my plugins dont work Im waiting dammit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.