• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

General Computer Chat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archer said:
So do you know if the port still works? It would be a major bummer if the card didn't work when you buy it.
Click to expand...
Haven't tested it yet... I'm crossing my fingers though. If it doesn't, it'll be an excuse to get a new motherboard, lol.
 
Hiroshi Sotomura said:
…except this thread is on the verge of being renamed the "Macintosh Chat". Hint hint.
Click to expand...

Pfffff.
No it's not, honest. :P

Just because Macs are better... xD
Ignore that comment, or a Windows vs Mac war will start!

I do miss talking about building and upgrading computers. When I use to do it, it was real fun and one of the first jobs that I didn't instantly get bored off! XD
 
Hiroshi Sotomura said:
We did (some long time ago). I had a pun for it too. We called it the "Computer Chip-Chat".
Click to expand...

*Hangs head* That's so bad. I love it! :D
…except this thread is on the verge of being renamed the "Macintosh Chat". Hint hint.
Click to expand...
It seems like everyone's* got a mac these days. I'd love to see the difference in market share compared to 10 years ago.
 
Archer said:
It seems like everyone's* got a mac these days. I'd love to see the difference in market share compared to 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

I use to hate them when I was younger, but I think it was only because it was a step in the unknown.

Now I love them because they so much more efficient in what they do. The reason I got a Mac was because I needed something portable that wouldn't fall short when I needed processing power and graphical power. All that is amazing, then with an awesome battery life on top of that? Sold! XD

I do Games Technology at University, so it fits what I need perfectly.
 
Archer said:
I'll review it as a Windows rig, but you need to make sure all the parts are hackintosh compatible. I doubt the card will be.

Not too bad at all. What's the main purpose for this rig? If it's gaming, you want a better graphics card. If it's a hackintosh, you want better compatibility. Production, then it's just fine.

The 300 is actually a nice case. The cable management could be better, but they're nice enough to build in as well as looking great and being sturdy as hell. It will do the job, but the front panel cables are too short and you might be better off with a 902 or something. I'm personally considering the Fractal Define F3 in the future.
Click to expand...
It's actually supposed to be for both. Primarily, it'll be a gaming rig (for Windows), but I'll be partitioning the hard drive down the middle for use with both OSes. I still have to research individual component compatibility with OS X.

Thanks again for those recommendations, Archer. Some of the hardware that I chose was chosen because I was in a rush and because I wasn't interested in looking outside of Newegg for the sake of consistency. Do you (collectively) have any recommendations for the CPU, the fan/heatsink (I can also use an air cooler; it makes no difference to me), and the Wifi card? My hacker cave is located on the third floor of my house, two floors above my router, and I don't want to invest in a Powerline network that has no guarantee of working in my old house.

Going back to my potential gaming rig, I was intrigued by the 900, and it's only $20 more than the 300. The Radeon 6870 also looks good, but the higher price might be a little over my budget. I'll post more later.
 
Archer said:
It seems like everyone's* got a mac these days. I'd love to see the difference in market share compared to 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

The closest I can Find is the W3school's Browser OS chart, it basically measures what the Marketshare of OS use is by using browser meta. From What I can see it goes back to 2003, not exactly ten years, and it lists a 1.8% share for Mac in March of '03, which has risen to 7.6% last month. now obviously this doesn't account for the rise in ISP contracts in the past 7 years or the increase in availability of internet, but it does show that there is indeed a fair amount of increase in Mac user share.
 
Even if home use of Macs has increased the vast majority of computers can be found in the business sector. Apple really has no foothold there.

I am definitely happy with Windows 7 and use my netbook to try new linux distros with.
 
Gerri Shin said:
The closest I can Find is the W3school's Browser OS chart, it basically measures what the Marketshare of OS use is by using browser meta. From What I can see it goes back to 2003, not exactly ten years, and it lists a 1.8% share for Mac in March of '03, which has risen to 7.6% last month. now obviously this doesn't account for the rise in ISP contracts in the past 7 years or the increase in availability of internet, but it does show that there is indeed a fair amount of increase in Mac user share.
Click to expand...

I was trying to find something like that earlier, but I failed. Haha.
It is interesting to see that it is slowly on an increase.

Haha, I love how Vista is just completely dying. Love it; always makes me happy to see that. Such a HORRID OS.
 
Captain Fabio said:
Haha, I love how Vista is just completely dying. Love it; always makes me happy to see that. Such a HORRID OS.
Click to expand...

VISTA IS SO NOT HORRID. It is a perfectly viable OS. It just needed a lot more resources than XP did, and was released when the machines on the market could barely handle it.
 
donavannj said:
VISTA IS SO NOT HORRID. It is a perfectly viable OS. It just needed a lot more resources than XP did, and was released when the machines on the market could barely handle it.
Click to expand...

It was a horrid OS in my eyes then :3

It is a pretty silly thing to release then, when the machines on the market can't handle it...
 
Captain Fabio said:
It was a horrid OS in my eyes then :3

It is a pretty silly thing to release then, when the machines on the market can't handle it...
Click to expand...

Microsoft is 100% at fault for Vista flopping, what with the hardware being too weak at the time of its release and the whole drivers fiasco they had upon release. Windows 7 is Vista with better resource management, honestly.
 
donavannj said:
Microsoft is 100% at fault for Vista flopping, what with the hardware being too weak at the time of its release and the whole drivers fiasco they had upon release. Windows 7 is Vista with better resource management, honestly.
Click to expand...

Well, I am on Mac OSX so, I haven't really spent a lot of time with W7, but I am sure it is better than Vista. XD

I think W7 was just, maybe, released at a better time with it patched together better?
 
Captain Fabio said:
It was a horrid OS in my eyes then :3

It is a pretty silly thing to release then, when the machines on the market can't handle it...
Click to expand...
Speaking of horrid things. You went from one painful font to another...

It wasn't really MS's fault. They recommended 1GB with a minimum of 512MB (because OEMs complained). So what do the cheap-arse OEMs like HP do? They send out Vista on computers with 512MB ram and Pentium 4/D/Celeron crap with bloatware and wonder why people complain. Blame the manufacturers.
donavannj said:
This is pretty much it. It does have better resource management abilities on identical machines, though, from personal experience working with it.
Click to expand...

Not really. Vista SP2 is basically the same as Windows 7. People get the wrong impression because the Windows 7 install is always fresher and cleaner. A fresh install of Vista upgraded to SP2 will perform very well.

After seeing the crap that most people install on their computers, the OS's performance means very little. Like most things, a negative placebo effect makes people find Vista slow. Put it this way - if I was running Vista, I would not pay to upgrade to 7.
 
Archer said:
Not really. Vista SP2 is basically the same as Windows 7. People get the wrong impression because the Windows 7 install is always fresher and cleaner. A fresh install of Vista upgraded to SP2 will perform very well.

After seeing the crap that most people install on their computers, the OS's performance means very little. Like most things, a negative placebo effect makes people find Vista slow. Put it this way - if I was running Vista, I would not pay to upgrade to 7.
Click to expand...


The installs were the same age. And I was basing this off of experience with installs in a lab environment at school. Though that was only Service Pack 1.
 
Archer said:
Not really. Vista SP2 is basically the same as Windows 7. People get the wrong impression because the Windows 7 install is always fresher and cleaner. A fresh install of Vista upgraded to SP2 will perform very well.
Click to expand...
It's a shame Vista got a bad rap. It's actually a really awesome OS if you know how to use it.
I do prefer 7 to it, though.
 
donavannj said:
The installs were the same age. And I was basing this off of experience with installs in a lab environment at school. Though that was only Service Pack 1.
Click to expand...
SP2 made further improvements, so that could be it. "Basically" the same, anyway. There's going to be tiny optimisations here and there. And keep in mind that memory usage is not always a bad thing. Most new OSes will use what they are given. Snow Leopard is a great example, because it will often idle at 3/4GB, but if you run a game, it will just reassign the memory. It's better to have something in memory than on disk. It can also be little things, like the sidebar being enabled by default on Vista and not on 7.
Purple Materia said:
It's a shame Vista got a bad rap. It's actually a really awesome OS if you know how to use it.
I do prefer 7 to it, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I still prefer 7, because there's a few little interface tweaks, as well as the Superbar. Either one is basically required for gaming, due to DX10 and other newer features. I feel the impulse for self-harm when people go on about preferring XP to Vista or 7 on a new machine. They come into work and order a $2000 (lower than it seems, due to the stupid prices we pay for things) gaming rig. And then winge about wanting XP on it.
 
Archer said:
Yeah, I still prefer 7, because there's a few little interface tweaks, as well as the Superbar. Either one is basically required for gaming, due to DX10 and other newer features. I feel the impulse for self-harm when people go on about preferring XP to Vista or 7 on a new machine. They come into work and order a $2000 (lower than it seems, due to the stupid prices we pay for things) gaming rig. And then winge about wanting XP on it.
Click to expand...
I've noticed this in people who aren't willing to adjust to the changes. But buying a new rig and installing XP on it is kind of dumb, especially when high-end gaming is on the buyer's mind. (I was guilty of this just a few months back)
 
Purple Materia said:
I've noticed this in people who aren't willing to adjust to the changes. But buying a new rig and installing XP on it is kind of dumb, especially when high-end gaming is on the buyer's mind. (I was guilty of this just a few months back)
Click to expand...
We're talking i7s on X58 boards. So they have at LEAST 2.75 GB ram being wasted on a 32-bit OS. You just want to slap them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top