Windows 7
in Software ·
wiredtrucker89 said:@ Thomas Hernandez21, you're absolutely right on this one.👍
🙂
Home ›
Karen Garcia5 › Posts
Posts by Karen Garcia5
385 posts shown.
🙂
Windows 7
in Software ·
electricowl11 said:Most people here seem to want the 70xx builds rather than the 71xx ones. Maybe try using Google before posting nonsense like Thomas Hernandez21 did. 😉
I’ll leave open the possibility that I said something stupid, but I don't think I did. Before, I probably would have just told you your post was nonsense because it lacked any logic whatsoever, you know? Software development. It’s a process, I guess. People talk about it like there's some grand, seamless flow, but it's usually just a series of controlled fires. You start with an idea, move into planning, then coding, testing, and deployment. Most people think it's just typing away at a keyboard, but that's probably only half the battle. There's a lot of moving parts and a lot of ways for things to go sideways. Maybe it works out, maybe it doesn't. That's just how it goes..
The 7077 leak from April. 8th, 2009:
There’s some news floating around about a possible leak involving Build 7100. I guess we'll see if there's any actual substance to it or if it's just more noise. It's hard to tell these days. Maybe it's worth watching, maybe not. We'll find out soon enough.
So, Build 7100 leaked a few days ago...
Just look at the build numbers. The difference between something like 7077 and Build 7100 is pretty obvious.
7077.0.090404 April 4, 2009.
7100.0.090421 April 21, 2009.
I don't think there's any point in arguing about this... unless you're looking at the calendar backward, 7077 can't be newer. 🙂
Windows 7
in Software ·
darkviper7 said:Yeah. I guess because Microsoft runs two separate teams simultaneously.
One group handles the RC while another works on the RTM at the same time.
So, just as an example—not that I'm certain—Build 7100 might be roughly equivalent to something like 7077.
But then again, 7077 leaked about a month ago.
Windows 7
in Software ·
Seriously... You think 7077 is somehow higher than Build 7100? 🙂
Buying a new graphics card - (read first post)
in Desktops ·
wiredmarlin5 said:That’s pretty bad advice. A card with DDR2 memory isn't exactly a recommendation.
A 3580 512 would be a solid buy, though maybe a bit overkill for his setup. I guess there's also the question of how his power supply handles an extra ~80W draw.
He should just grab a 7600GT. It has DDR3, which seems like the sweet spot for that rig. You can find them on Craigslist for about 350-$133.
Windows 7
in Software ·
feralstag47 said:😳 omg!! I'm such an idiot, I didn't realize it's a beta!
I know plenty of people are praising it, so I'm asking if I should install it even though it's a beta! You clearly missed the point!
I understood perfectly. I read exactly what was written. 😉
Go ahead and install the beta. It's like driving a car with just an engine and half-empty tires—no doors, no windows. Whatever.
Since upgrading to a new Windows 7 build on an HDD won't magically fix your physical shortcomings, I don't see any reason to install a beta unless you just want to play around. From what I can tell, you're looking to use it as your primary OS, which is just foolish.
Just set up a dual boot. Test it all you want; you'll still have Windows Vista sitting right there on the other partition.
Windows 7
in Software ·
feralstag47 said:So, now that I know Windows 7 is out, I'm planning to install it sometime this week.
nope, you've got it wrong. It hasn't actually launched yet. What's out there is just a beta—maybe RC1?—but nothing is a finished product. Betas are strictly for testing. I guess the official release isn't slated until closer to the end of the year.
Windows 7
in Software ·
Here’s the first one, Thunderbird. It’s a decent enough program, I guess. 👍
Windows 7
in Software ·
Gary Lewis5 said:but still,.. we're talking about a measly 4GB (1066MHz) of RAM here! I don't doubt they bumped up some scores, but why is my minimum rating on the RAM so low!!!
Since this GeForce 9800, two newer series have already come out, yet it's still giving me a top score >7.9, but this 5.5 for the RAM makes zero sense to me. If this were 64-bit Windows, I might get it—it would want more than 4GB of RAM to hit a higher score—but since I'm running 32-bit, I really don't understand. It's fine that you mentioned newer DDR3 exists, but why does DDR2 get such a terrible rating now!
Maybe it's because DDR2 bandwidth at 1066MHz hits 8533MB/s, while say, DDR3 at 1600MHz pulls 12800MB/s. That's a third more throughput... So, maybe that's it... And latencies, obviously. I don't see why you're so baffled or why you're even bothering to match that score from Microsoft's beta operating system...
PS: The fact that the system is 32-bit shouldn't matter. There's no logic in saying it gets the highest score just because its limit is 4GB.
Windows 7
in Software ·
Gary Lewis5 said:I still don't get it; I got a max score on Windows Vista (also 32-bit). It would be logical if this happened more often given that 4GB is the limit for 32-bit... so maybe explain what kind of RAM I'm supposed to have🙄?!
..or maybe there's just something wrong with how they grade this stuff.
It isn't just about how much memory you have. You've got frequency, latency...
Windows 7
in Software ·
Mark Sanchez3 said:on my machine, which is x86 (so 32-bit), it shows all 4 GB are recognized, like it actually sees the full 4GB
Look, don't get mad at me, but 😁 it just says it recognizes 4GB while there's actually less available 😉 It's probably sitting at around 3325MB. My setup does the exact same thing—System Properties claims I have 4GB, but Task Manager and the usual tools always report 3325 😉 Because, theoretically speaking, it’s impossible for the OS to have the full 4GB all to itself 🙂
Windows 7
in Software ·
Forget about x32, it’s useless now.
x64 is the 64-bit version.
x86 is the 32-bit version.
A 32-bit OS can only address up to 4GB of RAM—though in reality, you're probably looking at closer to 3.25GB.
The 64-bit versions can handle way more than today's standards, which is necessary for any machine running more than 4GB of RAM.
x64 is the 64-bit version.
x86 is the 32-bit version.
A 32-bit OS can only address up to 4GB of RAM—though in reality, you're probably looking at closer to 3.25GB.
The 64-bit versions can handle way more than today's standards, which is necessary for any machine running more than 4GB of RAM.
Windows 7
in Software ·
silentridge4
Alright, explain this statement again:
How exactly are two operating systems in a dual boot setup supposed to slow down a computer? I don't see how that works. 🙂 Come on, spill it. Give me the inside scoop. 🙂
The only thing that's going to happen is you'll lose more disk space. You can only load one OS into RAM at a time, so while one version of Windows is running, the other is just sitting on the drive, not touching the processor or the RAM. But hey, maybe you know something I don't. 😉
Larry Ortiz24 said:I remember back when I was making the jump from 98 to Windows XP. During the installation process, there's this prompt that pops up. Once you actually boot the computer, it asks you which operating system you want to load. In my case, it was...
Windows 98.
Windows XP.
You click whatever you want and it just reads like anything else. I guess it’s just code that worked fine for millions of people back when Vista first dropped, and they just upgraded to Vista and left their XP systems running.
Alright, explain this statement again:
Larry Ortiz24 said:Either way, it's going to slow his computer down. Having two heavy operating systems like that running is just asking for trouble, I guess. I guess it depends on the rig. Maybe he won't notice if it slows down just a tiny bit, but that really depends on how powerful the computer is..
How exactly are two operating systems in a dual boot setup supposed to slow down a computer? I don't see how that works. 🙂 Come on, spill it. Give me the inside scoop. 🙂
The only thing that's going to happen is you'll lose more disk space. You can only load one OS into RAM at a time, so while one version of Windows is running, the other is just sitting on the drive, not touching the processor or the RAM. But hey, maybe you know something I don't. 😉
Windows 7
in Software ·
nimblemaker52 said:Sure, you could run it on a virtual PC, lol.
Larry Ortiz24 said:How wouldn't it be possible? Haven't you ever had two operating systems or seen it done somewhere?
Joseph Robinson53 said:I left Vista on one partition... is it possible to use both while still having a separate boot menu when I start up?
🙂
Windows 7
in Software ·
Noah Miller6 said:
Let me know when you deal with this on Windows Vista.
Look at the red circle. If Windows Vista starts eating up 3% of my CPU, I might just kill myself.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ba/vstproc.jpg
Well, I lived through it. Here I am. How exactly do you plan on doing that? Pills? Carbon monoxide in the garage? Seppuku?