U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2010, 10:39 PM
 
Location: Pomona
1,955 posts, read 9,663,643 times
Reputation: 1538

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougstech View Post
remember that while the people that buy their $300 desktops at BBY are taking it back to the geeksquad counter 3 months later, yours is still working perfectly.
Keep in mind that folks who build their own will know how to maintain their own too. Folks who buy one fully built already, maybe not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2010, 10:59 PM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,965,437 times
Reputation: 12847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narfcake View Post
Free is more money than I'd ever want to spend for Vista.

Like AutoCAD, it seems that every other version of Windows is the decent one:
1.0 ... nice concept, but unworkable.
2.0 ... actually usable now.
3.0 ... ok.
3.1 ... good.
95 ... eek.
95 OSR 2 ... fine.
98 ... ok.
98 SE ... better.
ME ... bah.
XP ... much better.
Vista ... blech.
W7 ... nice.

This is flawed because:

1. You left out Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is much much better. Windows XP is slightly better than Windows 2000 (although subjective since most techies like 2000 better)

2. 2000/XP-W7 are New Tech (in which case you left out New Tech 1.0 - 4.0). New Tech is an entire different product line than Windows. The branding hides this, but if you look into the kernel versioning, it's still called New Tech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
3,685 posts, read 8,495,667 times
Reputation: 2978
I built a Core i7-920 based PC in April 2009 for around $900 (CPU was on sale for $200 at MicroCenter) and it is not that far off what you can buy today for $900. To be fair, my cost didn't include the OS since I used my MSDN subscription. If you can get the OS for no cost, I think you can stay competitive on price/performance for as long as 18 months as long as you aim for that sweet spot on the price/performance curve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 02:46 AM
 
Location: 10110001010110100
6,385 posts, read 10,843,546 times
Reputation: 5589
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
This is flawed because:

1. You left out Windows 2000. Windows 2000 is much much better. Windows XP is slightly better than Windows 2000 (although subjective since most techies like 2000 better)
Not slightly, much better. 2000 was a slightly better, more automated version of NT 4.0. Registry configuration and size limitation of Windows 2000 was just bad.

So, let me append to Narf's list starting right after Windows 98SE:
NT 3.5...Good God, arrggh!
NT 4.0...really?
Win2K...mmmkay.
XP....cool.
Vista....WTF? Why?
Win7....wow, the last one scared me a bit but MS seems to have gotten their sh.t together finally, moving in the right direction for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 10:02 AM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,965,437 times
Reputation: 12847
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco View Post
Not slightly, much better. 2000 was a slightly better, more automated version of NT 4.0. Registry configuration and size limitation of Windows 2000 was just bad.

So, let me append to Narf's list starting right after Windows 98SE:
NT 3.5...Good God, arrggh!
NT 4.0...really?
Win2K...mmmkay.
XP....cool.
Vista....WTF? Why?
Win7....wow, the last one scared me a bit but MS seems to have gotten their sh.t together finally, moving in the right direction for sure.

I disagree. I used Windows 2000 and XP Extensively. Keep in mind that Windows XP was an incremental upgrade of Windows 2000.

NT <4
NT 4.0
NT 5.0 (Windows 2000)
NT 5.1 (Windows XP)
NT 6.0 (Windows Vista) - They dropped the NT name in the kernel going forward.
NT 7.0 (Windows 7)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 11:03 AM
 
11,715 posts, read 36,336,945 times
Reputation: 7514
[quote=NJBest;15855447
NT 6.0 (Windows Vista) - They dropped the NT name in the kernel going forward.
NT 7.0 (Windows 7)[/QUOTE]

Windows 7 is NT 6.1. It is a minor update to Vista the same way XP was to 2000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Pomona
1,955 posts, read 9,663,643 times
Reputation: 1538
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
This is flawed because: ...
Not really ...

Quote:
(in which case you left out New Tech 1.0 - 4.0)
Correct. Unlike the ones I listed, NT was not the common Windows series. The audience was mostly corporate, not mainstream. Application and device support was rather low then. That held true to until XP merged the two series together.

Somewhere, I still have my 486DX4-100 running NT 3.51. 100% SCSI system (0% IDE), with all 7 IDs allocated for (with external drives + scanner). 6 memory slots, filled (for a whopping 20mb of ram). IRQs - all used. 7 slots on the motherboard (2 VESA), filled. The 1" of space above the cards ... another fan. 3 external drive bays, filled. 3 internal drive bays, filled. Spaced next to the power supply, another hard drive. All in all, this mini-tower weighed 45lbs. The external drives ... I'm not sure. How much did a Micropolis 5.25" full-height weigh?

And to think that the 4 year old laptop I'm typing on right now already has 150 times the CPU power, 60 times more storage than those six drives combined, and at less than 1/10th the weight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 01:38 PM
 
Location: 10110001010110100
6,385 posts, read 10,843,546 times
Reputation: 5589
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
I disagree. I used Windows 2000 and XP Extensively. Keep in mind that Windows XP was an incremental upgrade of Windows 2000.
Keep in mind that it was an incremental upgrade? All Windows versions were incremental in some way, perhaps with the exception of NT which as Narf stated was not meant for mainstream by any means.
Other than system admins, developers and curious uber geeks/hackers, nobody ran NT at home.

XP's changes were not huge to the kernel but the changes were at the places where it counted, made it much more usable, especially by end users, whether in office or at home, Windows 2000 was not that suitable for home users imo. NT and W2K were not meant for home users and should not be used/should have never been used by average Joe/Jane.

Just look at the time frames that MS came with a new OS and how long the most computers around using/used it. There is no W2K-XP comparison!
Some people might still be using W2K or NT, I call them crazy or masochist.

Here is my Windows progression:
Home: Win98SE > XP Pro > Win7 - eventually but still enjoying XP Pro.
Work: Win95B > NT4.0 Server > W2K WS & Adv. Server > XP Pro > a little Win7

What I use at home really reflects my feelings about what MS should have created and sold, have they? Absolutely not, how else would Bill become a billionaire?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 03:25 PM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,965,437 times
Reputation: 12847
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco View Post

Just look at the time frames that MS came with a new OS and how long the most computers around using/used it. There is no W2K-XP comparison!
Some people might still be using W2K or NT, I call them crazy or masochist.
XP is NT. While I understand what you're saying completely, it's a little confusing because XP and beyond is NT.

W2k, while not targetted towards mainstream, was a very useable OS at home. It was as pnp friendly as windows XP. Yes, it lacked a bit of the nice addons in the interface that XP had, but I always hated how slow XP was compared to W2k (in that time period).

Putting W2k and NT 4.0 or older in the same group is not fair. W2k was just as easy to use as XP. NT 4.0 - required technical knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 03:35 PM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,965,437 times
Reputation: 12847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narfcake View Post

Correct. Unlike the ones I listed, NT was not the common Windows series. The audience was mostly corporate, not mainstream. Application and device support was rather low then. That held true to until XP merged the two series together.

This is true, but in relation to the ongoing discussion of gaming systems in this thread, NT 4.0 and Win2k was highly adopted by gamers. Games ran significantly faster on both. NT 4.0 software OpenGL performance was significantly faster than Windows 9x.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top