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 10-01-2011, 09:20 AM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,977,317 times
Reputation: 12847

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tejano2828 View Post
The only thing AMD does for me is keep Intel prices down...

Thanks AMD
AMD also innovates... which I'm sure you benefit from. Intel pushes the speed envelope, but AMD does most of the innovations. x86 64 is AMD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2011, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Green Valley, AZ
351 posts, read 811,112 times
Reputation: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
After many years of service and because of my new software that is too powerful for my old computer, I have to get a new one. I will build it myself again.
Definately the way to go. I've been building my own since '93, and I usually updates the processor/motherboard every 3 to 5 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Naturally I am faced with the question AMD or Intel. I love underdogs and wanted to go for AMD again.
AMD definately has some very low cost processor / platform offers, but Intel has had the lead for some time now, and chances are that AMD wont be catching up any time soon, even with bulldozer. I think Tom's Hardware has a pretty decent CPU guide for best processors for several price ranges, and they update their list on a monthly basis. Check it out the September suggestions here:

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: September 2011 : Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, September Updates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
I was also wondering if Windows XP can handle modern hardware such as a TB hard drive, USB3 etc. Or would I have to get Windows 7?
The 32-bit version of Windows XP can only address 4 GB of memory max. If you really want to keep up with the latest, you will probably end up installing 8 GB and install Win 7. Windows XP is also nearing it's end of life support from Microsoft. When that happened with Win98, they stopped providing updates. Get a decent 64-bit processor and graphics card and buy Win 7. It's worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Could I continue to use my old Word XP (parf of an ancient Works suite) with Windows 7? I am forced to use Word for professional reasons, and I don't feel like paying hundreds of dollars for a new Office suite whose functions I don't need anyway.
Windows 7 is very compatible with earlier versions of Windows software. I've used some VERY old windows applications with Windows 7 without any problems at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
The home edition of Windows 7 will be supported just one year longer than XP, so I am inclined to skip Windows 7 and switch directly to Windows 8 once it is available.
If you want my oppionion regarding this: Microsoft has a bad habbit of skipping a generation before they develop a really good version of Windows. Starting all the way from Windows 3.1, here is my overall impression of the operating systems (from my point of view) in terms of reliability, usability, and performance:

Windows 3.1 - Eh... OK for a 16-bit DOS shell
Windows 95 - Lack of support initially, but ended up OK
Windows 98 - Good, but still a DOS shell OS.
Windows ME - Horrible - all kinds of bugs and compatability issues
Windows 2000 - Initial compatability issues, but ended OK.
Windows XP - Excellent
Windows Vista - Bad - Memory HOG! Poor performer. Crappy interface. Lots of compatability issues.
Windows 7 - Excellent, huge interface improvements over Vista, much more stable, less of a memory hog than Vista, and lots of support from vendors.
Windows 8 ... ??? Based on the fact that Windows 7 has been such an excellent OS for me so far, I'm skeptical as to whether or not Windows 8 will be better.

I've been using Windows 7 since the RC (release candidate) days, and it's been super-stable compared to Vista.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Any tricks and problems I have to watch out for when building my own computer? The last time I did that was 13 years ago
Building a computer is easier than ever these days. Plug and play has come a long way. Buy proven hardware from reputable vendors and you shouldn't have too many problems. Read reviews from hardware review websites to determine what works best for you. Enjoy the experience!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 10:14 PM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,977,317 times
Reputation: 12847
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjsoto View Post

If you want my oppionion regarding this: Microsoft has a bad habbit of skipping a generation before they develop a really good version of Windows. Starting all the way from Windows 3.1, here is my overall impression of the operating systems (from my point of view) in terms of reliability, usability, and performance:

Windows 3.1 - Eh... OK for a 16-bit DOS shell
Windows 95 - Lack of support initially, but ended up OK
Windows 98 - Good, but still a DOS shell OS.
Windows ME - Horrible - all kinds of bugs and compatability issues
Windows 2000 - Initial compatability issues, but ended OK.
Windows XP - Excellent
Windows Vista - Bad - Memory HOG! Poor performer. Crappy interface. Lots of compatability issues.
Windows 7 - Excellent, huge interface improvements over Vista, much more stable, less of a memory hog than Vista, and lots of support from vendors.
Windows 8 ... ??? Based on the fact that Windows 7 has been such an excellent OS for me so far, I'm skeptical as to whether or not Windows 8 will be better.

I've been using Windows 7 since the RC (release candidate) days, and it's been super-stable compared to Vista.
This is all opinion and generally a horrible assessment for many reasons. It's comparing two different products in a linear fashion and leaves out many renditions of those products. Additionally there is a lot of context missing in why some of the new technology is perceived as having more compatibility issues than it's successors.

When trying to be helpful, it would be wise to be accurate as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Green Valley, AZ
351 posts, read 811,112 times
Reputation: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
This is all opinion and generally a horrible assessment for many reasons. It's comparing two different products in a linear fashion and leaves out many renditions of those products. Additionally there is a lot of context missing in why some of the new technology is perceived as having more compatibility issues than it's successors.

When trying to be helpful, it would be wise to be accurate as possible.
Yea, that's why I said it was opinion. I never stated it as fact. Pay attention!

The fact is that everybody will have a different opinion about which operating systems are good and which were bad, and no 2 people will agree completely. It's all a very subjective experience, and the perceived performance and stability of an operating system is highly dependent on the hardware you are running on. The fact is that there are just too many combinations of hardware/os/software to make ANY factual statements.

However, I think most people would agree that XP was a good OS, Vista was a step in the wrong direction, and 7 was more stable and fixed many of the problems that were in Vista. Sure you will find examples of those that say the opposite is true, but then, it's all based on opinion.

If you don't feel the same way, state your opinions. I think that's what the OP is asking for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 11:03 PM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,977,317 times
Reputation: 12847
Personally, I thought Windows XP was just a bloated version of Windows 2000. But that's probably because I am fairly technical. Novice users certainly appreciated the easier PnP of Windows XP.

Anyways, I think the naming scheme that Microsoft is using is confusing. There's a few things to note:

Windows XP is the same OS as Windows 2000, with a minor revision (5.0 vs 5.1).
Windows 7 is the same OS as Windows Vista, with a minor revision (6.0 vs 6.1).
New Technology is not the same product line as the Windows product line.
Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 are all New Technology even though they carry Windows branding.

Finally, the compatibility issues with Windows Vista had to do with the lead time for manufacturers to adopt the new driver model. Running Windows Vista today should be as smooth as running Windows 7.

I can't wait for bulldozer. I always appreciate the risky innovation AMD brings to the table. It keeps Intel on their feet. No more Pentium 4 type products from Intel anymore thanks to AMD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 11:54 PM
 
Location: Green Valley, AZ
351 posts, read 811,112 times
Reputation: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
Personally, I thought Windows XP was just a bloated version of Windows 2000. But that's probably because I am fairly technical. Novice users certainly appreciated the easier PnP of Windows XP.

Anyways, I think the naming scheme that Microsoft is using is confusing. There's a few things to note:

Windows XP is the same OS as Windows 2000, with a minor revision (5.0 vs 5.1).
Windows 7 is the same OS as Windows Vista, with a minor revision (6.0 vs 6.1).
New Technology is not the same product line as the Windows product line.
Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 are all New Technology even though they carry Windows branding.

Finally, the compatibility issues with Windows Vista had to do with the lead time for manufacturers to adopt the new driver model. Running Windows Vista today should be as smooth as running Windows 7.

I can't wait for bulldozer. I always appreciate the risky innovation AMD brings to the table. It keeps Intel on their feet. No more Pentium 4 type products from Intel anymore thanks to AMD.
Regarding your 2k to XP comparison: In many respects, 2k was very NT 4.0 like in it's HAL capabiilty, and many would claim it was more closely related to 4.0 than it was to XP. NT 4.0 was definately not marketed to the masses. It was marketed to business. 2k had a very business-centric architecture as well. ME was meant to be the consumer oriented OS, but IMO was hands-down the worst OS that ever came out of Redmond. That's why many migrated to 2k, even when 2k wasn't ready for the end-user.

Ultimately the architecture of 2k is what made it so incompatible and difficult to install on existing consumer hardware. I tossed out 2 scanners, a TV/video card, and swapped a motherboard due to lack of full Win2k driver support. It took a long time for vendors to support 2k, and you really had to do your homework when buying hardware to make sure it was 2k compatible.

Yea, XP was a bit more bloated that 2k was (The GUI comes to mind, and of course the plug-n-play architecture adds a little bulk), but it was marketed to consumers and received a LOT more support from vendors. It is for these reasons that I give XP a higher rating in my book for typical home-user compatability.

With Windows Vista, it was not just the driver model and hardware incompatabilities that made it a poor choice in my book, it was also the memory architecture in Vista used that really turned me off. Don't beleive me? Read this article that explains some of the architectural differences between the Vista and Windows 7 memory management:

Windows 7 Way Smarter With Graphics RAM

Depending on how much you multi-task, Windows Vista memory requirements could triple or quadriple the requirements of Win 7. The security and firewall settings were also a pain in Vista compared to Win 7. The firewall settings in Vista were sometimes obscure and confusing. Win 7 made vast improvements in the security features and ease-of-use.

This is why I say that microsoft typically skips a generation when it produces a really good OS. It's been the trend for a while now (at least in terms of MS consumer oriented operating systems). It's not good for a typical home user to be an early adopter of a new OS. They should wait until most of the bugs are wrung out of it and check to make sure it's compatible with what they want to run before they buy into it. I beleive Win7 is a excellent choice because it has the maturity, will be supported for many years to come, and you don't have to worry about hardware incompatabilities in Win8 should MS choose to make yet another change to their driver/hardware model.

Last edited by vjsoto; 10-02-2011 at 12:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 06:33 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
22,370 posts, read 19,836,515 times
Reputation: 8825
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjsoto View Post
Definately the way to go. I've been building my own since '93, and I usually updates the processor/motherboard every 3 to 5 years.



AMD definately has some very low cost processor / platform offers, but Intel has had the lead for some time now, and chances are that AMD wont be catching up any time soon, even with bulldozer. I think Tom's Hardware has a pretty decent CPU guide for best processors for several price ranges, and they update their list on a monthly basis. Check it out the September suggestions here:

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: September 2011 : Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, September Updates



The 32-bit version of Windows XP can only address 4 GB of memory max. If you really want to keep up with the latest, you will probably end up installing 8 GB and install Win 7. Windows XP is also nearing it's end of life support from Microsoft. When that happened with Win98, they stopped providing updates. Get a decent 64-bit processor and graphics card and buy Win 7. It's worth it.



Windows 7 is very compatible with earlier versions of Windows software. I've used some VERY old windows applications with Windows 7 without any problems at all.



If you want my oppionion regarding this: Microsoft has a bad habbit of skipping a generation before they develop a really good version of Windows. Starting all the way from Windows 3.1, here is my overall impression of the operating systems (from my point of view) in terms of reliability, usability, and performance:

Windows 3.1 - Eh... OK for a 16-bit DOS shell
Windows 95 - Lack of support initially, but ended up OK
Windows 98 - Good, but still a DOS shell OS.
Windows ME - Horrible - all kinds of bugs and compatability issues
Windows 2000 - Initial compatability issues, but ended OK.
Windows XP - Excellent
Windows Vista - Bad - Memory HOG! Poor performer. Crappy interface. Lots of compatability issues.
Windows 7 - Excellent, huge interface improvements over Vista, much more stable, less of a memory hog than Vista, and lots of support from vendors.
Windows 8 ... ??? Based on the fact that Windows 7 has been such an excellent OS for me so far, I'm skeptical as to whether or not Windows 8 will be better.

I've been using Windows 7 since the RC (release candidate) days, and it's been super-stable compared to Vista.



Building a computer is easier than ever these days. Plug and play has come a long way. Buy proven hardware from reputable vendors and you shouldn't have too many problems. Read reviews from hardware review websites to determine what works best for you. Enjoy the experience!
Thanks for the time and effort. However, I have long finished building my new computer. I didn't want to wait for Bulldozer, especially since the reviews that had leaked were not that promising anyway.
I bought the hitherto best AMD processor, the Phenom 1100, it's good enough for me. Especially combined with the 16GB RAM.
Since I am not into games, 3D stuff etc., I did not get a separate graphics card. The GPU on the board is more than good enough for surfing, Word, and the occasional Youtube video. I use a 1920x1080 resolution via DVI connection, perfect image.
I dd get a separate audio card, an Asus Xonar DX for my music software, though.
And I bought Windows 7 64bit, the OEM version. Works fine, not a single crash so far, at least not because of Windows. Just like with my old computer sometimes connecting a USB device causes a crash, probably has to do with grounding/mass Windows 7 as such seems indeed pretty compatible with old applications. Even my old Winamp 2.95 works flawlessly, which I am very happy about, it still sounds better than any other free audio player, and I love the simple interface.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2011, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Green Valley, AZ
351 posts, read 811,112 times
Reputation: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Thanks for the time and effort. However, I have long finished building my new computer. I didn't want to wait for Bulldozer, especially since the reviews that had leaked were not that promising anyway.
I bought the hitherto best AMD processor, the Phenom 1100, it's good enough for me. Especially combined with the 16GB RAM.
Since I am not into games, 3D stuff etc., I did not get a separate graphics card. The GPU on the board is more than good enough for surfing, Word, and the occasional Youtube video. I use a 1920x1080 resolution via DVI connection, perfect image.
I dd get a separate audio card, an Asus Xonar DX for my music software, though.
And I bought Windows 7 64bit, the OEM version. Works fine, not a single crash so far, at least not because of Windows. Just like with my old computer sometimes connecting a USB device causes a crash, probably has to do with grounding/mass Windows 7 as such seems indeed pretty compatible with old applications. Even my old Winamp 2.95 works flawlessly, which I am very happy about, it still sounds better than any other free audio player, and I love the simple interface.
Ah yes, Winamp... I love the tiny skins they have available for it (I like to keep it stuffed away in a corner). Phenom X6 is a good choice and should keep you up to date for many years (in computer time) 16 GB is overkill for Win7 web browsing IMO, but with memory so cheap, it's hard not to splurge. Sounds like you did good!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2011, 12:37 AM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,977,317 times
Reputation: 12847
I waited a little while before updating this thread on my opinion. I wanted to take some time before making a conclusion. The bulldozer is disappointing. I'll be scrapping my AMD setup for Intel. Power consumption is a huge disappointment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2011, 08:18 AM
 
2,182 posts, read 4,707,639 times
Reputation: 1206
core i5 2500k IMO!
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:18 AM.

© 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