Endless Paradigm

z7shaft Wrote:I have it at 1gb ram and AMD 64X2 1.6GhZ
(can't understand it, it is totally 1.6, or each processor is 1.6 giving it 3.2?)

I don't think you can get a Athlon X2 running at 1.6GHz, stock.  If I recall correctly, the Athlon X2 3800+ is the slowest of the X2's, and that runs at 2GHz.  My 4200+ (next step up) runs at 2.2GHz.
(basically, X2 3800+ = 2xAth64 3000+, X2 4200+ = 2x3200+ etc, 3800+ runs at 2GHz, 4200/4400 runs at 2.2GHz, 4600/4800 runs at 2.4GHz)
Dunno if the newer X2's lowered the clockspeed, but I'm doubting it.

Download the free tool CPu-Z somewhere and check, it tells you anything u evar need 2 know about ur cpu, mobo n ram.

my athlon64 3000+ runs at 1800mhz stock so i guess its 1600 per core cause mines sorta old.

No its not worth it unless you're really desperate to get DX10 early.

Seriously they released the OS in a premature state and most of its features are useless and/or annoying. It does crash far less then Windows XP though.

YoYoBalls Wrote:it looks pretty, that's about it

Agreed. There are not enough companies that have updated their applications yet to make it worth while. I have a 64 bit version, but most apps are still 32, so what's the point?

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Despite what some people claim, it does not run faster than XP - all benchmarks show that it runs slower.
Compatibility is also a fair issue of Vista.

I read the same thing everywhere.

Ge64 Wrote:vista is worthless, and heavily overpriced. i wouldnt pay $50 for it.

ive had vista installed when it was in beta 2, and i just hated it. not only is it not that special at all, its security is annoying and it MUNCHES all your performance away.

This is MS's way of doing things. Instead of recoding their kernal from the ground-up, they just add to it. This creates bloat. I love how they tout the feature of being able to use a flash drive as a sort of RAM. That's not a feature, that's just an excuse IMO.

Goshi Wrote:No its not worth it unless you're really desperate to get DX10 early.

Seriously they released the OS in a premature state and most of its features are useless and/or annoying. It does crash far less then Windows XP though.

Agreed that it was released early, but XP has never really crashed on me. I know XP well enough now so that I can have the same installation running for at the very least a year and a half to two years without issue.

All in all, even though I've got a version of Vista Ultimate (64 bit), I don't even care to use it. I will say that it was the most painless OS install I've ever done. I have done plenty of Linux installs too, which are easier than Windows for the most part. They're certainly quicker.

@z7shaft: From what I see, the core speed is 200MHz with a 4x multipiler, so 4x200 = 800MHz.

No, the clockspeed isn't split across two cores, both of them run at 800MHz.

You have a laptop, so I guess why it's like that.  Didn't know that it went down to 800MHz though.

wow, I've started quite the discussion here

that's cause if you start a serious discussion about something that seriously sucks you get lots of serious replies. imagine what would happen if you started a discussion about Sony

Ge64 Wrote:that's cause if you start a serious discussion about something that seriously sucks you get lots of serious replies. imagine what would happen if you started a discussion about Sony

oooo please don't start a sony discussion, every member on the site will have 10 posts to say about them...!!!

back on topic, stick to xp/mediacentre. vista isn't worth it at all, not many programs have are compatible and theyve changed alot of the core of the os so programs are going crazy.
ive got vista ultimate but going back to media centre for now, untill a service pack 2 or an update of some kind..

Yup vista sucks. Es pura mierda, good thing i didnt buy it just tried it on my friends pc.

Yeah, I'll stick to Media center. I do have a Windows Aero theme and if anyone wants it I'll upload it. Here's what the theme looks like. And, before you ask, yes, my name is Elvis.