Related
About to purchase a new laptop. Not much of a programmer, but a bit of a "power user" (for a businessperson) - do everything from graphics in Corel and Adobe products to large, intensive presentations to basic/intermediate web design. Getting a relatively powerful system for a business notebook (Lenovo - 2.4 GHz, 3 GB memory, 250 MB hard drive, etc.), but struggling in the decision between XP and Vista (Business or Ultimate). Very comfortable with XP and happy with performance and capabilities. Read a lot about the two operating systems and feel relatively confident that I want to stick with XP, but I kind of hate to stick with "older" technology. Cooking my own ROMs now for the Tilt and it seems there are definitely issues (although perhaps minor) working with some of the tools on Vista. Any strong feelings on this issue from any of the experts that frequent XPA?
I'm my own boss, so no issues with corporate requirements or compatibility and software compatibility issues are minimal. It seems truly to be a personal preference issue - unless someone points out an issue I hadn't considered. Looked around the site for thoughts, but haven't come upon anything.
Thanks in advance for any opinions you have.
I'm currenty using XP skinned with the Vista appearance and a black theme. Looks great (no Fisher-Price colours) and it's stable and everything runs on it just fine.
It will be a while before I use Vista - it's just too flaky right now.
i have a laptop with vista and it's ok
but then it came with vista so i can get drivers for everything and it runs ok
but i would never put vista on my desktop as drivers would likely be
an issue
and i would prob find some incompatability with some software too
so by having both i can get by
I have both on my desktop. Vista home premium and xp home. I use vista and only vista. It is fine for me, the only problem is itunes load in a weird windows, until u restore or minimise it then its normal. oh and it wants to scan and fix anythin i plug in...
but apart frm that its fine.
Id rather use activesync than wmdc though
Rory
as vista will be the common os in next few months, before buying a laptop go to the manufacturer's website and ensure that particular model is supplied with all drivers for vista.
many notebooks will come with linux.
btw vista business should be best for you.
acer has come up with some very good notebooks. although i have none of them but i will highly recommend an acer.
Vista on all computers at home, Xp pro at work, WM6 Pro on my PPC. Only problem I had with Vista was, I couldn't play BioShock.....
If you have the processing power (Core2 minimum, 2gb plus of memory) Vista will be OK- personally I ran it for months and found that it reduced my older but still reasonable system to a very basic mess.. no gaming, terrrible power users performance for video editing, image manipulation; it was only good for browsing the web and email.
I was so sick of it that I went back to XP as a last resort before I bought some new kit.. turns out that was all I needed- I can do everything I want apart from play the latest games, but otherwsie its great to have my PC back.
XP SP3 will do pretty much everything you want it to, and if it doesn't you'll be able to find out quickly and easily whats going on.
Vista will look pretty but suck all the performance out of a perfectly good machine and cause you never ending frustrations with access restrictions and drivers not being available. I'd sit it out until Windows 7.
XP or XP or even XP
I build and maintain computers for people and one or two small businesses and I would say I have stripped about fifteen machines all told of Vista and (IMHO ) Upgraded to XP go around the computer tech sites and you will find plenty of people bad mouthing Vista which is also why Dell has re started offering XP as a OS.
Its bad for working with older Peripherals and not so good if your networking with other OS's
I use vista at home and at work. i use 64 bit at work with SP1 and soon will be on 64 bit vista with SP1 at home. i prefer vista over xp, especially with the service pack. I reccomend using vista. xp was a great release though, that's for sure.
What advantages do you find it gives you Zach? I haven't seen anything apart from very, very minor inerface tweaks that I've really missed since reverting back to XP; what about Vista makes it worth the upgrade over XP to you?
i would say get xp pro and skin it with vista graphics and such with windows blinds i dont really see a big difference between the two except vista doesnt have drivers for some things and vista does kind of complicate things an that asking me for crap(yes i know you can take it off but wtf) and also oe time i couldnt delete something because i didnt have administrative rights im the only user on the pc who else would have it plus xp pro you would probably be more familiar with
xp dont have dx10 vista does
of cause my video card dont support dx10 and non of the games i play use dx10 so i dont care too much
I know a couple of people who have worked around the dx10 issues with XP, so thats not really a deal breaker.
I am running both, and I am happy with each doing its own set of jobs. for my programming needs and video processing I stick with XP because it isn't bogged down with the overhead of the new stuff. I also think XP is more trustworthy in terms of knowing exactly what the os itself is trying to do over your internet connection.
Vista is very good at my leisure uses. I always use it for web surfing or web coding. It handles my various connections over wifi and bluetooth much better than my XP sp3(rc2) machines. The features in vista although small enhancements are still good to have. A good example of this is that explorer seems to be multithreaded now. In XP if I do so large copy and paste operation then that instance of explorer does not allow me to do other tasks fully on the open folder. In vista the file copying seems to be separate from the normal use of explorer. It also does multiple concurrent copy operations properly where XP would not.
I find all pcs today very overpowered for what the majority of users need, so the overhead of vista may not be noticed too much. Having said all that I must confess that I turn off UAC and all the other built in protections and run as an administrator in vista. Not doing that is really intolerable.
Like Vista's looks, but its LastXP ver. 17.1.1 for me!
Windows Vista Service Pack 1 has been released.
2 cents:
With my Laptop you can slide out the Hard Drive from the side. I have two hard drives. One with XP Pro SP3 and the other with Vista Ultimate SP1.
I soo much Prefer XP Pro.
Hi,
Seems like my user profile is really similar to OP's. I do some light graphic design with photoshop, some stuff in Flash, a little web design, a lot of powerpoint, excel, use outlook with business contacts manager to do project management, and keep three devices synced. I use vista for this and have had no problems with it. THe kind of specced out system he wants to buy will have no problems handling the reqs for vista's fancy graphics stuff. I also like the file exploring and control panel interface better in vista than I do in XP. My vote on OS is go for vista business, no problems with any of the CS3 suite and office 2007 is one of the best software packages I have ever come across. The constantly asking for permission to do stuff is really easily turned off guys...
I do want to advise against getting a lenovo though. I have one and I hate it. The rescue recovery stuff will steal about 30 ggigs of your hard drive (that is so not an exageration), the batteries suck and completely crap out after a year (google that), loaded with bloatware and other junk you can't get of, it gets hot as hell and it weighs a ton. IBM was great, Lenovo is junk. Go for an Acer, I have two of them and I love them. Better performance, lighter, nicer keyboards, etc.
Sorry for the long post!
I've got a vaio with the specs you suggest, 3gb-250gb-core duo t8100 speedstep and 2.10ghz (vgn-nr21z) with vista service pack 1.
It will do everything you want fine.
I would suggest you set up a dual boot with xp and keep that for all things WM (it's just easier).
I agree with having both XP and Vista on your laptop using dual boot. While I have both Vista Ultimate and Xp (Sp3); I rarely boot into XP. Have it just incase, but really haven't found any need to use XP. I also have Vista Ultimate on three or four of my desktops at home and they run without issue. Microsoft says many PC will not run Vista, but most will install and recently most drivers are available. Yes, Vista runs better with more ram and faster cpu, but memory is really cheap these days. Also, Vista can run in XP compatibilty mode if you happen to come across and app that won't install. yes, Vista will ask if you want to proceed, but just shut off UAC and no more questions.
I run the Adobe CS3 suite without issues, actually it runs faster in Vista, run Office 2007 pro, MS Project, MS Visual Studio, C++ and Several X windows apps and no issues.
The best thing about Vista is its ability to Multi-Thread. Can copy gigs of data, while still surfing the net or using MS office. CS3 is just so much faster.
But hey if XP is your thing, go for XP
ok so what are the thoughts on vista im thinking of doing a system restore and placing windows vista on my laptop due to i think ive ran across a virus i think and no clean will fix it so just wanted know anyone thoughts on placing windows vista on my Hp compq nx9010 laptop..is it a good idea..
If you do, you will be sorely dissapointed. Vista, as it stands at the moment, is not meant to be ran on a laptop. Laptops just can't support the memory usage - they use up 1.2GBs of ram, using aero - I don't know what you have, but anything under 2GB ram will make computing a miserable experience.
Play games? Almost all games that are played on the Vista OS either:
1) Do not run
2) Have major issues (For example, Warcraft 3 TFT, Screen flashs every few seconds)
3) Crash or bug after used for awhile.
Also, Vista is slower on startup, and shutdown.
I'd love to change back to XP. Hopefully, SP2 for Vista will be released soon, and it will fix some of the current problems...
Corrykid said:
If you do, you will be sorely dissapointed. Vista, as it stands at the moment, is not meant to be ran on a laptop. Laptops just can't support the memory usage - they use up 1.2GBs of ram, using aero - I don't know what you have, but anything under 2GB ram will make computing a miserable experience.
Play games? Almost all games that are played on the Vista OS either:
1) Do not run
2) Have major issues (For example, Warcraft 3 TFT, Screen flashs every few seconds)
3) Crash or bug after used for awhile.
Also, Vista is slower on startup, and shutdown.
I'd love to change back to XP. Hopefully, SP2 for Vista will be released soon, and it will fix some of the current problems...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah i have sp2 for xp but my screen is flashing every fews seconds on my desktop and ive ran scans but still messed up....and i dont have the service pack and really dont wanna made that trick to the computer repair store ..
perfection3 said:
yeah i have sp2 for xp but my screen is flashing every fews seconds on my desktop and ive ran scans but still messed up....and i dont have the service pack and really dont wanna made that trick to the computer repair store ..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry trip to the repair store...wrong word
You know, you can edit, instead of spamming. You need to download some spyware software... Spybot Search and Destroy or Microsoft Anti Spyware are good.
Do you already have Anti-Virus running?
Corrykid said:
You know, you can edit, instead of spamming. You need to download some spyware software... Spybot Search and Destroy or Microsoft Anti Spyware are good.
Do you already have Anti-Virus running?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah i have that and AVG as well i dont know what happened..my gf friend was on it for three days while i was at work and then all of a sudden i cant even click on my apps. or anything on my desktop all i can see is them blinking every few seconds and my background
I use Vista on my laptop now (2gb ram, core duo 2ghz, geforce 8600gt 256 mb)
After ServicePack 1, Vista is now my favourite OS, with the latest Ubuntu as a good runner up, and I've tried them all, including the Mac os.
XP still uses less memory than Vista, but the batterytime with Vista is much better. Vista has some really good functions that is not native with XP.
so how much is the xp sp2 usually costs if I wanted it new?is there any cheap sites
perfection3 said:
so how much is the xp sp2 usually costs if I wanted it new?is there any cheap sites
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About 80 bucks on ebay the last I checked. That was for OEM. SP3 I believe came out for XP not too long ago. (Just throwing that out there)
Vista runs so much better when you have a machine that can take it.
I have Home Premium, 4gb ram, E6600 processor, WD Raptor 36gb for my Win files, and a WD 250gb for media, Nvidia 8800 GTS.
It handles it with ease. After I installed SP1, it's been a great OS. Bear in mind I used to LOATHE Vista. Now, not so much. My games play fine. (BF2142) I've never had a screen flicker problem you guys are talking about. Make sure you're running the latest drivers for your hardware, that will help a TON.
Hope this helps ya.
dual boot....
dual boot too...
but i never use xp, except when i flashed ap4...
and i dont have sp1 for vista... [because i cant it ****s up my system into reduced functionality..]
Rory
muthaflaco said:
About 80 bucks on ebay the last I checked. That was for OEM. SP3 I believe came out for XP not too long ago. (Just throwing that out there)
Vista runs so much better when you have a machine that can take it.
I have Home Premium, 4gb ram, E6600 processor, WD Raptor 36gb for my Win files, and a WD 250gb for media, Nvidia 8800 GTS.
It handles it with ease. After I installed SP1, it's been a great OS. Bear in mind I used to LOATHE Vista. Now, not so much. My games play fine. (BF2142) I've never had a screen flicker problem you guys are talking about. Make sure you're running the latest drivers for your hardware, that will help a TON.
Hope this helps ya.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am close to agree with you, yes to run vista you need fast PC, i have tested it on similar PC as yours 4gb ram, q6600 intel quad core, Seagate 500 gb SATAII, 8800GT 512 mb, but still seem slow.
Windows XP is a way more responsive and compatible ATM, Don't misunderstand me, i like vista but I find it too slow on a machine like this
perfection3 said:
ok so what are the thoughts on vista im thinking of doing a system restore and placing windows vista on my laptop due to i think ive ran across a virus i think and no clean will fix it so just wanted know anyone thoughts on placing windows vista on my Hp compq nx9010 laptop..is it a good idea..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I put Vista on my old Gateway "Celeron M" Laptop and don't have any issues. I don't use my laptop to play games so it doesn't get stressed out. I did upgrade the memory to 1G though!
Corrykid said:
If you do, you will be sorely dissapointed. Vista, as it stands at the moment, is not meant to be ran on a laptop. Laptops just can't support the memory usage - they use up 1.2GBs of ram, using aero - I don't know what you have, but anything under 2GB ram will make computing a miserable experience.
Play games? Almost all games that are played on the Vista OS either:
1) Do not run
2) Have major issues (For example, Warcraft 3 TFT, Screen flashs every few seconds)
3) Crash or bug after used for awhile.
Also, Vista is slower on startup, and shutdown.
I'd love to change back to XP. Hopefully, SP2 for Vista will be released soon, and it will fix some of the current problems...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No true for me I have 3 Toshiba laptops 2 of them are now running Vista have had vista on all of them but I need one with XP for my work because I'm to bussy cooking that I havn't had time to rewrite an app I use for my work and not running on vista.
The Qosmio G20 (original windows media center) I can play almost all games only had some problems with Advance Warefighter 2 but all other games I've played are running without a problem... I also use the Qosmio for music production and yes Vista is not causing any problems at all it only a Pentium M 1.73GHz with 1 GB ram
So I can't see why people flame Vista so much.
If you're running vista with 1g of ram, you're not using aero.
If that laptop has a 64 bit capable CPU in it (probably), then get XP x64. It's actually more accurate to call it Windows Workstation 2003 since it's really Windows Server 2003 in disguise, and it will run circles around XP 32 bit. Far superior performance, better memory management, smoother multitasking, and the 2K3 kernel to base everything on makes for a kickass machine. And it's cheaper than XP too.
As for Vista, well... if you have 2GB of RAM, give it a go if you're interested. Anything less is really a waste of time. Vista really offers nothing over XP at this point except DX10 support and some fancier GUI effects. Overall, it does exactly what XP does, except XP does it without quite as much baggage to lug around.
bbz_Ghost said:
If that laptop has a 64 bit capable CPU in it (probably), then get XP x64. It's actually more accurate to call it Windows Workstation 2003 since it's really Windows Server 2003 in disguise, and it will run circles around XP 32 bit. Far superior performance, better memory management, smoother multitasking, and the 2K3 kernel to base everything on makes for a kickass machine. And it's cheaper than XP too.
As for Vista, well... if you have 2GB of RAM, give it a go if you're interested. Anything less is really a waste of time. Vista really offers nothing over XP at this point except DX10 support and some fancier GUI effects. Overall, it does exactly what XP does, except XP does it without quite as much baggage to lug around.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't have said it better myself.
my hp lappy came with vista it got 2GB and is ok fast
my desktop will be kept xp for compatiblity reasons
(unless starcraft2 will use fancy dx10 stuff )
if one only needs xp for a few things one could always
use wmware or ms virtuel pc (to a lesser degree)
and use it as a virtual machine
I am no phone geek but when it comes to PC, well lets just say i know a thing or two.
Vista is the future, forget xp, and yes it will run great with 2GB of ram, you just need to configure it right.
Bought a notebook Acer TravelMate 6292 with original Vista Business, 2GHz Centrino Duo and 3GB of RAM. Well, satisfied so far, although have problems in HalfLife 2 while playing on big open surfaces and Bioshock, that is actually unplayable. All "oldies", like NFS Carbon and Battlefield Vietnam (yeah, baby!), seem to be ok. I blame it on a ****ty video card Intel X3100 (max 358 Mb shared with RAM ???) and DirectX 10. Music, movies, etc. seem to be ok.
Hey everybody. I respect a lot of the information I get from this site and have come to realize that a majority of posters posses information beyond a simple cell phone. So based on that I ask this: what are the real world differences of using a windows vista 64 bit machine as opposed to its 32 bit counterpart? I'm helping my brother buy a new laptop and he wants to go 64 bit. I have never really looked into it as everything I have ever needed was on my 32 bit machine. What im wondering is how it affects the simple programs on the machine...itunes, firefox, thunderbird, etc. All free programs. I know that most software has to be optimized or created for a 64 bit OS, but I also have the understanding that it will run 32 bit programs and plug ins. This also carries over to certain VPN clients and their compatibility with the machine as well. So basically, will having a 64 bit hinder him in anyways or is it something that should be ok, especially as the trend is to move towards these 64 bit systems?
I appreciate the help guys.
thanks,
AJ
I just got my new HP yesterday which has x64, and I haven't seen a difference yet. The only thing that has happened was iTunes crashed twice in a row. But it has run perfect since then. As for getting it on a laptop, I don't think it would be such a good idea. A laptop, unless you spen a lot of money or build one, isn't as powerful as a desktop, and you may have problems. My Inspiron constantly crashes with x32.
it all depends on the programms your gonna run! if its stuff like firefox and the other things you mention then there is no point going for 64bit systems as of yet!
unless your gonna do stuff like 'data mining' or the software is designed for 64bit CPUs. its do with the precision of represented floating point data, you might get cleverly programmed software that will run 2 32bit codes parralell on a 64bit processor (doubt it).
technically speaking a wider bus width means higher data throughput rates but like i said the sofware has to take advantage
i might be talking total crap tho!
My experience
I've got a desktop PC running Vista64, and an HTPC running Vista32 (which I originally built to run Vista64). This is just my personal experiences!
The HTPC was rock solid on both Vista32 and Vista64. I was able to run every application I tried on both systems as 64 is able to run 32 processes and programs quite happily and with no noticable slow down. The only issue I had is that 64bit programs require 64bit plug-ins and codecs. In particular I was using Vista Media Centre 24/7 and this is a 64bit program, but most of the freeware plug-ins for it were written for Vista32 so didn't work. Also, Media Player is another 64bit program so most visualisations (designed for XP and Vista32) didn't work.
Since wiping the drive and reinstalling Vista32 all the plug-ins I wanted to use have worked. I find it annoying knowing that not all the 4Gb of RAM inside the PC is being used, but in reality I never notice the difference.
My gaming PC has been running Vista64 since I first built in December 07. I've never had an issue with it, I don't think I've ever seen a blue screen, and no program I've tried to install has refused. You have to make sure you select 64bit for your ATI drivers (and I guess nVidia too) and your codecs that you want to use with Media Player but beyond that day-to-day usage is no different.
From using the two, the only difference is one tops out at 3Gb usable RAM and one doesn't! Ask yourself if you are ever going to use more than 3Gb. On a laptop for light use, I'd say probably not. On a desktop PC for heavy gaming/applications I'd say it's something worth considering.
also old windows3.11 16bit programs will not run on 64bit os
they work on 32bit but doubt too many people use those anymore
Rudegar said:
also old windows3.11 16bit programs will not run on 64bit os
they work on 32bit but doubt too many people use those anymore
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
compatibility mode doesn't work? plus I was reading something the other day that said Microsoft released software that makes running older applications easier.
I would say go 64bit, the more people who uses 64bit is the faster the transition. and the faster we'll see mainstream computers with 16gb!
Coming from Nexus one where it was no issues with installing ROMs. However life is not as easy with my SGS.
I'm using VMWare on my mac to use programs that are only for PC. My issue is getting the SGS to even show up in VMW. Anyone with some mac experience (I'm a couple of month old mac user after 15 years on PC) Who has made this working So I can start ODIN and get back to 2.2.
Kind regards
Frewys
MAC = fancy closed source Linux
anyways in VMware you have the option to ADD a USB device to your VMware machine, once you do that you can MAP the USB on the VM machine to the phsyical USB port where the SGS is connected to
Fancy, nice looking. I was curious and bored of PC.
This sounds interesting. I get the popup asking me to which machine to connect it to. But then absolutly nothing.. No missing drivers or anything in Device manager.
Do you have a link where to read more? looking around on VMWares sight is of course an option.. unless you can point me in the direction.
Kind regards
Fredrik
EDIT. Looking over VMWares sight didn't really give some help. So I'm still where I started. I even tried to disable the USB 2.0 since there where apparently some instances where it didn't work but in the end still no go.
Eh. Have you installed sgs drivers in virtual machine yet? Easiest is to install kies
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Apple being notoriously strict on following the USB standard to the T might be an issue, I don't even think VMware gets around this but I could easily be wrong since it is software that is detecting hardware but I know people that have problems with the SGS that haven't been cleared up with VMware. I think they do this so customers are more likely to buy Apple branded products and they get their mega premium due to a lack of competition that their comps will support.
So, what happens that is applicable to you here, is that the device doesn't get recognized to begin with and Samsung (assuming they test on Macs at all) sees this at some point and says F it, it's not worth our time...possibly even under the belief that all mac users would want iPhone anyways.
PS, I don't consider this, nor am I trying to spread, FUD. That's just what I've seen from other Mac/PC device intermingling in other areas and part of the reason why many users can't charge their iPads on their computers.
I setup a small Windows XP install on Boot Camp. I already had it so I can play Starcraft 2 since it runs like ass in Mac but worked out perfectly for my phone too.
You could try installing the Android SDK.
I have installed Eclipse and the Android SDKs on my Macbook and use ADB to control my phone (debug mode turned on in the phone). That's the way I have developed and debug my Android apps.
I also have Parallels installed to use the Bootcamp partition from Mac OS X. I found I could only get Kies to work (USB debugging turned off again) when re-booting into Bootcamp, not via Parallels, so I guess Samsung is doing something funny at a low level USB driver level, which neither Parallels or VMWare support.
Thanks for all the reply guys!
@ickyboo, alovell83 Yes. Installed Kies. Installed separate drivers. No effect. It is not even in device manager list.
@decepticon The problem for me with bootcamp is to my knowledge (like I said new to Mac) they don't allow bootcamp on a partition HDD. Maybe I'm just "PC" and don't really need to make extra partitions to save time in case of need to reinstall (saving all music. images, movies etc on "D" partition). Enlighten me. Come to think of it. I could remove the extra partition install the bootcamp and THEN remake the partition?
(of topic. How much better FPS do u get on bootcamp compared to native mac? I ran it on my 2010 MacBook Pro 17" and have to lover the the settings pretty much to lowest settings to get playable frame rate)
@shawnfr that is interesting!! So I can use the bootcamp partion as a source in virtual machine!? Sounds sweet! Know if it is only possible in parallels? yea looks like there is something going on With the USB thing on the Samsung.. shame..
So After getting rid of all my PCs I had to use my fathers to finally flash the ROM. A LOT easier!!
frewys said:
@decepticon The problem for me with bootcamp is to my knowledge (like I said new to Mac) they don't allow bootcamp on a partition HDD. Maybe I'm just "PC" and don't really need to make extra partitions to save time in case of need to reinstall (saving all music. images, movies etc on "D" partition). Enlighten me. Come to think of it. I could remove the extra partition install the bootcamp and THEN remake the partition?
(of topic. How much better FPS do u get on bootcamp compared to native mac? I ran it on my 2010 MacBook Pro 17" and have to lover the the settings pretty much to lowest settings to get playable frame rate)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you already have a spare partition then you can use it. Just run through the Boot Camp setup and it will walk you through it. You can read your Mac partition in Windows but it's read only to protect it from any Windows virus.
I haven't checked FPS because it runs so bad on my 2007 Macbook Pro but in Windows I get a noticeable improvement due to the newest nVidia drivers in Windows. Sadly Apple won't allow hardware providers to release drivers directly for Mac.
That is just it. I get this cryptic error that i googled and to my understanding it cannot install on a partitioned disk. Right now I'm copying my entire drive to an external so that I can remove the partition and copy it back after hopefully getting the bootcamp up and running.
No I know about that whole driver fiasco for Mac. They are waaaaay behind windows on the graphdrivers... But thankfully steam seems to put some sense in Jobes.
Coming from Windows I think that the virus thing is exaggerated.. I had ONE virus of negligence during 15 years of PC. But don't trust common sense to all other million PC users
frewys said:
That is just it. I get this cryptic error that i googled and to my understanding it cannot install on a partitioned disk. Right now I'm copying my entire drive to an external so that I can remove the partition and copy it back after hopefully getting the bootcamp up and running.
No I know about that whole driver fiasco for Mac. They are waaaaay behind windows on the graphdrivers... But thankfully steam seems to put some sense in Jobes.
Coming from Windows I think that the virus thing is exaggerated.. I had ONE virus of negligence during 15 years of PC. But don't trust common sense to all other million PC users
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know if it's relevant for newer MBPs but I did get a video update that says it solves issues with SC2.
I had some issues with Boot Camp and partition tables at first but I removed them all and did it all through Boot Camp and it worked fine. The virus things is exaggerated but common sense takes a back seat to "see me live on my web cam click here" lol
Been working on this annoying thing for a couple of hours.. Bootcamp is NOT very flexible.. But I found a way to "cheat" it.. I had to remove the second partition. Then make "system" partition the entire drive. THEN I make the Bootcamp partition. And after windows is installed I can repartiton the System and make my second "data" partition!! Messy. But hope it works. Installing windows soon.
The SC2 update didn't do anything for me. But I'm happy to see it.. At least that is a start.. I read it had some effect for some older MacBooks...
Nope.. No luck at all. Giving up for now on BootCamp. I guess I will stick to PCs for my SGS in the future. I dont really have time for gaming anyway so the issue with lack of partitioning is not really worth it
I have not yet had any luck getting my SGS to show up in a Windows 7 VM running on VMWare Fusion.
USB virtualization is a tricky animal. A device has to be enumerated twice - first on the host, then on the guest. I imagine the SGS is having a hard time with the low-level second set config request. This seems fairly typical with high-bandwidth USB devices like PDAs.
When I get to work tomorrow I'm going to try it out against VMWare Server and VMWare Workstation. I might even try Hyper-V just for giggles. Workstation has the ability to disable the set config command. So maybe it will have more luck (doesn't help Mac users though!)
ok. Interesting. Good luck with that
I just realized Mac has VirtualBox to! Anyone tried it? Maybe there is a small difference for the better in this case...
Well, I'm thinking about replacing the SATA drive in my laptop with a SSD and I'm hoping for some recommendations on good quality/speed drives. I use the laptop mostly for gaming (WoW, L4D2, and anything else that grabs my attention) and I'm just looking to bump the performance.
Because I would be installing at least 2 games on there, plus Win7, I'll probably need a 120 or 128GB drive, I don't think the 64GB's would be enough. I'm hoping to keep the price of the drive as close to $200 as possible.
Also, since I've never installed an OS onto a SSD drive before, can anyone think of any issues that may come up from using the Asus system restore utility? I'm a tech, so my skill level is fairly high, I've just never used SSD's before so I don't know what to expect. Do you just plug them in like any PATA or SATA drive, or do you need to change BIOS settings? Does the OS need to be specially configured for it, etc etc?
if ur lappy is fairly new it should work fine , same way u install win to a hdd
From what I know, connection wise, SSDs are the same as DiskHDs. You can try and clone your old drive to the SSD if you want.
One thing though, if you are a PC tech, you would know the ASUS system restore is on a separate partition of your current hard drive, so if you remove that one, you wont be able to restore...unless you have the restore on a series of CDs
jaszek said:
One thing though, if you are a PC tech, you would know the ASUS system restore is on a separate partition of your current hard drive, so if you remove that one, you wont be able to restore...unless you have the restore on a series of CDs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct, but there's supposed to be a way to basically copy the data from the restore partition to an external device like a USB drive.
http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx...E&id=20100429010016296&page=1&SLanguage=en-us That link is for a netbook, but it should be (I'm hoping, I haven't actually bothered to try it yet) the same process to "clone" the restore partition.
why not make a clean install and dl the updated drivers from the asus website ?
I would LOVE to...if I had a Win7 Home Premium disc available. Unfortunately, all I have is a Win7 Pro dvd. And I would rather not DL a Win7 torrent which could have all sorts of mal-ware included, or purchase a new copy of Win7 Home Premium. Cloning the restore partition is probably the safer way, then I'll just get all the latest drivers from Asus, if Windows Update doesn't get them.
But, back to my original question...does anyone have recommendations for specific SSD drives to get?
if ur lappy came with win7 installed , a sticker should be on with the serial
i dont have specifics , cuz it changes so fast , but ocz , runcore , corsair should be great , also , aviod the ones with jmicron controllers , these were the old ones and they perform poorly in small random writes/reads
It did, and there is...but without an install DVD, the serial isn't too helpful. But, like I said, I'll just clone the recovery partition and reinstall that way. Thanks for the brand suggestions though, I'll look into that. I've also heard Intel SSD's are supposed to be good, any truth to that?
yeah theyre some of the best but in a price range of their own
You'll want to research SSD maintenance. The physical cells of SSDs will degrade over time, and quicker if proper precautions are not taken. In a nutshell, you want to limit drive activity as much as possible.
For example, disable:
Prefetch (with registry tweak)
Superfetch
Defrag
Indexing
Some also say disable paging, but I personally wouldn't recommend that.
*Also, no you don't need to alter anything in the bios. Just plug it in via your SATA connector and fire it up. I haven't personally tried a restore utility, I just did a fresh install which worked without a hitch.
atr0phy said:
You'll want to research SSD maintenance. The physical cells of SSDs will degrade over time, and quicker if proper precautions are not taken. In a nutshell, you want to limit drive activity as much as possible.
For example, disable:
Prefetch (with registry tweak)
Superfetch
Defrag
Indexing
Some also say disable paging, but I personally wouldn't recommend that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool, thanks...if I do this, I'm thinking of doubling my RAM and making half of it a RAMDisk for the paging file, specifically to limit drive activity (plus, it should bump performance even more).
But for your other recommendations, I thought I read most of those were automatically disabled by Win7 when it detected a SSD? I haven't heard anything about indexing though, but it's not like I ever do file searching on my laptop, so disabling that wouldn't cause any issues.
sfreemanoh said:
Cool, thanks...if I do this, I'm thinking of doubling my RAM and making half of it a RAMDisk for the paging file, specifically to limit drive activity (plus, it should bump performance even more).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wouldnt just getting double ram , and disabling pagefile have better or same result ? i think so
souljaboy said:
wouldnt just getting double ram , and disabling pagefile have better or same result ? i think so
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah...except the harddrive seek times would still be a bottleneck... So, faster than now, yes. Faster than a ssd, or the same, no.