1–1011–20…31–34

Another liar exposed!

From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)15 Nov 2014 09:59
To: fixrman 5 of 34
41270.5 In reply to 41270.4
Because he's old skool and he HATES NEW STUFF!
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)15 Nov 2014 12:29
To: fixrman 6 of 34
41270.6 In reply to 41270.4
3 reasons: too cheap to upgrade, games and our main client at work requires our stuff to run on it.
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)15 Nov 2014 12:31
To: ANT_THOMAS 7 of 34
41270.7 In reply to 41270.3
It has an agp graphics card.
Reply
0/0
From: koswix15 Nov 2014 13:48
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 8 of 34
41270.8 In reply to 41270.7
Have you tried upping the AGP voltage to 2gb tbh?
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)15 Nov 2014 15:38
To: koswix 9 of 34
41270.9 In reply to 41270.8
Glad you mentioned that. Another reason to not upgrade: ram is maxed out @ 2G. I'll probably be buying a new barebones kit in another year or two, and get Win7 oem/jim*.



*Jim Intentionally Misleads
Reply
0/0
From: ANT_THOMAS15 Nov 2014 17:23
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 10 of 34
41270.10 In reply to 41270.9
What's the cpu?

Win 7 runs fine on 2GB and a relatively slow (by today's standards) Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) mobile cpu.
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)15 Nov 2014 18:44
To: ANT_THOMAS 11 of 34
41270.11 In reply to 41270.10
x2 4850e (2.5G)
Reply
0/0
From: ANT_THOMAS15 Nov 2014 18:56
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 12 of 34
41270.12 In reply to 41270.11
Give Windows 7 a go.
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)15 Nov 2014 19:00
To: ANT_THOMAS 13 of 34
41270.13 In reply to 41270.12
I use it at work. Can't say it's noticeably better than xp.
Reply
0/0
From: Lucy (X3N0PH0N)15 Nov 2014 19:27
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 14 of 34
41270.14 In reply to 41270.13
It manages memory better than XP and so usually feels faster (i.e. is more responsive) on limited RAM. 
Reply
0/0
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)15 Nov 2014 19:51
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 15 of 34
41270.15 In reply to 41270.14
Windows 8 FTW
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)15 Nov 2014 23:33
To: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD) 16 of 34
41270.16 In reply to 41270.15
If I used Windows more often, the version might matter to me.
EDITED: 15 Nov 2014 23:36 by DSMITHHFX
Reply
0/0
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)15 Nov 2014 23:52
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 17 of 34
41270.17 In reply to 41270.16
That version would blow your fucking mind. Or what passes for it.
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)16 Nov 2014 01:15
To: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD) 18 of 34
41270.18 In reply to 41270.17
From what little I've seen of it, it is certainly baffling.
Reply
0/0
From: fixrman16 Nov 2014 04:11
To: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD) 19 of 34
41270.19 In reply to 41270.15
Windows Ain't Sucks.
Reply
0/0
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)18 Nov 2014 15:46
To: Lucy (X3N0PH0N) 20 of 34
41270.20 In reply to 41270.14
Plus it hasn't reached end of life.  I'm interested to see what MS will do when someone releases a show stopping virus.  I wonder if they will refuse to patch it or if the pressure to do so will be to great.  They may actually be wishing for that to happen to speed up the adoption of newer OS's.

I'm running the 10 Technical Review and it's no different than 8 with a hybrid start menu.  Of course it's still early so lots could change before it's released I guess.
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)18 Nov 2014 16:32
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 21 of 34
41270.21 In reply to 41270.20
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms14-nov.aspx
Reply
0/0
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)18 Nov 2014 16:58
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 22 of 34
41270.22 In reply to 41270.21
What are you showing me here?  That XP is already in trouble?
Reply
0/0
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)18 Nov 2014 17:22
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 23 of 34
41270.23 In reply to 41270.22
xp's not on that shit list.
Reply
0/0
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)18 Nov 2014 18:29
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 24 of 34
41270.24 In reply to 41270.23
That's because the OS's on that list are getting patched, XP isn't on that list because it's not and will be vulnerable.
Reply
0/0