Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 1:11:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 14:25:05 GMT
Hi Alex,
How are finding Win8 for general use? Most people I know who have it are cursing it, stating a preference for 7. If I treat myself to a new PC/lap top I'll make the change but it's not worth it on my old banger!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 15:04:25 GMT
Well Microsoft WOULD say that, would't they? We will HAVE to ditch XP at some point. PC operating systems have been being developed for SO long that newer versions don't actually offer anything functional that's any real use. Win XP is beyond my needs. I did try a pre-release version of W8.. very nice. But why do I need it? I don't. I don't want or need to learn a new interface. Not another one please. It's bad enough having to learn to stumble through Android on my new tablet. If new OSs gave (near?) perfect secrity then THAT would be A GOOD THING. But no-one can guarantee that can they? I'd rather get updates and tweeks to Win XP if I had my way. But then I was happy with Windows 3.1 ! Mind you, before that I was totaly ecstatic about DR DOS Plus and GEM for goodness sake. Somewhere I have my course work for Digital Mapping computer graphics written in Locomotive Basic! And in the loft? My ORIC :-) Derek
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 21:07:41 GMT
Hi Chris
I went to their Classic look which I am more comfortable with. W8 is much faster loading , but more important to me, is that Audio with W7 was a little better than with XP, and W8 is a little better again. As my PC has a lot of programs on it, BSODs became a P.I.T.A. with XP . When you have quite a few programs installed, there can also be frustrating program conflicts that are damn hard to resolve. I had to give up on Nero with XP due to conflicts with other installed programs. There is now an 8.1 version available from the Windows "store" for DL that apparently makes it more comfortable for those who prefer the older interface.As I am using the "Classic" look, I don't feel the need to DL that very long update (3.5GB ?) at the moment. Overall, my W8/64 installation is way more reliable, and it is also better for taking advantage of modern Processor features. Having access to much larger amounts of inexpensive fast RAM is a big plus as well, as this speeds up programs like video editing , Photoshop etc. Download management is better with this new installation, and you can pause and return to DLs if you wish. IF a DL stalls due to your IP due to congestion etc., you even have the option to retry the DL, and resume where it left off. Even things like converting downloaded high res albums to .wav files are way quicker, although that is also due to improved hardware. Routine Defragmenting is also a thing of the past that I don't miss. It's automatically optimised, which helps with PC responsiveness and performance. I also have an automated Backup Image set for 7PM Sunday night. Yes, the PC is a little sluggish while it does this, but I can still do general stuff while it is doing it. Kind Regards Alex
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 31, 2013 14:30:45 GMT
I have to say I'm still with XP.
Alex - Most of the benefits you refer to (such as memory use etc) are associated with the 64 bit versions of the software and were present with XP64. The exception obviously being the audio which is important to us and may well justify the change in OS. I'm not saying W8 is not a positive development but as most software still runs under XP it doesn't make much of a day to day difference.
What annoys me (apart from being reluctant to change after being ripped off buying Vista) is that the increase in PC power has not been proportionally reflected in the OS.
As for viruses, somebody needs to add up all of the money the sh*t*y little hackers have cost the world over the past few years and pump a bit of it into some international Police with modern day thumb screws. Its a bit like house thieves - it's not just the things they steal on the day, its all the time they waste in people having to buy alarms, check doors, worry about leaving the house etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2013 15:12:54 GMT
Alex and Adrian,
Both useful replies. I'm thinking along the lines of an i5 quad core 3rd or 4th gen. intel based decktop running Win8. i7 would be nice but probably beyond my pocket. It would then become my "everything" computer with the laptop demoted to casual use and the music itx-pc likewise. I can then add Blu ray etc as funds allow. Anyone up to date with best-value etc.? I have all the peripherals already (compatible) so just need the actual PC with OS and hoping not to spend more than £400 to £500 max.
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Oct 31, 2013 19:56:08 GMT
Alex is the guy to ask. He is much more up to date than me.
My last upgrade was 6 months ago. An AMD 3700 X2 board packed in and I picked up an FX62 and 4GB of DDR2 800 ram for £50.
My problem is that I read about stuff years ago, love it at the time, and then can't resist it when its cheap. The board, FX62, and memory was originally a £800 setup so to me, and my outdated ways, it was bargain. The worst thing for me is the old dual CPU boards. They look so cool yet the modern processors do all that and more without the hassle.
My own experience - based up a 10 year period from my first PC in 1993 to my last expensive processor in 2003 - is that it is very easy to overestimate the speed you really need. Often a 2 or 3 year old systems run everything you require and most OS's are designed to run on old tech. I am always inclined to get an ebay bargain and then the best monitor and keyboard I can lay my hands on.
Not very helpful I know. Sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2013 21:18:45 GMT
Adrian and Chris Many new software programs are designed to work with faster processors with additional cores, and recent Operating Systems. Some video editing programs even allow you to use the additional processing power of some later Video NVidia Cards (CUDA) This greatly speeds up video format conversions where Filters are used to fine tune visual aspects such as sharpness, colour saturation etc. I wouldn't even try to use an XP machine to convert a Youtube .MP4 video of higher quality than average to say BluRay specifications, including conversion of audio to 16/48 and a smidgin more sharpness to help make up for the dull look of some .mp4 videos due to using too low a bit rate for highest quality video. It can be like switching TV channels to a HD channel.. Older XP machines are as slow as a wet week ! Regards Alex
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Nov 1, 2013 11:14:50 GMT
Alex.
Some good points and particularly if you are doing processor intensive tasks (generally video manipulation) the modern processors will easily win out.
I don't however and for Office, DVD playback, web use, and some games (I still haven't opened some of the games I bought 5 years ago) an older machine with an OS on a SSD is just as good and drivers etc have already had the bugs ironed out.
Its important to identify what you are going to use the PC for and quickly review the specs for the major software. If nothing you intend running needs the latest, most expensive, video card, then don't get one; the best (and I mean easily the best) 2D image I have seen is on the Matrox Parhelia I use on my main WP rig. The computer is a dog and wouldn't run a game but is a joy to word process on.
Often people buy a new PC, install all their old software on it and find it only offers a small improvement which was largely down to the 'fresh' install in any event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 13:33:42 GMT
My current laptop is straining at the seams, a lot of programmes on it, I frequently need to run several at any one time and it does occasionally grind to a halt!
I keep it as "clean" as possible, in fact the last time I had to do a full reinstall I didn't gain any noticeable improvement in speed or multi-tasking. Therefore, I definitely need greater processing power and RAM. Plus my needs seem to always increasing so I'll go for the best-er-rest one I can afford. I appreciate certain progs will run at there own rate but I do feel the need for speed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 23:51:38 GMT
Hi Chris Another compelling reason for me to get away from Windows XP. Check out the images below, done using Photoshop CS2. You need to start out with an image that is at least a minimum of 300% larger than your screen size. You then need to enlarge it to say 4 times the size, perhaps at a higher resolution to permit labelling of the components, then reduce the size and resolution again. If you have an older processor with say 2GB of System memory, it will be VERY slow, and may even stall. If you don't do this, the final image will lack resolution. In the photo of the PCB, similar has to be done, as very few cameras will allow you to get a close rendition of the colour markings of MF resistors. Many of the resistors in that photo have had their colours corrected and highlighted, as well as the space between them cleaned up so that just comparing this photo with your own build will give you some idea of whether you have some errors or not. The images before being reduced for posting, are obviously more revealing. Don't even think about doing this with an old XP clunker ! It's very time consuming even with a fast processor and heaps of memory. Kind Regards Alex
|
|
pagan
Been here a while!
Posts: 512
|
Post by pagan on Nov 2, 2013 22:52:57 GMT
Hi guys Another thing to know about XP is that M$ will stop all support for it in April 2014.. So therefore no more security patches, new drivers, or bug fixes. With that very few software companies will do updates as well. Be aware, If your surf the net with XP in the future.
If your pc is dyeing (hardware) or is able to be updated, go to win7, or Linux. If your pc has an Intel core 2 duo there should not be a problem earlier Intels I don't know. As for AND processors, I had Win7 running on an old AND 4800 (939 socket) without problems.
As for Win8, well I didn't like it, maybe Win8.1 is better for a desktop pc, but I havn't tried it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 0:44:33 GMT
I've spoken to a couple of nerdy types that don't use touch screen but have upgraded to Win8.1 (free to Win8 peeps).
They were both very positive about the improvements to the UI. Apparently many of the most annoying 8 features have been made switchable to aid mouse & keyboard users....
|
|
pagan
Been here a while!
Posts: 512
|
Post by pagan on Nov 3, 2013 1:24:36 GMT
Yes win8.1 has made some things switchable, well thats an improvement but making a tablet based gui for a desktop pc was stupid.
At present companies will upgrade to Win7, why, because it's been out for a while now and is very stable.. So from a corporate view, Win7 could be the next XP. AFAIK M$ may/may not like this as it disrupts there idea of pay per use. The M$ store is waiting
What extra does Win8/8.1 bring? especially for a desktop pc? What has it left out?
My experience with M$ is that you don't jump on their latest wiz bang OS..
|
|