- Joined
- Jul 31, 2004
Your preferred ideology is "Vista sucks." It is quite obvious.
Your statements were disgustingly exaggerated. For many, that is equivalent to BS.
Here, you may find that what petteyg359 actually wrote was this:
petteyg359 wrote: "...rather rudely insulted pretty much every person on this forum who answers questions about 32-bit vs 64-bit, 4GB limit, PAE, etc."
Rude? Insulted? Did I said BS? Interesting how some guys mistake their OS for the GF.
Again, what I actually wrote:
What you wrote, and why I wrote the above:
There's no way Fallout 3 is loading the environment in 2 seconds unless you're running from an SSD, have a SCSI, SAS, or similar drive with insane RPM, or were running it from the RAM disk.
A crappy interface decision. One line of text, stating the current amount of available RAM in the "create disk" dialog would suffice, but it isn't there. Two clicks, you say? There should be zero. That's like adding a button to the drive properties dialog in Windows, and not showing you the actual size of the drive you're looking at until you click the button. Sheer stupidity on the part of the interface designer(s).petteyg359 wrote: "The interface for adding a new disk is pretty lame. It does not tell you how much RAM is available, whether OS or "unmanaged". You have to go to another dialog for that."
LOL I thought it was quite easy to use, and that's saying something. Yes you have to click twice to open another dialogue box to say how much of your 'Unmanaged' +4GB RAM is available. Which is pretty cool on a 32bit systemYou remind me of that guy on the Fightclub movie, when he was looking at the commercial for the thing that blows air up your a**. You remind me of the guy in the commercial, no pun intended.
If it is so rock stable, then why put the big WARNING!!! suggesting frequent ghost backups?
No it doesn't. A modern supercomputer is designed for massive amounts of parallel processing. A modern supercomputer with thousands of cores and terabytes of RAM isn't going to perform any better than your current system for applications that use one or two threads.petteyg359 wrote: "A potentially crashy swap file is quite useless, especially if your system rarely makes use of the swap space anyway. "
IF that were true, I'd tend to agree with you. I'm a bit of a perfectionist though, and wouldn't have wasted my time posting this unless the performance increase was spectacular. Which it is, which means the system utilizes the Swapfile for a lot more junk than we think, which it does. Which is why my computer runs like a super-computer now
You claiming that I'm putting words in your mouth when you've clipped bits and pieces of quotes that you don't seem to like is funny, but also sad. I pity hypocrites.
Wrong again.
1. That "poor baby boomer" isn't going out and buying a machine with 8GB memory.
2. That "poor baby boomer" isn't going to have problems running "all his software" with Vista because 99% of the [old, standard, boring] problems don't exist.
3. We don't tell everyone to buy Vista. Many of us, however, tell people to quit throwing FUD.
I use Vista Ultimate 64-bit, XP Home, and Gentoo Linux. In the past, I've used Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, and 2000. I've also used SuSE, Debian, Storm, and Mandriva Linux. You might find a small bit of enlightenment by reading signatures... many of us include our OS usage there.
Learn to use the quote tag. Don't double post. You still have not provided evidence to support 50% of people refusing to buy a computer with Vista. I and others are well aware that Vista did not and is not selling as well as Microsoft would like it to. I and others are also well aware that people are, in fact, buying computers with Vista, despite the numbers being less than wished for. Where did we all claim it was perfect? For one complaining of others putting words in your mouth, you sure seem to repeat a lot of things that were never said in the first place.
Last edited:
. And im pretty sure that games dont use more than 4GB (if you dont multitask LOL)
