mormreed 0 Posted November 24, 2007 well I'm gonna buy a new comp and it comes with Vista and I know a lot of freeware doesn't work on vista and that's all I use so is it worth it to buy a copy of XP along with it? Share this post Link to post
Doctor Destiny 41 Posted November 24, 2007 YES! XP > Vista in every sense. Share this post Link to post
Overcow 0 Posted November 24, 2007 YES! XP > Vista in every sense. Aggred! Share this post Link to post
JahSpoR 0 Posted November 24, 2007 Yeh do that.. Vista is nothing but themes and sh** that slows ur pc down. Share this post Link to post
mormreed 0 Posted November 25, 2007 well then there goes another $200 for a copy of XP Share this post Link to post
Guest Rabbit Posted November 25, 2007 Seriously, keep XP. I got a legal copy of Windows Vista Ultimate X86, and it's honestly nothing to be proud of. There's random errors every now and then installing games, and there is really nothing new and amusing about it. I'm ditching the damn thing today, and going back to XP, once I find the time to re-format. Share this post Link to post
Sonic 293 Posted November 25, 2007 XP all the way. You will get your new system, then try install your favourite apps and games only discover Vista will reject them, chew them up and spit them out. This is where your copy of XP comes in handy. Wipe out Vista and install XP or set up a dual-boot system. I would ask the retailer about a discount if you not planning using Vista at all. I assume your aware of the limited onboard graphics of this system? Graphics capability: This desktop features Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 with 64MB dedicated graphics memory, an addition to the main system memory, and 256MB total available video memory. This video memory is perfect for everyday activities like casual movie watching or gaming. Share this post Link to post
TheBlackOut 6 Posted November 25, 2007 Yea wait till SP1 for Vista before doing anything. Share this post Link to post
mormreed 0 Posted November 27, 2007 I assume your aware of the limited onboard graphics of this system? Graphics capability: This desktop features Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 with 64MB dedicated graphics memory, an addition to the main system memory, and 256MB total available video memory. This video memory is perfect for everyday activities like casual movie watching or gaming. yeah I plan on buying a separate card and maybe a quad-core and motherboard but I can't get through to HP to ask em if that motherboard is quad-core compatible I looked everywhere else and nothing Share this post Link to post
JahSpoR 0 Posted November 27, 2007 Go for the Intel Core 2 Extreme then. Should be so much better! Share this post Link to post
TheBlackOut 6 Posted November 27, 2007 I assume your aware of the limited onboard graphics of this system? Graphics capability: This desktop features Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 with 64MB dedicated graphics memory, an addition to the main system memory, and 256MB total available video memory. This video memory is perfect for everyday activities like casual movie watching or gaming. yeah I plan on buying a separate card and maybe a quad-core and motherboard but I can't get through to HP to ask em if that motherboard is quad-core compatible I looked everywhere else and nothing If it's socket LGA775 (which it has to be for the CPU you have) then yes. So... yes. Share this post Link to post
mormreed 0 Posted November 27, 2007 cool so quad core and 8800gts here I come Share this post Link to post
Doctor Destiny 41 Posted November 28, 2007 Not recommended to be honest. Waste of money for one thing, quad cores are terrible for gaming, and 8800s suck power like no other, and need a ****load of cooling.. I suggest a good dual core and an 8600GT instead. Saves some cash and runs great. Share this post Link to post
JahSpoR 0 Posted November 28, 2007 a big mystery Alienware sells them then., As far as I know they sell some of the best gaming pc's in the world becouse they are big geeks themself's So why wouldn't they call quad core bad for gaming if you say it is? Share this post Link to post
Doctor Destiny 41 Posted November 28, 2007 You only get so much out of it. No games are built for multi-core processors, and even if it does benefit, the speed increase will be so minimal you won't even notice. Quad cores are designed, primarily, with animation/development studios in mind, not nerdy gamers. Sure, spend the money but it's not doing you any good at all, nor is it worth the extra money. Share this post Link to post
Inferno 22 Posted November 28, 2007 Dual Core > Single Core. Quad Core just doesn't add that much, besides the cool name of course Share this post Link to post
Doctor Destiny 41 Posted November 28, 2007 Dual Core > Single Core in newer games though. Primarily because most people have background apps running so it divides those between each core. Otherwise, it's not really noticeable. [edit] So what? The name doesn't mean ****. Share this post Link to post
Inferno 22 Posted November 28, 2007 Dual Core > Single Core in newer games though. Primarily because most people have background apps running so it divides those between each core. Otherwise, it's not really noticeable. [edit] So what? The name doesn't mean s***. True, but I never said it mattered. And I always have some lost firefox webpage open when I do games, so it's kinda useful. Also, virusscan stuff doesn't slow you down that much. Share this post Link to post