Windows 7 hits RTM

I am going to guess that XP can not see the drives, and you need a floppy because your trying to install a SCSI or RAID card when you install XP.

At the very first part of the install there is an option to press a key to install SCSI drivers. That is the only part of the XP installer that requires a floppy.

With your experience you should know to install the OS to an SATA or IDE drive first. Then install the RAID or SCSI card later after the OS has booted.

 

Close
These drives have nothing to do with a "card" at all, they were attached to the board directly, and not as an array, but as single drives. At that point there were only 2 hard drives. I'd hate to see what XP does when it sees 6 on my board!

Yes, this is an advanced setup that most people won't (probably) run into, but storage space is key for me, as is backup space. Losing one drive is bad (I've had it happen), but losing a drive that has everything on it? REALLY bad.

Why use it on a new system? Honestly, I forget the reasoning. Maybe I couldn't find the Vista beta DVD, maybe I just wanted to see if it worked. This was a couple years back. The point is though that Vista (when I tried it) had absolutely no issues detecting this stuff.

Use a floppy? Naah, I'll just use an updated OS

 

Dont most cases have a floppy bay for a floppy drive? I hate floppys myself but theres no harm in using one now and then when needed. Vista is riddled with problems, that is why so many love XP.

 

Of course they do. That doesn't mean that floppy drives are worth anything, it just means that most drives have them. Up to date systems can use a flash drive which contains more to do much more than a floppy ever could.

I've been using Vista for 2 years, and every time I can't help but crack up when hearing htis incorrect argument. If the system is built properly, there are no problems. Yes, you will run into problems if you're trying to run it on your POS 512m ram PC. Yes, you will run into problems if you try to run it on your 2.0G processor. It will be slow as anything. Get with the times, upgrade already!

The problems people associate with Vista are actually hardware related, not Vista related. It's up to the hardware manufacturer to provide drivers for the system, not the other way around. The ONLY exceptions to this are the core essentials, those absolutely necessary to run and install the OS.

Program running slow in Vista? Of course, it's Microsoft's fault, not the developer's fault. Program not running right? Yeah, it's Microsoft's fault, not the developer's fault.


People were spoiled by XP having an extended life, and now they just want to hang on to XP forever. Not gonna happen!

 

What would you do if vista and windows 7 were not around? If this was 2002, 2003 or 2004, what would you do?

You would have found a work around and made it work.

Instead, you hop on the vista and windows 7 bandwagon and call XP junk. All because you did not want to find a way to make it work.

One thing about computers, almost anything is possible. You just have to find or develop a solution.

 

Vista does have many bugs and problems...

 

One of the problems I have experienced was a boot loop after updating through ms update. The machine was applying updates blah on startup, restarting, apply updates blah. There is obviously big issues with Vista that non tech minded users would cry at.

 

Does XP support DX10? Nope. XP may still be good, but as more and more games come out and better hardware, it's not going to last to much longer. GPU will start handling some of the CPU tasks since it's nearly unused power in a computer. 32 bit systems are going to be out dated, don't know why Microsoft didn't start that process with Windows 7. But 64 bit issues have mostly been ironed out. All the major companies have 64 bit drivers for everything just about. There's no excuse to still be using 32bit, even if you've got less than 4gb of RAM.

Same with XP. It's still good, but Windows 7 clearly has it beat. This is coming from someone who has ran Windows 7 x64 since the first public beta. I'm on the RTM version now and it just plain kicks XP's ass. I've ran Windows 7 RTM x64 and XP Pro x64 on the same computer specs and Windows 7 has won hands down. Mind you, my computer is way overkill for what I do, but that's besides the point.

One thing I don't agree on is how Microsoft says Vista can run on a min. of 1gb of RAM, bullshit. You'll need at least 3gb to have it be usable. Windows 7 says it can run on 1gb of RAM as well, it runs better than Vista does at least, but there's still no reason you shouldn't have 4gb+ of RAM since RAM is ABSOLUTELY DIRT FREAKEN CHEAP.

 

=\ Actually, I had a computer with I don't know how many MEGAbytes and Vista ran FINE.

The updates are just ridiculous.

 

Go throw that shit out of the window now. Any computer with MEGAbytes of RAM should be demoted to just a simple firewall server or something other than a daily computer.

Same with pre-built computers. It's so stupidely easy to build a desktop now a days that you shouldn't be buying pre-built computers.

 

Did you read well? I said had, I don't have it anymore. Either way, when you teach me how to build a computer I won't buy pre-made ones, until then, I'm fine with my HP Touchsmart. Pre-made and serves my graphical needs and more.

Sorry that I'm so 'stupid' and can't make my own./sarcasm

 

Sorry, my post wasn't really pointed at you, sorry if it sounded like it was. I didn't say you were "stupid" and all. Just that if you read the manual for the parts, it's not to hard to figure out and it's really a lot cheaper than buying pre-built computers, at least for me it is with Newegg =).

 

Not everyone requires plenty of RAM in their machines, for example someone who just browses the internet as a resource doesnt need 4gb and certainly doesnt need Windows 7 or Vista.

If youre an avid PC builder or gamer then fair enough buy all the RAM in the world but theres no point in having what you dont really need.

If I was simply using an old version of Photoshop daily and Firefox for browsing I certainly do not need a machine with 2GB of RAM. Even 512mb would suffice with XP on the drive.

 

Fair enough, still, I just like having power and speed LOL. My family's build that is being built right now, waiting on the cpu to arrive. Well, their first computer has 128MB of RAM in it, needless to say, it's time to upgrade them. Their new computer features:

AMD Athlon II X2 240, 1gb x4 DDR2 RAM, 8800gts graphics, Windows 7 x64.

 

Exactly! You made me remember, I used to have a 512MB 1024x768 e-machines computer, and I was fine running PS CS3 and browsing with FF.

 

Well make sure they understand the power of their awesome new machine by playing games on that 8800 and using some new progs maybe

 

I was on cs2 until lately, nothing would shift me from it. It loads faster than cs3 and cs4 and works a charm too, there isnt much I can really use in cs3 and cs4 that isnt in cs2.

I am used to cs3 now and it does has its benefits, mainly the interface and vanishing point which I dont think cs2 had, im not sure.

I was like that with the first adobe creative suite which I think was just Adobe Photoshop CS, I wouldnt leave it for the new then cs2.

 

Yeah, I wanted CS3 but had to settle with CS4, I got used to CS4 pretty quickly anyways. I never touched any CS series before CS3, plus I only used PS 7 and Elements 2, which was my first PS Noobish, right !

 

This thread reminds me i need to upgrade my video cards.

Pretty sure i'm going to go with BFG GeForce GTX 280 Video Card - OCX Edition, 1GB GDDR3, PCI Express 2.0 x16, SLI Ready, (Dual Link) Dual DVI, HDTV, HDMI Support, VGA Support at TigerDirect.com x2 in SLI if i can fit it in my case, if not one will suffice!

 

Greedy bugger

I wouldnt mind one of the 8800 series, I did have one but ended up swapping it for an older ATI card and some money since it wouldnt work on my old board.

I would be playing Crysis again if I had those in.