Newegg sale on Windows 7 Home Premium OEM Today for $80...

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:57:14 -0500, Drew
wrote:

If he is using an ASUS motherboard, it would be normal for him to have a
better performance rating. ASUS ALWAYS outperforms Gigabyte.

Actually my board is a factory Intel board. fast and rock solid to this
day from when I first built it years ago. I originally had a core2 duo
1.86 in it but wanted the quad so I changed over. Memory has improved
from 2 to 4 gigs. graphics have improved from a Nvidia 7600 series card
to a Sapphiretech Toxic 4850. main drive is a Intel 120gig ssd that was
originally a 160gig Seagate Barracuda. Factory cooler has been changed
to a zalman 8900 extreme just because I wanted a little cooler processor
and the look isn't bad either. Case has been changed and case fans have
been changed. dvd drives still original. My original hard drives are
still in it and are just used for music and game storage.

I'm not sure how the Intel boards compare to ASUS' offerings in terms of
performance but as far as I remember they were never considered gaming
boards and that generally suggests that performance was mediocre at best.
Either way, I don't doubt your high rating in Windows.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

"You know you are giving communism a bad name by use that .signature!" -
Pneuma

In news Silver Slimer typed:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:36:39 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

I am more open to change than most people. But if the change is worse
than it was before, than I am not for it. As I constantly change
machines, OS, etc. because I find using the same over and over again
very boring, so I like to mix things up a lot.

I'm exactly the same way. As a teenager, I experimented a lot with
OS/2, GNU/Linux, BeOS and the like because I got bored of Windows
quite easily. In fact, until a few months ago, I was still trying out
GNU/Linux distributions but their instability and shoddy software
just burned me one time too many for them to be considered again. As
for Windows 8, I came in with an open mind and though I admittedly
found it annoying at first, I figured things out quite quickly since
I knew that the operating system made extensive use of hot corners.
To be honest, I kind of prefer 8 to 7 nowadays... especially in how
easy it is to access the Control Panel (just navigate to the extreme
right).

Yup, we sound like we came from the same mold. I too did many of the
same things and more too. And I too running the early Windows 8 preview
liked Windows 8 better than Windows 7. Even the little small things like
the Task Manager is even better in Windows 8 than Windows 7. In fact,
everything is improved except the Start Menu is different and it has
Metro, otherwise it is the same but better.

But Microsoft's newer OS force people to do it one way, the Microsoft
way and that is it. Also newer OS forces you to deal with Microsoft
holding your hand the whole time. You are no longer allowed to take
total control of your machine anymore. Personally I find an OS
treating all users as computer noobs as offensive.

I think it's an open mind on Microsoft's part. In the past, their
operating systems might have been **** (like the 9x line) or very good
(the NT line) but they always communicated with the user in a very
serious and professional way. The way the OS communicates with the
user in 8 is more amicable and frankly a breath of fresh air for me.

Well I see what Microsoft is trying to do. One of the biggest complaints
about Windows for zillions of years was security. Yeah Microsoft left
the default to leave everything wide open. Yeah I get that plan too, as
if it was really tight, tons of calls from noobs who can't do anything.

Well with Vista and above, they tighten everything down. They actually
started with XP SP2, but they got worse with Vista and above. From
Windows early days all the way to Windows 7, you could use the shell
statement and totally drop the Windows interface and use something else
totally different.

Although the one thing I don't like about Windows 8 is it seems that
doorway is now closed too. Now you are forced to use the Windows 8
interface whether you like it or not. I guess this would be a really
nice place for malware to hook into, as it could control any Windows AV
as the malware loads first and then any AV doesn't stand a chance. But
that isn't what I used it for.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:39:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

Well I see what Microsoft is trying to do. One of the biggest complaints
about Windows for zillions of years was security. Yeah Microsoft left
the default to leave everything wide open. Yeah I get that plan too, as
if it was really tight, tons of calls from noobs who can't do anything.

Well with Vista and above, they tighten everything down. They actually
started with XP SP2, but they got worse with Vista and above. From
Windows early days all the way to Windows 7, you could use the shell
statement and totally drop the Windows interface and use something else
totally different.

Although the one thing I don't like about Windows 8 is it seems that
doorway is now closed too. Now you are forced to use the Windows 8
interface whether you like it or not. I guess this would be a really
nice place for malware to hook into, as it could control any Windows AV
as the malware loads first and then any AV doesn't stand a chance. But
that isn't what I used it for.

Actually, security-wise, Windows 8 is a gigantic improvement. If sticking
to the Metro interface, you are assured that any kind of infection
originating in one application will not affect any other application as
each app is sandboxed. This kind of protection doesn't extend to Windows
8's desktop interface, but if the plan were to continue with Metro,
Microsoft would have one hell of a secure operating system to offer users.
It's too bad that nobody likes it.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

"You know you are giving communism a bad name by use that .signature!" -
Pneuma

In news Silver Slimer typed:
I'm not sure how the Intel boards compare to ASUS' offerings in terms
of performance but as far as I remember they were never considered
gaming boards and that generally suggests that performance was
mediocre at best. Either way, I don't doubt your high rating in
Windows.

Intel? Asus? Gaming boards? Huh? Neither! You can't be serious about
gaming until you purchase an Alienware. Intel or Asus? Come on give me a
break! Both of them are just mediocre. You have to be on the cutting
edge if you are serious about gaming. I own five Alienware machines
myself. Intel or Asus? Come on, you can't be serious? You were just
really joking, right?

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:02:32 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In news Silver Slimer typed:
I'm not sure how the Intel boards compare to ASUS' offerings in terms
of performance but as far as I remember they were never considered
gaming boards and that generally suggests that performance was
mediocre at best. Either way, I don't doubt your high rating in
Windows.

Intel? Asus? Gaming boards? Huh? Neither! You can't be serious about
gaming until you purchase an Alienware. Intel or Asus? Come on give me a
break! Both of them are just mediocre. You have to be on the cutting
edge if you are serious about gaming. I own five Alienware machines
myself. Intel or Asus? Come on, you can't be serious? You were just
really joking, right?

I was referring to motherboards alone, not the whole machine. I don't know
what kind of motherboards Alienware uses but I wouldn't be surprised to
find out that they use ASUS boards.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

"You know you are giving communism a bad name by use that .signature!" -
Pneuma

On 1/24/2014 6:57 PM, Drew wrote:

Actually my board is a factory Intel board. fast and rock solid to this
day from when I first built it years ago. I originally had a core2 duo
1.86 in it but wanted the quad so I changed over. Memory has improved
from 2 to 4 gigs. graphics have improved from a Nvidia 7600 series card
to a Sapphiretech Toxic 4850. main drive is a Intel 120gig ssd that was
originally a 160gig Seagate Barracuda. Factory cooler has been changed
to a zalman 8900 extreme just because I wanted a little cooler processor
and the look isn't bad either. Case has been changed and case fans have
been changed. dvd drives still original. My original hard drives are
still in it and are just used for music and game storage.

And you consider that an "XP era" machine? No wonder it has no problem
running Windows 7.

In news Silver Slimer typed:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:02:32 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In news Silver Slimer typed:
I'm not sure how the Intel boards compare to ASUS' offerings in
terms of performance but as far as I remember they were never
considered gaming boards and that generally suggests that
performance was mediocre at best. Either way, I don't doubt your
high rating in Windows.

Intel? Asus? Gaming boards? Huh? Neither! You can't be serious about
gaming until you purchase an Alienware. Intel or Asus? Come on give
me a break! Both of them are just mediocre. You have to be on the
cutting edge if you are serious about gaming. I own five Alienware
machines myself. Intel or Asus? Come on, you can't be serious? You
were just really joking, right?

I was referring to motherboards alone, not the whole machine. I don't
know what kind of motherboards Alienware uses but I wouldn't be
surprised to find out that they use ASUS boards.

I never heard of Alienware using somebody else's motherboards. They
don't make chips or anything, so they use others. But their motherboards
are all theirs, AFAIK. They sometimes use Intel chips and CPUs, but
never any Intel video stuff.

Most of my Alienware machines use two top of the line video cards. Why
two? Well if one is great, than two driving the same monitor is even
better, right? ;-)

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:02:32 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In news Silver Slimer typed:
I'm not sure how the Intel boards compare to ASUS' offerings in terms
of performance but as far as I remember they were never considered
gaming boards and that generally suggests that performance was
mediocre at best. Either way, I don't doubt your high rating in
Windows.

Intel? Asus? Gaming boards? Huh? Neither! You can't be serious about
gaming until you purchase an Alienware. Intel or Asus? Come on give me a
break! Both of them are just mediocre. You have to be on the cutting
edge if you are serious about gaming. I own five Alienware machines
myself. Intel or Asus? Come on, you can't be serious? You were just
really joking, right?

It must be a hoot to run into you at a party.

--

Char Jackson

Drew wrote:

No overclock at all and with a system this old I would not do that. I am
running a q6600 like I said and it scores a 7.1. Graphics, hard disk and
gaming graphics much higher.. The 4 gigs of ram is also holding it back
at 7.1. As for backup I do a system image once a month and replace
oldest image after every 4 times setting new images.(I have a couple
extra external 250 gig drives.)

I just set my wife's computer for 400 x 7 = 2.8 GHz and re-ran the test.
It's now up to 7.2. I just have stock cooling on there because it never
actually gets taxed. Well, stock with a bolt-down kit.

I tried stock, 2.4 GHz with Performance Enhance set to Extreme and scored
7.1. I have no idea what that does. Memory is running asynchronously at
800 Mhz.

375 x 8 = 3 GHz scored 7.3. I'll just leave it at that. My i7 2600k (not
overclocked) scores 7.6.

About $50 on eBay for a Q6600. Any chance your board is on the list here
for a modded Xeon? The Q6600 does run hot.

On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:59 PM,
Silver Slimer wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:39:07 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

Well I see what Microsoft is trying to do. One of the biggest
complaints about Windows for zillions of years was security. Yeah
Microsoft left the default to leave everything wide open. Yeah I get
that plan too, as if it was really tight, tons of calls from noobs
who can't do anything.

Well with Vista and above, they tighten everything down. They
actually started with XP SP2, but they got worse with Vista and
above. From Windows early days all the way to Windows 7, you could
use the shell statement and totally drop the Windows interface and
use something else totally different.

Although the one thing I don't like about Windows 8 is it seems that
doorway is now closed too. Now you are forced to use the Windows 8
interface whether you like it or not. I guess this would be a really
nice place for malware to hook into, as it could control any Windows
AV as the malware loads first and then any AV doesn't stand a
chance. But that isn't what I used it for.

Actually, security-wise, Windows 8 is a gigantic improvement. If
sticking to the Metro interface, you are assured that any kind of
infection originating in one application will not affect any other
application as each app is sandboxed. This kind of protection doesn't
extend to Windows 8's desktop interface, but if the plan were to
continue with Metro, Microsoft would have one hell of a secure
operating system to offer users. It's too bad that nobody likes it.

Yeah. that is exactly what I am talking about! I don't mind the extra
security for computer idiots. But what I do mind is also not allowing
experts from modifying their OS. As they are forcing people like me to
use their computers just like a computer idiot uses theirs.

And you know the saying, make something idiot proof and only an idiot
would want to use it. And frankly, Microsoft is getting really close to
that line.

Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:12:16 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

I never heard of Alienware using somebody else's motherboards. They
don't make chips or anything, so they use others. But their motherboards
are all theirs, AFAIK. They sometimes use Intel chips and CPUs, but
never any Intel video stuff.

Most of my Alienware machines use two top of the line video cards. Why
two? Well if one is great, than two driving the same monitor is even
better, right? ;-)

I have yet to buy an Alienware machine. My gaming rigs have always been
self-built and I think that it will continue to be that way for the rest
of my life. I'm not saying that my way of setting up PCs is better, but
I'm not one to drop significant amounts on computer in one lump sum so I
prefer going about it in this manner.

--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

"You know you are giving communism a bad name by use that .signature!" -
Pneuma

In message , Ron
writes:
On 1/24/2014 6:57 PM, Drew wrote:
[]
originally a 160gig Seagate Barracuda. Factory cooler has been changed
to a zalman 8900 extreme just because I wanted a little cooler processor
and the look isn't bad either. Case has been changed and case fans have
been changed. dvd drives still original. My original hard drives are
still in it and are just used for music and game storage.

And you consider that an "XP era" machine? No wonder it has no problem
running Windows 7.


I am reminded of the janitor who was very attached to his old broom; it
had had three new heads and five new handles ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The people here are more educated and intelligent. Even stupid people in
Britain are smarter than Americans." Madonna, in RT 30 June-6July 2001 (page
32)

On 1/24/2014 7:46 PM, Fishface wrote:
Drew wrote:

No overclock at all and with a system this old I would not do that. I
am running a q6600 like I said and it scores a 7.1. Graphics, hard
disk and gaming graphics much higher.. The 4 gigs of ram is also
holding it back at 7.1. As for backup I do a system image once a month
and replace oldest image after every 4 times setting new images.(I
have a couple extra external 250 gig drives.)

I just set my wife's computer for 400 x 7 = 2.8 GHz and re-ran the test.
It's now up to 7.2. I just have stock cooling on there because it never
actually gets taxed. Well, stock with a bolt-down kit.

I tried stock, 2.4 GHz with Performance Enhance set to Extreme and scored
7.1. I have no idea what that does. Memory is running asynchronously at
800 Mhz.

375 x 8 = 3 GHz scored 7.3. I'll just leave it at that. My i7 2600k (not
overclocked) scores 7.6.

About $50 on eBay for a Q6600. Any chance your board is on the list here
for a modded Xeon? The Q6600 does run hot.


My q6600 idles at 31c with the Zalman 8900 extreme cooler. It does get a
little warmer when I run simulators but still way under tjmax of 100c.
This is indeed a xp era pc as that is when it was originally built and
it is a "Intel Extreme series" board. I had the stock intel cooler on it
until 2 weeks ago when I decided to upgrade it.

On 1/24/2014, Char Jackson posted:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:02:32 -0600, "BillW50"
wrote:

In news Silver Slimer typed:
I'm not sure how the Intel boards compare to ASUS' offerings in
terms of performance but as far as I remember they were never
considered gaming boards and that generally suggests that
performance was mediocre at best. Either way, I don't doubt your
high rating in Windows.

Intel? Asus? Gaming boards? Huh? Neither! You can't be serious about
gaming until you purchase an Alienware. Intel or Asus? Come on give
me a break! Both of them are just mediocre. You have to be on the
cutting edge if you are serious about gaming. I own five Alienware
machines myself. Intel or Asus? Come on, you can't be serious? You
were just really joking, right?

It must be a hoot to run into you at a party.

Thanks, that cheered me up!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:49:31 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 1/24/2014, Char Jackson posted:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:02:32 -0600, "BillW50"
wrote:

In news Silver Slimer typed:
I'm not sure how the Intel boards compare to ASUS' offerings in
terms of performance but as far as I remember they were never
considered gaming boards and that generally suggests that
performance was mediocre at best. Either way, I don't doubt your
high rating in Windows.

Intel? Asus? Gaming boards? Huh? Neither! You can't be serious about
gaming until you purchase an Alienware. Intel or Asus? Come on give
me a break! Both of them are just mediocre. You have to be on the
cutting edge if you are serious about gaming. I own five Alienware
machines myself. Intel or Asus? Come on, you can't be serious? You
were just really joking, right?

It must be a hoot to run into you at a party.

Thanks, that cheered me up!

I'm sorry to hear that you needed cheering up, but I'm elated that I was
able to do so. :-)

But seriously, can you imagine getting cornered at a social gathering,
unable to get away? OMG.

--

Char Jackson