|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
September 14th 14, 04:50 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
Question about op systems
Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about
preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music 
|
| Ads |
|
#2
September 14th 14, 05:14 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
On 9/14/2014 8:50 AM, Drew wrote:
Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music Oops! major typo's here. win 8.1, win 8.1 pro or win7 all 64 and start8 or classic shell on win 8.1 (not win7)
|
|
#3
September 14th 14, 07:43 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
Drew wrote:
Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music I would get 7 while you still can. You can always upgrade later if 9 proves to be worth it. If you really want high end, get an Intel i7. -- A
|
|
#4
September 14th 14, 08:17 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
A wrote:
Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music I would get 7 while you still can. You can always upgrade later if 9 proves to be worth it. If you really want high end, get an Intel i7. http://ark.intel.com/products/80811/...90-GHz?q=4690k # of Cores 4 # of Threads 4 Clock Speed 3.5 GHz Max Turbo Frequency 3.9 GHz Max TDP 88 W Socket LGA1150 BOX : $243.00 http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/...40-GHz?q=4790k # of Cores 4 # of Threads 8 Clock Speed 4 GHz Max Turbo Frequency 4.4 GHz Max TDP 88 W Socket LGA1150 BOX : $350.00 Passmark (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) Intel Core i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz 7,739 Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz 11,351 Most of the difference cannot be perceived in normal usage. The difference shows up when doing video transcoding, 7Z ultra, RAR etc. And maybe the odd game runs enough threads to see a difference. I have a game here with a "boss" thread that runs 100%, and a secondary thread that runs 30% maybe, and for that game, either processor performs about the same. Only the ratio of 4.0GHz to 3.5GHz (1.14x) is responsible for any difference (as "boss" thread runs faster and "boss" thread runs at 100% all the time). I've been amazed at some of the things that did not improve with new hardware. I set up a 4GB RAMdisk drive on this computer, which benches at 4GB/sec write speed (write the whole disk in one second). I figured a new machine with RAM that is three times faster, there would be a difference. Instead, the benchmark graph looks almost exactly the same, and the same 4GB/sec HDTune curve results. I take it the issue is interrupt or event rate being throttled by the OS, but that's just a guess. ******* Since I haven't had anything bizarre happen in Windows 7 yet, I'm going to have to vote for that one :-) Paul
|
|
#5
September 14th 14, 10:28 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
Drew wrote:
Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music Everyone will have a different opinion. Here is mine: processor: why get a cpu with embedded graphics that you will disable when you are getting a very nice vid card? I would consider the i5-4690k to be medium end for gaming / graphics. Check he http://ark.intel.com/compare/80811,82932,80806 ram: the 4690 won't natively handle 1866 ram without fiddling with the timing settings. And it does not have hyper-threading. The 5820k has twice the mem bandwidth for $150 more. It eats twice the power though and will likely double as a space heater. drives: I would get two 1tb 6gbs WD blacks. One for storage and one for weekly cloning. 1 ssd for programs. os: W7 is nice but you probably won't find a retail version anywhere. An OEM is worthless if you change hardware frequently. I don't like W8+, maybe wait for W9 or W10.
|
|
#6
September 14th 14, 10:58 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
On 9/14/2014 2:45 PM, Ken1943 wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:28:44 -0500, Paul in Houston TX wrote: Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music Everyone will have a different opinion. Here is mine: processor: why get a cpu with embedded graphics that you will disable when you are getting a very nice vid card? I would consider the i5-4690k to be medium end for gaming / graphics. Check he http://ark.intel.com/compare/80811,82932,80806 ram: the 4690 won't natively handle 1866 ram without fiddling with the timing settings. And it does not have hyper-threading. The 5820k has twice the mem bandwidth for $150 more. It eats twice the power though and will likely double as a space heater. drives: I would get two 1tb 6gbs WD blacks. One for storage and one for weekly cloning. 1 ssd for programs. os: W7 is nice but you probably won't find a retail version anywhere. An OEM is worthless if you change hardware frequently. I don't like W8+, maybe wait for W9 or W10. Most people that don't like Win 8 don't know **** about it and probably never even used it. I have been through every Windows version and 8 is FAST. Have Start8 on 2 desktops and one notebook and while 8 has changed many things, it runs very well. I always buy hardware one level behind the newest cpu and don't play games. KenW So far people are thinking I am a heavy gamer because the processor has features a gamer may not want. When I mentioned the word gaming they seem to focus on that. I meant "occasional" and they are simulators like iracing and such. I do not need all the horsepower of a i7 and am getting a unbelievable deal on a core i5 extreme. The core i7 would be nice but not gonna find it brand new even close to this core i5
|
|
#7
September 15th 14, 12:58 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:45:50 -0600, Ken1943 wrote:
Most people that don't like Win 8 don't know **** about it and probably never even used it. I have been through every Windows version and 8 is FAST. Have Start8 on 2 desktops and one notebook and while 8 has changed many things, it runs very well. You took the words out of my mouth!
|
|
#8
September 15th 14, 03:10 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
| Most people that don't like Win 8 don't know **** about it and probably
| never even used it. I have been through every Windows version and 8 is | FAST. Have Start8 on 2 desktops and one notebook and while 8 has changed | many things, it runs very well. | Because you like it, people who don't must be uninformed? I tried the beta when it was released. It needed about 1 GB RAM and a multi-core processor just to sit there. People often think newer systems are fast without considering the difference in the newer hardware vs the old. And what is the big deal with fast, anyway? I'm mostly running XP on mediocre hardware. In general the response is instant. I don't think there's anything faster than instant. On the other hand, XP can be extremely slow with incompatible hardware, a lot of startup programs, or even just a big IE cache. It's not relelvant to say any Windows version is fast with no context. I didn't spend much time with Win8, not because I thought it was slow, but because it added an entirely irrelevant mini-OS on top of the bloat that was Win7. I had no interest in tablet apps or Microsoft online services, so the Metro system was nothing more than a resource-hogging obstacle for me. If you do want Metro apps -- if you own RT tablets and Nokia phones -- then maybe Win8 is desirable. But it's hard for me to see the logic of someone who says, "I love Win8. Anyone who doesn't love Win8 just doesn't know what they're talking about. Ever since I made Win8 look and act like Win7 I think Win8 is better."
|
|
#9
September 15th 14, 04:23 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
Drew wrote on 9/14/2014 11:50 AM:
Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music If you have to BUY a copy, then I'd buy Win8 64bit. If it does nothing but educate you and allow you to test 64 bit software etc, then it's totally worth the money. Windows 9 sounds and looks likes it's going to follow very closely in it's footsteps so you'd be one leg up rather than staying with windows 7.
|
|
#10
September 15th 14, 05:00 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
A wrote:
Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music I would get 7 while you still can. You can always upgrade later if 9 proves to be worth it. If you really want high end, get an Intel i7. While Windows 7 has very loyal following and is a good o/s, imo, if planning on moving to a new and other o/s in the future then Windows 8.1 Pro would be my choice for a new system. Why? Upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1 is a clean install (programs need to be reinstalled). Later o/s will most likely follow suit for moving from Win7. Windows 8.1 is only available in full version software not upgrade-ware. Likewise, Win9 will also be full version software. Moving to a later o/s (e.g. Win9 or later) is likely to provide (even though its full version software) the ability to upgrade with user settings and programs intact. If your system is being built...it would be extremely beneficial if your system builder/OEM manufacturer also provides your software on installable media. - i.e. if your route to reinstall the software is by restoring to the as-shipped PC condition then consider the points noted above and how much effort and time you are willing to buy-in to. Good luck. -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps
|
|
#11
September 15th 14, 05:21 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
Ken1943 wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:28:44 -0500, Paul in Houston TX wrote: Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music Everyone will have a different opinion. Here is mine: processor: why get a cpu with embedded graphics that you will disable when you are getting a very nice vid card? I would consider the i5-4690k to be medium end for gaming / graphics. Check he http://ark.intel.com/compare/80811,82932,80806 ram: the 4690 won't natively handle 1866 ram without fiddling with the timing settings. And it does not have hyper-threading. The 5820k has twice the mem bandwidth for $150 more. It eats twice the power though and will likely double as a space heater. drives: I would get two 1tb 6gbs WD blacks. One for storage and one for weekly cloning. 1 ssd for programs. os: W7 is nice but you probably won't find a retail version anywhere. An OEM is worthless if you change hardware frequently. I don't like W8+, maybe wait for W9 or W10. Most people that don't like Win 8 don't know **** about it and probably never even used it. I have been through every Windows version and 8 is FAST. Have Start8 on 2 desktops and one notebook and while 8 has changed many things, it runs very well. I always buy hardware one level behind the newest cpu and don't play games. KenW The new company laptop came with W8.0. I messed with it for a week then wiped it and installed W7-64. I needed it functional and looking like my W7 laptops, asap. I was able to clone/copy much of the software from the company W7-32 to the W7-64 and have it functional with minimal effort in two days. If it was a computer just for cruising the internet I may have stuck with w8 but I was not about to spend days/weeks trying to install and get functional the industrial software that I use.
|
|
#12
September 15th 14, 11:49 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
.. . .winston wrote:
A wrote: Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music I would get 7 while you still can. You can always upgrade later if 9 proves to be worth it. If you really want high end, get an Intel i7. While Windows 7 has very loyal following and is a good o/s, imo, if planning on moving to a new and other o/s in the future then Windows 8.1 Pro would be my choice for a new system. Why? Upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1 is a clean install (programs need to be reinstalled). Later o/s will most likely follow suit for moving from Win7. Windows 8.1 is only available in full version software not upgrade-ware. Likewise, Win9 will also be full version software. Moving to a later o/s (e.g. Win9 or later) is likely to provide (even though its full version software) the ability to upgrade with user settings and programs intact. If your system is being built...it would be extremely beneficial if your system builder/OEM manufacturer also provides your software on installable media. - i.e. if your route to reinstall the software is by restoring to the as-shipped PC condition then consider the points noted above and how much effort and time you are willing to buy-in to. Good luck. I don't do upgrades. I clean install. Most of a clean install and reinstalling programs involves waiting. While waiting, I do other things. If only had one computer, it would be different but I have several. Personally, after seeing the sneak peeks to Windows 9, I will be skipping 8.1 just like I skipped Vista. -- A
|
|
#13
September 15th 14, 11:53 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
Paul in Houston TX wrote on 9/15/2014 12:21 AM:
Ken1943 wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:28:44 -0500, Paul in Houston TX wrote: Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music Everyone will have a different opinion. Here is mine: processor: why get a cpu with embedded graphics that you will disable when you are getting a very nice vid card? I would consider the i5-4690k to be medium end for gaming / graphics. Check he http://ark.intel.com/compare/80811,82932,80806 ram: the 4690 won't natively handle 1866 ram without fiddling with the timing settings. And it does not have hyper-threading. The 5820k has twice the mem bandwidth for $150 more. It eats twice the power though and will likely double as a space heater. drives: I would get two 1tb 6gbs WD blacks. One for storage and one for weekly cloning. 1 ssd for programs. os: W7 is nice but you probably won't find a retail version anywhere. An OEM is worthless if you change hardware frequently. I don't like W8+, maybe wait for W9 or W10. Most people that don't like Win 8 don't know **** about it and probably never even used it. I have been through every Windows version and 8 is FAST. Have Start8 on 2 desktops and one notebook and while 8 has changed many things, it runs very well. I always buy hardware one level behind the newest cpu and don't play games. KenW The new company laptop came with W8.0. I messed with it for a week then wiped it and installed W7-64. I needed it functional and looking like my W7 laptops, asap. I was able to clone/copy much of the software from the company W7-32 to the W7-64 and have it functional with minimal effort in two days. If it was a computer just for cruising the internet I may have stuck with w8 but I was not about to spend days/weeks trying to install and get functional the industrial software that I use. I think your experience and time frame is the reason why so many people don't want or didn't like windows 8/8.1. I dual booted windows 8 day one when it was $39.99 and slowly migrated my apps to it. AND slowly learned it. I had time. And I think that's one of the bigger shortcomings of Win8. If MS had brought out all the 8.1 updates for boot to desktop etc from day one, it might have been taken by the public much better with and easier learning curve. There was another jump where MS changed things a lot, can't remember which OS's it was, but I hated the successor since it was such a jump and things were moved. Why MS does shtick like this I have no idea.
|
|
#14
September 15th 14, 12:13 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
On 9/14/2014 12:14 PM, Drew wrote:
On 9/14/2014 8:50 AM, Drew wrote: Hey all. Getting a high end system put together and was wondering about preferences for future. I am wondering which way to go on the op system. Win 8.1 64, win 8.1 pro or win 7 pro ? Many here will say stay away from 8 and others will say go 8.1 and skip 7...If I stayed with win 7 I would certainly look into start8 or classic shell. Let the scrap begin!! Specs will be Intel core i5 4690k processor 16gigs 1866 ram Nvidia 780 gtx 3 gig video card 2 256 gig ssd's 1 for op system 1 for programs and some light gaming 2 terrabyte drive for storage. music etc I seldom if ever use media centre as I use itunes etc for music Oops! major typo's here. win 8.1, win 8.1 pro or win7 all 64 and start8 or classic shell on win 8.1 (not win7) Win 7 Pro is still out there for sale. Win 8.1 is, with a fair amount of change, more or less win 7. The user interface (GUI, etc) of win 8 is (obviously) the major complaint. The system you describe is not a "high end" system in terms of performance, due to the selected CPU, and RAM speed. The video card is considered by many to be high end. My preference would be to use win 7 Pro SP2 with a conventional desktop or laptop, and win 8.1 with a touch screen capable system. For price considerations, I tend to use high end 8 "core" AMD processors instead of the "middle" Intel processors.
|
|
#15
September 15th 14, 03:03 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Question about op systems
Why MS does shtick like this I have no idea.
Win8 was clearly meant to be a sacrificial lamb. The basic logic: People are stuck with Windows, for the most part, so they won't complain too much if we force Metro on them. That will serve as a way to herd hundreds of millions of people to Microsoft services. Then once they get used to MS services and Metro they'll want those familiar giant-button UIs on their phones and tablets. Win8 was essentially a Metro advertisement masquerading as an OS update. If the idea weren't so idiotic it'd be very clever.  Atstake was the possibility of establishing themselves as the 3rd player in the phone/tablet market, almost overnight, then using their OS monopoly to gradually grab market share. At this point it looks like MS is facing a triple strikeout (WinMetro, tablets and phones), but their plan could still conceivably work. I imagine they'd consider the failure of Win8 a small price to pay if it ended up getting Metro services on their feet. If people were using Metro services and buying Nokia WinPhones that would then be a selling point for Win9. They could then afford to give away Win9 for free. If they got enough leverage they might even be able to sell Win9 as a services subscription, which seems to be their longterm hope. There's just one itsy bitsy problem: Microsoft have got themselves set up to rake in billions from their OS monopoly with very little effort. Their services, on the other hand, have never had any notable success. They were apparently counting on developers provided with easy-to-use tools to create compelling apps and services for Metro TileWorld, but that hasn't happened. And it's not likely to happen. Windows developers have learned their lesson: Microsoft has no loyalty and the app market is just a replay of the shareware market -- a fad where many try but few profit.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
