Post your Desktop

[xpeed]

Originally Posted by M

This is all fine and good, but did you actually read the system requirements? Its recommended you have at least 1 GB of ram. This is just for the OS. Whatever else you run in the background or on top of windows requires more ram. The most notable applications that relate to this site being Finale and Adobe softwares, which simply funnel hecto-megabytes into their programs like it was candy. It's a general rule that you have 150% of what your typical running scheme's memory usage installed in your computer, as to prevent the slowness you've encountered. Which begs the question "What are you running on average?"

Also, are the programs your running from previous generations? Are the programs made by reliable, dependable, well-informed individuals? If you answered no, then it's likely that there'll be a compatibility program needed to wrap itself around the process in order to execute as expected, which slows everything down.

And don't go on about how Windows 7 is better in statistics on this. All that they did was change the window rendering system. The WDDM was revised so that the rendering of windows (what is drawn to the user) is scheduled in parallel rather than unilaterally. The OS isn't faster, the rendering of the response is. To use the buzz-words: "Windows didn't get faster, it got smarter".

Also, a stock XP installation with all the device drivers vista provides, network security, Aero, .NET requirements, and service packs up to 3; it's actually about 13 GBs. Considering that users DEMAND backwards compatibility with newer OSes, I can easily see everything bloating the extra 7 GBs for older programs that don't understand the newer OS features, the security flaws these old libraries have, and the quagmire of terrible developers whom wish not to learn the new system to work properly.

---

The Battle of OSes isn't as black and white as End Users make it out to be. In fact, I expect that 90% of the users that visit Ichigos to go "Huh?" to what I just typed out above, clueless on the terms used, saying that the WDDM has nothing to do with any of this without even looking it up, and going off of their personal experience which can slant from professional to downright idiotic computer users (such as the person that didn't understand why IE was going so slow). As much as I like to bash Microsoft, this isn't the right way to attack them.


tl;dr- Yes it is a requirement hog, but these requirements are explained to the user. It's not Microsoft's fault that Users don't want to believe what they recommend.

Before I start, thanks for pointing out my typo. I meant to say 13GB is taken up using XP with all the service packs and updates.

Yes, I have read the specs, and I was expecting it to run smooth with the current spec I had when I first got Vista which had 1GB of RAM. That is why I bought 2GB of RAM to run it better, and like I said before. IT didn't work out quite the way I was expecting it to be, more like it didn't do much so that is why I have 4GB of RAM right now. On average, I don't have much installed on my computer. I do know that having adobe programs will significantly "slow" down the processing speed of Vista, but that's a given. But let me answer your question as in what I'm running on average "before" I installed Adobe programs.

Windows Office XP Word and Powerpoint, Mozilla, Winamp, and video codecs.

With only those programs, I was having difficulty with the OS, let alone installing Service Pack 1 and 2 and this was before I upgraded to 4GB of RAM. I didn't even dare to install Adobe programs back then, that's what my desktop was for. But now that I have 4GB, I have installed Adobe programs in my laptop that has the Vista OS and I'm not complaining, it works great and smoothly. My general argument is that Vista needs updates every week, and new ones come out at least 3 times per month. It's ridiculous because each of those updates take away more resources in my computer in which I never had to deal with when I'm running XP. Kind of get my point? I'm not complaining how slow Vista is, I'm just complaining how annoying it is to have updates every other week. It gets old and pretty annoying. Still, having 30GBs of your space sapped up for Vista, it's pretty ridiculous. I rather have 13gbs taken than 30gbs.

Also, I didn't say that Windows 7 is faster. I know it's much smarter, but it's still the same as Vista. But compared to Vista, XP, and 7, I prefer Vista only because 7 only came out for a week and there are no feedback on problems yet. So till then, I'll wait.

[Neko Koneko]

Vista takes up 30 GB because stupid endusers want it to work with all their crappy programms from 2 centuries ago backwards compatibility FTL!

[HopelessComposer]

What the hell? Vista runs damned fast on my crappy low-end, year-old laptop with only 2gb of RAM in it, and that's running Photoshop and such. = \
And what sort of laptop comes with an 80gb harddrive? I bought mine last year for $400, and it has a 140gb hdd in it...
*shrugs*

[xpeed]

^ Mine's 2 years old. I got the last of the Dell Inspirons before they decided to come out with a whole new one a month later. I opted for a better video card, lcd display, over a larger hard drive. So all in all, I get a smaller hard drive for a better video card and lcd display. It's fine for me though. I have a external 320GB hd and a another portable 320gb portable hard drive. So i'm set. BTW, anyone ever seen a 50TB hard drive? That's one ridiculous hard drive. My friend has one and he's already at 90% capacity.

Well to get back on track.

Show Spoiler

[M]

Originally Posted by xpeed

[...] BTW, anyone ever seen a 50TB hard drive? That's one ridiculous hard drive. My friend has one and he's already at 90% capacity.

Okay. Now I'm jealous. *only has 5 TBs of space*

[Neko Koneko]

There's no such thing as a 50 TB harddrive. Last time I checked 1.5 TB was the largest harddrive available. Maybe by now 2 or even 2.5 is possible, but definately not 50. Your friend probably has a bunch of those stacked up together, though it's more likely he's pulling your leg.

[M]

It's obviously a slice (JBOD or RAID or whatnot). The coolest one I've seen so far is a 350 TB Sunbox which is housed at my university. It's freaking HUGE.

What I would give to have some of that space.

[Neko Koneko]

50 TB seems quite unlikely in a home configuration though.

[xpeed]

Originally Posted by Neko Koneko

There's no such thing as a 50 TB harddrive. Last time I checked 1.5 TB was the largest harddrive available. Maybe by now 2 or even 2.5 is possible, but definately not 50. Your friend probably has a bunch of those stacked up together, though it's more likely he's pulling your leg.

Nope. It's available. Just not in any retail stores. It's pretty big. I've seen it in person. There's a special back pack for it when you need to carry it from one place to another. I know because I had to borrow some of his video equipment. He literally let me borrow his hard drive and told me that his life is in my hands...literally it was. LOL. His profession is main reason why he has such a thing. (He works for a media production company directly incorporated with Hollywood studios)

I wouldn't spit nonsense if I haven't seen it in person. The 1.5-4TB hard drives are for household use available for the consumers. The one he has is for business owners and professionals so it's not available in any retail stores. That's why you couldn't find it.

I'm currently thinking about getting a 2TB internal hard drive for my new computer I'm building. I'm also thinking about getting a 500GB hard drive for my laptop as well. 80GB doesn't quite cut it for me. '__'

[Neko Koneko]

Lol, pics or it didn't happen. Seriously, if it exists, it's a bunch of 1.5 TB discs stacked up on top of eachother.

[X]

I'd like to see what it looks like as well.

[xpeed]

haha, I'll try to get a picture of it.

[X]

hahaha

[Neko Koneko]

Figured it was time for something new \o

[RainingSilver64]

:O ZELDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!