Gaming Windows 7 vs XP

[Rydian]

With games you want to exceed requirements (because even if you're getting 30FPS, with random dips you'll hit 10FPS spots), but usually an OS's requirements assume you're running stuff on top.

It's the preinstallations done by OEMs that usually have extra crap on them. Useful to normal people that wouldn't know how to use a webcam otherwise, but useless for power users.

 

[xmrnogatcox]

I'm an ass when it comes to tech stuff. And there's a reason.

IT'S ACTUALLY IMPORTANT.

Video games I'm chill about, because they don't really matter.

Computers, however... paypal accounts, ebay accounts, financing information, personal conversations, they're full of (and used for) all sorts of information and even people's jobs, shit you do NOT fuck with.


If somebody loses a life in New Super Mario Brothers because a guy told him to take the wrong door in a ghost house... oops. Oh well.
If a guy loses his $56,000 savings because the pirated and modified OS he was using was keylogging him... that is NOT an "oops, oh well" situation.

Listen. I hear you. You are correct about the importance of an OS choice. The reason I chimed in was because there is a way to have a conversation without freaking out. A good tech is one who can relate a Higher-Level language to someone who knows nothing or very little about computers.

Security is not really as important when choosing an OS as it is when you are USING the OS. People tend to do things like Facebook, MySpace, Online Gaming (pogo.com, etc..), open forwarded email attachments, etc. that lead to MUCH more destruction than *MOST* backdoored OSes. How about when a user is sent a picture with a RAT attached? How about when a user is phished out of their email account, which holds all of their password information for multiple sites?

I studied Network Security during my Computer Science degree. I'm telling you that you are correct when telling these people about the stripped down OSes, but you are focusing on one SMALL portion of security. It IS a good start though.

 

[Luigi728]

I'm getting a bit lost in the Great War here..
If I upgrade to 2 GB RAM (The max for my PC, more is not possible, unless I change motherboard, but then again, I could buy a completely new computer...)
Would I gain any improvements over XP (a slow XP, that is...) when I install a clean version of Windows 7?

 

[GreatCrippler]

What kind of CPU do you have? Can't give you more until I know.

 

[Rydian]

Listen. I hear you. You are correct about the importance of an OS choice. The reason I chimed in was because there is a way to have a conversation without freaking out. A good tech is one who can relate a Higher-Level language to someone who knows nothing or very little about computers.I'm way past the "type out a paragraph every time" phase because I've been doing this for years. If I typed up even a few full sentences for each post of bullshit, my hands would have fallen off years ago.

Security is not really as important when choosing an OS as it is when you are USING the OS. People tend to do things like Facebook, MySpace, Online Gaming (pogo.com, etc..), open forwarded email attachments, etc. that lead to MUCH more destruction than *MOST* backdoored OSes. How about when a user is sent a picture with a RAT attached? How about when a user is phished out of their email account, which holds all of their password information for multiple sites?An OS that's constantly keylogging is pretty much the worst thing that can happen, though... Most infections that do damage outside of files do it with some form of data-mining or spoofing.

QUOTE(xmrnogatcox @ Sep 24 2010, 04:44 PM)

I studied Network Security during my Computer Science degree. I'm telling you that you are correct when telling these people about the stripped down OSes, but you are focusing on one SMALL portion of security. It IS a good start though.

If the kernel itself is modified, can you trust the OS?

 

[Luigi728]

What kind of CPU do you have? Can't give you more until I know.

Dual Core 1,86 GHz. It was from.. damn, I always forget the name >.

 

[GreatCrippler]

Probably an e6300... pretty Common CPU of that speed. I would just do a fresh install of XP. Back up your stuff, wipe it clean, and redo XP. You can run Windows 7, but you're gonna have to do upgrades to see minimal if any performance improvement.

 

[Luigi728]

Well, XP is stuffed up pretty easily. I'll think about it. We had a reinstall once, and it became slow as hell in no time. That's why I was considering Windows 7.

 

[Rydian]

Definitely choose 7 over XP, as on top of all the other improvements it's got better recovery options.

 

[cobleman]

Windows 7 all the way any CPU over 1.6ghz with 1gb ram seems to run it just fine and it runs fast than XP ever did under the same setup.

 

[GreatCrippler]

Definitely choose 7 over XP, as on top of all the other improvements it's got better recovery options.

With less than 2 gigs of ram, a crap Video card, and a low-end dual core? I am starting to think you just like disagreeing.

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

The fuck are you on about? My netbook, with a crap video card, 1GB RAM, Intel Atom processor, etc. can run Win7 perfectly fine, so I think something with a DUAL core should be able to run it just fine.

 

[GreatCrippler]

The fuck are you on about? My netbook, with a crap video card, 1GB RAM, Intel Atom processor, etc. can run Win7 perfectly fine, so I think something with a DUAL core should be able to run it just fine.

Speaking of people who like to argue. >.>

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

I like to argue when I see someone with a wrong view on the situation.

Otherwise I don't really care about anyone's ideas.

 

[Rydian]

GreatCrippler...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7...quirements.aspx

Aero will run on an IGP, any dual-core is fine, and RAM usage isn't all people make it out to be (especially those that don't know what the fuck superfetch is).

 

[GreatCrippler]

I like to argue when I see someone with a wrong view on the situation.

Otherwise I don't really care about anyone's ideas.

And I'm wrong huh? I wasn't saying Windows 7 wouldn't run on his system. I wasn't saying it wouldn't run well. I said XP would likely outdo Windows 7 given his specs. How exactly is that wrong?

QUOTE(Rydian @ Sep 24 2010, 03:22 PM) GreatCrippler...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7...quirements.aspx

Aero will run on an IGP, any dual-core is fine, and RAM usage isn't all people make it out to be (especially those that don't know what the fuck superfetch is).

Never said it wouldn't run. Just still XP would outperform on those spec. No more, no less.

 

[xmrnogatcox]

Listen. I hear you. You are correct about the importance of an OS choice. The reason I chimed in was because there is a way to have a conversation without freaking out. A good tech is one who can relate a Higher-Level language to someone who knows nothing or very little about computers.I'm way past the "type out a paragraph every time" phase because I've been doing this for years. If I typed up even a few full sentences for each post of bullshit, my hands would have fallen off years ago.

Security is not really as important when choosing an OS as it is when you are USING the OS. People tend to do things like Facebook, MySpace, Online Gaming (pogo.com, etc..), open forwarded email attachments, etc. that lead to MUCH more destruction than *MOST* backdoored OSes. How about when a user is sent a picture with a RAT attached? How about when a user is phished out of their email account, which holds all of their password information for multiple sites?An OS that's constantly keylogging is pretty much the worst thing that can happen, though... Most infections that do damage outside of files do it with some form of data-mining or spoofing.

QUOTE(xmrnogatcox @ Sep 24 2010, 04:44 PM)

I studied Network Security during my Computer Science degree. I'm telling you that you are correct when telling these people about the stripped down OSes, but you are focusing on one SMALL portion of security. It IS a good start though.

If the kernel itself is modified, can you trust the OS?

Ok. Obviously you don't get the point. I have stated that you are right at least twice and you just don't get it.

Either type out a paragraph and help someone understand what you are trying to say, or don't waste your time "helping". Most "end-users" don't get what "If the kernel is modified..." even means.

If they don't get 90-100% of the picture, they get lost.

POINT IS:
Choose an OS that is an official build. If you don't have the hardware for the official build, use a flavor of Linux. Stay away from stupid things on the internet. Try to keep pr0n to a minimum. Use a good AV. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read.

Also:

Nadrian is correct. You'd be amased at what Windows 7 Starter can run on... at least decently.

 

[Rydian]

Never said it wouldn't run. Just still XP would outperform on those spec. No more, no less.

http://anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3666&p=7
XP < Vista < 7, as far as performance goes on the same hardware (hardware that meets the recommended requirements of all of them).
Seven pages of benchmarks for 'ya.

 

[Rydian]

Ok. Obviously you don't get the point. I have stated that you are right at least twice and you just don't get it.I'm not thinking that, I'm telling you why I'm just being mean and short about it instead of explaining why things are as they are.

QUOTE(xmrnogatcox @ Sep 24 2010, 05:23 PM) Either type out a paragraph and help someone understand what you are trying to say, or don't waste your time "helping". Most "end-users" don't get what "If the kernel is modified..." even means.

That one was meant for you, because you'd understand it.

People that don't wouldn't, so a "do you like losing $56,000?" line is much better at getting the point across.

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

But it does run well. So, you're wrong.

Also, everyone, stop the damn arguing over useless nonsense. Rydian's right, he uses foul words, but that doesn't detract from the ontopic things he said.

4D H0M1N3M GU1Z3!!!11!