My New PC

[legacy-Big_Iron]

Originally posted by Folk
I thought so.

Where ya been.... under a rock? :haha:

I've been around ... very busy with work-related stuff. I notice your posting count has been rising like the tide

I guess you've had lotsa time on your hands hehe.

I still think it was a good find .... would be nice if info like that was UT2K4 based.

[legacy-Venael[FatZ]]

Originally posted by Phear
THATS A GREAT IDEA....:P
I just thought i would attempt to support my claim earlyer in the thread, sorry its so long.

It doesn't support your claim in the slightest. I know fine well there are more differences between XP Pro and XP Home Edition than the ones I stated. I also know what these differences are, I don't need to look them up, but thanks for that anyway.

I'm telling you now, that there is no way on this green Earth that the original poster will utilise ANY of the features present in XP Pro and not in XP Home. My point was that there will be ZERO increase in application performance running XP Pro over XP Home.

Like I tried to subtly point out, the reason those feature are NOT present in XP Home, is because XP Pro is designed to be the client operating system in a network environment. The original poster said herself she can't even program her microwave. That being said, do you think she is going to be concerned about the lack of EFS?

Posting those differences was pointless and it's only purpose was to discredit what I said about you passing 3rd party opinions off as your own, but in fact it proves my point. You're nothing more than a_sheep_in_the_herd, like those gimps who hate everything to do with Microsoft just because they hear other people say it while they don't have a clue, they just try to sound cool.

Instead of posting what I already know (and what you had to look up, and probably still don't know) why don't you try to point out that I'm wrong?

[legacy-olobley]

There were a couple of bits in there that might leverage a performance advantage.
iirc Dynamic disks can be software raided, wheras simple ones cannot (could be wrong on this). This would give you faster load times, although I would imagine that the framerate difference would be minimal.

Also, consider the multiprocessor issue. If you've got an HT Pentium 4, it won't make use of the virtual CPU (again, could be wrong here, but on my work HT system running XP pro, the HT bit shows up as a second processor).

[legacy-Venael[FatZ]]

Also, consider the multiprocessor issue. If you've got an HT Pentium 4, it won't make use of the virtual CPU

Where did you pluck that little gem from? Of course XP Home edition supports hyperthreading. XP Home doesn't support multiple physical CPU's but will work fine with 2 virtual ones. All instructions are sent to a single core, that's the key.

As for RAID. Yes it might offer a minute increase in loading times, but that ain't going to help the original poster out with her single 160GB hard drive, now is it?

[legacy-Phear]

Originally posted by Venael[FatZ]
It doesn't support your claim in the slightest. I know fine well there are more diff......... why don't you try to point out that I'm wrong?

Obvisouly i was misenturpreted (spelling...) I did not mean to imply that there was any aplication preformance diffrence between XP Home, and XP Pro. I was not trying to say that you were wrong, but when i said that there was a diffrence, then i was able to look up, read, and LEARN what i didnt know. I was not trying to prove you worng.

[legacy-olobley]

My word, chill out man.
If you had quoted that comment in full, you'd notice that I put 'could be wrong here' after the bit on the CPU. My machine at work shows it as two processors, and doesn't inform me that one is virtual; hence I was basing my observation on that.

[Folk]

Originally posted by Crotale
I don't mean to bust your chops, but how do you figure that a P4 660 can give you 64-bit capability?

Because the 600 series are the first processors from Intel that officially support 64 bit processing? :haha:

[legacy-Venael[FatZ]]

I did not mean to imply that there was any aplication preformance diffrence between XP Home, and XP Pro.

Then why did you suggest that the original poster should use XP Pro over XP Home then?

[Crotale]

Originally posted by Folk
Because the 600 series are the first processors from Intel that officially support 64 bit processing? :haha:

Ok, I'll give you that one. I didn't realize this chip supported 64-bit extensions. Funny though, I just read an article less than a month ago that stated Intel would not be making a 64-bit P4 (their 64-bit chip was not supposed to be called a P4) but they were coming out with a dual-core 32-bit that would operate with a 64-bit OS.

With your smiley there I guess you were trying to rub my nose in the fact that you knew something I didn't. Wow, I'm crushed.

[KriLL3.8™]

Haven't intel had 64bit server CPU's a long time..

[legacy-)-(ooligan]

BTW which is the best s939 AGP mobo for OCing??

[Folk]

Originally posted by Crotale
With your smiley there I guess you were trying to rub my nose in the fact that you knew something I didn't. Wow, I'm crushed.

All that from a smiley? I wasn't trying to bust your chops.

[Folk]

Originally posted by KriLL3.2™
Haven't intel had 64bit server CPU's a long time..

Yup. Itanium. But the marketplace hasn't exactly embraced them, since their performance in existing 32 bits apps is really horrible.... about like a P2 300 or so. Intel expected everyone to rewrite all existing software to take advantage of their fancy new 64 bit processor, but everyone in essence said "screw you". So AMD came out with a little 64 bit server CPU called Opteron that was fast as greased lightening on both 32 and 64 bit apps, and the rest is history....

To be fair, Intel was trying to move away from the aging X86 based processors with thier related problems and baggage and move to a completely new platform with the Itanium. Problem is, X86 is so deeply embedded that sheer inertia prevents the industry from moving away. AMD understood that problem and took the X86 and made it do 64 bits. So from a purist standpoint, Intel took the right tack, but from a reality standpoint it just didn't fly. Score one for AMD.

[Folk]

Originally posted by )-(ooligan
BTW which is the best s939 AGP mobo for OCing??

People are currently getting in the stratosphere on FSB overclocking on the new DFI Lanparty NF4 based boards. But unless you're ready to move to PCI Express, that can be a problem. For an AGP solution, the best NForce 3 board seems to be the MSI K8N Neo2 and the best VIA K8T800 based board seems to be the Asus K8V Deluxe. They both seem to OC about the same, so it kinda comes down to preference.

[Crotale]

Originally posted by Folk
All that from a smiley? I wasn't trying to bust your chops.

Lol, I thought that was the "ha ha" smiley. You know what they say, a picture can speak a thousand words. I just took it too personally. My bad, as usual.