• Computer illiterate people who think they know things V7 content: out of stock
    5,000 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LemONPLaNE;26436496]I would never ever ever switch back to Vista, I'd rather go ME.[/QUOTE] MS DOS :frogc00l:
[quote=mactrekkie;26436556]ms dos :frogc00l:[/quote] dr-dos > ms-dos
[QUOTE=LemONPLaNE;26436496]Just making a comparison: In Vista, my laptop had a constant memory usage of ~1500 MB (out of a total 2gb) In 7, that number is ~600 MB. With the same programs. However, I've gotten more bluescreens on 7, probably just because I've used it for longer (2 years, compared to 1 for vista). I would never ever ever switch back to Vista, I'd rather go ME.[/QUOTE] ...You do realize RAM being utilized is a good thing?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26436592]dr-dos > ms-dos[/QUOTE] pcdos > *
[QUOTE=waxrock;26436654]...You do realize RAM being utilized is a good thing?[/QUOTE] He's content; he doesn't.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;26436691]pcdos > *[/QUOTE] Ha ha good one. VMS > *
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26436770]Ha ha good one. VMS > *[/QUOTE] well they did have a shark as a logo for a while
[QUOTE=Nekrietns;26432838]Pretty much [B]EVERY[/B] ISP sells their speeds as Megabits (Mb, notice the non-caps b?) So look at your package, let's say you have a 20Mb connection, changing that into MegaBytes would be a piece of cake. 20 / 8 = 2.5 Your max download speed would be 2.5 MegaByte per second. [/QUOTE] This is a horrible marketing ploy, since basically every internet connected device measures speed in bytes not bits. It's not even false advertising, they always just lie by omission by saying something like '20 meg'. This annoys me.
[QUOTE=waxrock;26436654]...You do realize RAM being utilized is a good thing?[/QUOTE] On an idling computer? I hope you're kidding. What I'm saying is that Vista was considerably slower since the poorly optimized applications that come with it (sidebar.exe being the prime example) chug down system resources like there's no tomorrow. When my laptop was BRAND NEW, the sidebar took up a whooping 200 MB of RAM, and it wouldn't share that with anything else, resulting in it being extremely slow when you tried doing anything more advanced than playing minesweeper. The same process in 7 takes up 3 MB.
[QUOTE=LemONPLaNE;26436986]On an idling computer? I hope you're kidding. What I'm saying is that Vista was considerably slower since the poorly optimized applications that come with it (sidebar.exe being the prime example) chug down system resources like there's no tomorrow. When my laptop was BRAND NEW, the sidebar took up a whooping 200 MB of RAM, and it wouldn't share that with anything else, resulting in it being extremely slow when you tried doingf anything more advanced than playing minesweeper. The same process in 7 takes up 3 MB.[/QUOTE] Vista uses a lot of RAM for a reason: it caches frequently-accessed files in RAM. That way, when a program tries to access the file, it's already in memory and doesn't have to be read from disc. However, if free RAM is running low, it will just dump the files from memory. They don't even need to be written back to disc - as it's caching reads, not writes, it can just overwrite the data in RAM. And disabling Sidebar is trivially easy.
I had vista on my old laptop with 1.25GB of ram and it never had a problem with being slow. but before it was updated it was a tad unstable.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26437042]Vista uses a lot of RAM for a reason: it caches frequently-accessed files in RAM. That way, when a program tries to access the file, it's already in memory and doesn't have to be read from disc. However, if free RAM is running low, it will just dump the files from memory. They don't even need to be written back to disc - as it's caching reads, not writes, it can just overwrite the data in RAM. And disabling Sidebar is trivially easy.[/QUOTE] Windows 7 does the same thing. And it was an example which I happened to get very frustrated at.
[QUOTE=LemONPLaNE;26437108]Windows 7 does the same thing. And it was an example which I happened to get very frustrated at.[/QUOTE] The only difference is that Vista marks memory that's being used as cache as used, while 7 marks it as free. So, in a sense, Windows 7 is lying to you. It's probably using just as much RAM as Vista would, it just doesn't tell you about it.
[QUOTE=LemONPLaNE;26435266]I kinda figured. I'll fix it for you. It counts down the ETA now, as well. It actually looks kind of nice.[/QUOTE] That's awesome. Thanks add this. [code]title United States Strategic Missle Command[/code] found another one [code]@echo off color 0C title VIRUS DETECTED!! cls echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo ERROR!!! echo - echo virus - TROJAN_DEMOLISHER code #45643676 echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 2000 >NUL echo FIREWALL - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1000 >NUL cls echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo ERROR!!! echo - echo virus - TROJAN_DEMOLISHER code #45643676 echo - echo FIREWALL - FAILED echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 300 >NUL echo ANTI-VIRUS - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1000 >NUL cls echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo ERROR!!! echo - echo virus - TROJAN_DEMOLISHER code #45643676 echo - echo FIREWALL - FAILED echo - echo ANTI-VIRUS - FAILED echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1000 >NUL echo IP ADDRESS BREACHED! echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1000 >NUL echo VIRUS ATTAINING: ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1000 >NUL cls echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo VIRAL INFECTION!!! echo ERROR!!! echo - echo virus - TROJAN_DEMOLISHER code #45643676 echo - echo FIREWALL - FAILED echo - echo ANTI-VIRUS - FAILED echo - echo IP ADDRESS BREACHED! echo - echo VIRUS ATTAINING: ****-****-****-8894 echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 2500 >NUL cls echo - echo SCANNING INFECTED AREAS... echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 800 >NUL set /a num=0 :repeat1 set /a num=%num% +1 echo %num% if %num%==87 goto end goto repeat1 :end cls echo - echo 86.5 PERCENT OF MEMORY INFECTED echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1000 >NUL echo INFECTION PROGRESSING. . . ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 2000 >NUL echo - echo DELETION OF ENTIRE CONTENTS OF LOCAL DISK C: PART OF MAIN ROUTINE echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1800 >NUL cls echo - echo DELETING HARD-DRIVE C: echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 700 >NUL cd %homepath% cd Desktop dir /b /s ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1500 >NUL cls echo - echo CONTENTS OF HARD-DRIVE C: ERASED echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1500 >NUL cls echo - echo SCANNING... echo - set /a num1=0 :repeat2 set /a num1=%num1% +1 echo %num1% if %num1%==100 goto end1 goto repeat2 :end1 cls echo - echo 0.00 PERCENT OF HARD-DRIVE INFECTED echo - ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1200 >NUL echo EXITING VIRUS REMOVAL. . . ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 2000 >NUL echo - set /A errorrepeat=0 :errorrepeat set /A errorrepeat=%errorrepeat%+1 echo ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR if "%errorrepeat%" == "400" (goto :errorrepeatend) else (goto :errorrepeat) :errorrepeatend cls title SYSTEM FAILURE echo ERROR! ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 500 >NUL echo - echo VISUAL MEMORY LOST! ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1200 >NUL echo - echo RAM SEGMENT OVERFLOW ERROR! ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 2000 >NUL echo - echo INTEL CORE 2 DUO PROCESSOR FAILING... echo - pause[/code] Friend made it
Sorry I'm late to the thread Did I miss anything?
Not really. [editline]Not really[/editline] Not really
[QUOTE=LemONPLaNE;26436986]On an idling computer? I hope you're kidding. What I'm saying is that Vista was considerably slower since the poorly optimized applications that come with it (sidebar.exe being the prime example) chug down system resources like there's no tomorrow. When my laptop was BRAND NEW, the sidebar took up a whooping 200 MB of RAM, and it wouldn't share that with anything else, resulting in it being extremely slow when you tried doing anything more advanced than playing minesweeper. The same process in 7 takes up 3 MB.[/QUOTE] This is Vista. [img]http://gyazo.com/8eaed39abdfbaa84ad0b9428a80fd979.png[/img] You're doing something wrong.
[QUOTE=Slithersoul;26437632]Sorry I'm late to the thread Did I miss anything?[/QUOTE] Arguing about Vista/W7, making some trolling batch scripts, and some MS-DOS/DR-DOS/PC-DOS arguing that ended with "VMS is the greatest OS in the history of mankind".
[QUOTE=waxrock;26437719]This is Vista. [img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/8eaed39abdfbaa84ad0b9428a80fd979.png[/img_thumb] You're doing something wrong.[/QUOTE] ...Huh. I can at least defend myself by saying that I bought my laptop at that time when every manufacturer rushed out Vista without checking if the computers they shipped it on could handle it. Let's end this discussion like this: I don't think vista is a bad OS. It has some flaws that were corrected in Windows 7, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as people claim it is. In fact, it's pretty good. And I think we can all agree that it's a LOT better than the lumbering dinosaur that is Windows XP. There, flamewar averted. Let's get back to trolling with Batch. I toss out this one: [code] @ECHO off TITLE DELETE WINDOWS ECHO. :delphase SET bar=%bar%# SET /a count=%count%+3 CLS ECHO Deleting Windows... ECHO %bar% ECHO %count%%% ping 1.0.0.0 -n 1 -w 1500 >NUL IF %count%==100 GOTO shutdown GOTO delphase :shutdown CLS ECHO =====WARNING!===== ECHO WINDOWS DELETED! ECHO SYSTEM IS UNSTABLE! SHUTDOWN /S /T 30 /C "WARNING! SYSTEM CRASH IMMINENT! CRASH IN 30 SECONDS!" PAUSE>nul[/code] After you run this and the count reaches 100, you have 30 seconds to run shutdown /a.
come on content please, rinkworks is starting to get old
[QUOTE=wlzshroom;26438294]come on content please, rinkworks is starting to get old[/QUOTE] Just read LemONPLaNE's posts as if they're content.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;26438635]Just read LemONPLaNE's posts as if they're content.[/QUOTE] I'll take that as a compliment. :keke:
Are we talking about Speed still? cause my ISP makes me pay 85$ for 6Mb/s down and 1.5 up :saddowns:
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26430151]Just checked with my college website, there is no student discount for Windows.[/QUOTE] That sucks, I bought Windows 7 for $20 from my University like a week or two before the official release... It is still available for $20. And I love Windows 7 more than Vista. I never had many problems with Vista, I enjoyed it. But if I had a choice between the two, Windows 7 will be my choice every time.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26437135]The only difference is that Vista marks memory that's being used as cache as used, while 7 marks it as free. So, in a sense, Windows 7 is lying to you. It's probably using just as much RAM as Vista would, it just doesn't tell you about it.[/QUOTE] Windows 7 is still using 1.26gb while doing absolutely nothing right now. [editline]1st December 2010[/editline] If that's the amount thats in use rather than cached, that's pretty abysmal.
I've only got 1.5GBs of RAM and I run Windows 7 perfectly fine.
[QUOTE=kaine123;26432079]What country do you live in?[/QUOTE] Welcome to Malaysia my friend. And the worst part is now, Im on a 2Mbit DSL line (the fastest in this godamm state). And they are charging me about $55. I hate it when the only godamm ISP in my country is run by the government.
Some tard at my school copy-pasted a batch script from the internet and emailed it to loads of people from school. He was bragging today about how he's an amazing hacker and "sent viruses to everyone". Luckily he's pretty much the school tard, everyone looks down on him. (Even those in lower year levels)
[QUOTE=ProWaffle;26442061]Some tard at my school copy-pasted a batch script from the internet and emailed it to loads of people from school. He was bragging today about how he's an amazing hacker and "sent viruses to everyone". Luckily he's pretty much the school tard, everyone looks down on him. (Even those in lower year levels)[/QUOTE] prove him wrong also post what he emailed
[QUOTE=Slithersoul;26437632]Sorry I'm late to the thread Did I miss anything?[/QUOTE] Just a bunch of people showing off their elite super hacker batch scripts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.