Post Your Desktop.

[Homicidal Monkey]

@Toshiro:

> @Zetta:
>
> > @Robin:
> >
> > > Enjoy having no real IPv6, DX9+ support, or >3.8gb ram
> >
> > fixed
>
> Oh, well if we're talking performance, that's different. I'm talking more-so the OS. Sister has a Compaq Presario, dual core, which runs slower than my computer which is 10-11 years old. But no worries, I'll end up getting Seven. Just for gaming and spend most of my time on Ubuntu. Even still.. Seven fails hard for gaming. ):

>implying that the Presario is not an Econ-model
>implying Compaq makes good computers
>implying that dual core is "modern"
>implying that age defines computer speed
>implying that you can compare other systems to 7 for gaming (seriously, nothing else CAN game)

[ToshiroHayate]

@Zetta:

> @Toshiro:
>
> > @Zetta:
> >
> > > @Robin:
> > >
> > > > Enjoy having no real IPv6, DX9+ support, or >3.8gb ram
> > >
> > > fixed
> >
> > Oh, well if we're talking performance, that's different. I'm talking more-so the OS. Sister has a Compaq Presario, dual core, which runs slower than my computer which is 10-11 years old. But no worries, I'll end up getting Seven. Just for gaming and spend most of my time on Ubuntu. Even still.. Seven fails hard for gaming. ):
>
> >implying that the Presario is not an Econ-model
> >implying Compaq makes good computers
> >implying that dual core is "modern"
> >implying that age defines computer speed
> >implying that you can compare other systems to 7 for gaming (seriously, nothing else CAN game)

You would think in theory a dual core Compaq would beat a single-core Emachine. Which it doesn't. No, age doesn't define the computer speed, shitty Windows OS does. XP is the only system I've used so far, that hasn't given me a problem. I can barely run ANY type of game software on Vista without it dying.

[Robin]

@Toshiro:

> You would think in theory a dual core Compaq would beat a single-core Emachine. Which it doesn't. No, age doesn't define the computer speed, shitty Windows OS does. XP is the only system I've used so far, that hasn't given me a problem. I can barely run ANY type of game software on Vista without it dying.

Vista != 7.

[Homicidal Monkey]

>Vista

[ToshiroHayate]

@Robin:

> Vista != 7.

Might as well.

[Godlord]

@Robin:

> Enjoy having no real IPv6 or DX10+ support.

You don't need DirectX 10+ if you can use OpenGL. OpenGL is known to be at least four years ahead of DirectX. When they finally added tesselation to DirectX, OpenGL had it implemented for at least four years already. Id has used OpenGL for decades, even on Windows. They **never** bothered supporting DirectX. Also, enjoy having no proper 2D rendering, since Windows Vista and Windows 7 actually lack that.

@Zetta:

> @Robin:
>
> > Enjoy having no real IPv6, DX9+ support, or >3.8gb ram
>
> fixed

3.8 GiB RAM is a problem on 32-bit operating systems and Windows Vista and Windows Seven still have 32-bit versions, which are not only more popular in usage, but are also less troublesome (e.g. kernel panics are more common on 64-bit).

@Robin:

> Aren't you also limited to a boot drive which can't be over 2.3tB?

Every operating system is limited to 2 TiB partitions in general, unless you use GPT. This is a limit of the MBR, not of the PC BIOS or the operating systems. Some idiot decided to use 32-bit addressing in the MBR, while addressing is normally done using 48-bit. Even more, the PC BIOS supports 64-bit addressing. This also means there is no reason to use EFI on x86-platforms. The reason EFI exists is because of Itanium and Itanium is dead and so EFI should be as well.

@Zetta:

> @Robin:
>
> > Aren't you also limited to a boot drive which can't be over 2.3tB?
>
> my favorite part of XP is that once you install the latest update (.net framework et al) ram consumption is up to ~400mb. Might as well be running 7.

Windows 7 actually uses almost 1 GiB of RAM compared to your 400 **millibit**. There is one reason why Windows XP is actually superior at RAM usage compared to Windows 7\. It doesn't run the most useless desktop environment ever, which is known as Aero. There is no reason for a desktop environment to be fancy. If I wanted to look at something fancy, I'd probably buy some high quality posters in a shop and hang them on my walls.

Then I forgot to mention anything about IPv6, but that's because it is the only valid reason I have seen in this thread to not use Windows XP.

@Zetta:

> >implying that the Presario is not an Econ-model
> >implying Compaq makes good computers
> >implying that dual core is "modern"
> >implying that age defines computer speed
> >implying that you can compare other systems to 7 for gaming (seriously, nothing else CAN game)

You are implying Compaq actually makes computers. They assemble them, they however do not make computers.

Dual-core processors are old, yes. But nobody needs more than four cores unless they decide to run every single application in Java and/or .net. But OK, I guess there are some people who are stupid enough to do that. To be honest, a single core 1.2GHz is fast enough for most things, were most things actually programmed well.

Age generally defines computer speed since newer processors are faster. However, age also defines that programmers get worse. Hence why you won't notice them being faster. I guess we need more Java and .net programmers to screw everything up.

Nothing else can game? Let's see: AmigaOS, MS-DOS, Windows 95/98/ME (even though DirectX was even shittier at that time than it is now), Windows XP, Windows 7, Linux and Mac OS X. If you are talking about having epic quality 3D graphics showing up on your screen. That's called benchmarking, not gaming.

Next time you two decide to make up shitty reasons like these, don't forget that I am here and I do not mind posting the truth, since it has to be said.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[Admiral Refuge]

@Stephan:

On a side note, here's my [screenshot](http://www.freemmorpgmaker.com/files/imagehost/pics/2d9e4fbf884242845bb8800088d3f389.png) (yes, console is built-in to the wallpaper).

[Godlord]

Haha, epic.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[monowolf00]

Yes, I realize that I have too many game icons on my desktop.


[Patrick]

@ Admiral, you seem to have a wide monitor.

[azure]


[Godlord]

@мсичġġєт:

> @ Admiral, you seem to have a wide monitor.

It's called multiple monitors…

Regards,
  Stephan.

[Eponasoft]

Mine's nothing special. But then again, it's a desktop, and I spend very little time at it. NSFW if you work with conservitards.

[clicky](http://www.nodtveidt.net/desktop12-22-10.jpg)

Yes, that's Windows XP. No, I will not upgrade. But yes, when Windows XP is no longer able to go online, I _will_ upgrade… to FreeBSD.

[Robin]

@мсичġġєт:

> @ Admiral, you seem to have a wide monitor.


[Godlord]


Regards,
  Stephan.

[Robin]

You got my sound card working yet? ;D

[Admiral Refuge]

SynBoot is looking great so far, Stephan.

[Godlord]

@Robin:

> You got my sound card working yet? ;D

No, what sound card do you actually have?

@Admiral:

> SynBoot is looking great so far, Stephan.

Thanks, currently setting up my physical memory manager.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[Robin]

@Stephan:

> No, what sound card do you actually have?

Fuck knows. Some integrated thing in my mobo.

trollface.bmp

[shwamshwam1]


[Robin]

That is one of the most disgusting abuse of layer effects I have ever seen.

[Krumelz]


[Fnar]

>! 

Everything you should ever need to know 'bout me is here.

>! 

[Godlord]



Regards,
  Stephan.

[Admiral Refuge]

Processor detection ftw