• NudeCelebForum has been moved from the vBulletin to the XenForo platform.
    For additional information, see: NCF Moved To XenForo
  • New threads will not be visible until approved by a moderator.

  • Welcome to the forum!
    You must activate your account in order to post and view all forum content
    Please check your email inbox & spam folders for our activation email, then follow the link to validate your email address.
    Contact Us if you are having difficulty posting or viewing forum content.
  • You are viewing our forum as a guest, with limited access.
    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
    Membership is absolutely FREE! Registration is FAST & SIMPLE.
    Register Today to join the first, most comprehensive and friendliest communities of nude celebrity fans on the net!

Microsoft Vista

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
Entirely too many versions. Whats wrong with Home & Pro?
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
I don't pretend to be a marketing guy but I think it's weird too. Kid you not, I can't tell you how many clients who are confused about the difference between XP and Office. Then the marketing guys at MS named Office 2002 "Office XP". Many users don't even know what an operating system is...now these guys want to confuse them more.
 

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
The only difference is that Pro has Administrative Tools and added Network Functionality. It is all just marketing. They are the same OS, just some stuff is disabled.

Its like how Pentiums and Celerons use the same chip, but Celerons are partially disabled (or at least thats how it used to be)
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Cman said:
Its like how Pentiums and Celerons use the same chip, but Celerons are partially disabled (or at least thats how it used to be)

So Pents and Cel's are physically the same....they just turn off some of the floating point stuff in Cels? News to me, but wouldn't shock me.
 

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
Not sure if they still do it, but back in the day, the original Celeron's were Pentiums minus cache. I know Celerons have cache now, so not sure what the diff is now
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
Cman said:
Not sure if they still do it, but back in the day, the original Celeron's were Pentiums minus cache. I know Celerons have cache now, so not sure what the diff is now

CMan,

Goes back a bit farther than that. Remember the old DX vs. SX back in the 386 and 486 days?
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
mindido said:
Remember the old DX vs. SX back in the 386 and 486 days?

Shoot that's right. That was about cache wasn't it? I thought the big diff between Pent and Celeron was something about floating point calculations. Does that sound right to you Min?

EDIT:

I had to research this a bit. Cman remembers right. According to an old 1999 post on cpuscorecard.com:
"The Celerons that Intel first introduced as a low-cost CPU alternative (266 & 300MHz versions) were basically just Pentium-II's without any L2 cache at all. This deficiency really punished Celeron performance when compared to competitive AMD and Cyrix chips. In response, subsequent Celeron versions (300A and up) were provided with 128kB of L2 cache. Though only one-quarter the size of the Pentium cache, it was built to run at the full speed of the respective CPU, rather than at half-speed as in the Pentiums.”​

And at that time:

“What Intel plays down-- but nearly everyone knows-- is that the full-speed, quarter-size Celeron cache gives them almost the same performance as the half-speed, full-size cache gives Pentiums. Thus you'll find that, for most applications, Celerons rated at the same MHz will equal or better an equivalent Pentium-II, for a much lower price.”​

A more current explaination from HowStuffWorks.com:

"Here are the most important similarities and differences between the Pentium 4 and the Celeron chips coming out today:
  • Core - The Celeron chip is based on a Pentium 4 core.
  • Cache - Celeron chips have less cache memory than Pentium 4 chips do. A Celeron might have 128 kilobytes of L2 cache, while a Pentium 4 can have four times that. The amount of L2 cache memory can have a big effect on performance.
  • Clock speed - Intel manufactures the Pentium 4 chips to run at a higher clock speed than Celeron chips. The fastest Pentium 4 might be 60 percent faster than the fastest Celeron.
  • Bus speed - There are differences in the maximum bus speeds that the processors allow. Pentium 4s tend to be about 30 percent faster than Celerons.
When you sort all this out and compare the two chips side by side, it turns out that a Celeron and a Pentium 4 chip running at the same speed are different beasts. The smaller L2 cache size and slower bus speeds can mean serious performance differences depending on what you want to do with your computer. If all you do is check e-mail and browse the Web, the Celeron is fine, and the price difference can save you a lot of money. If you want the fastest machine you can buy, then you need to go with the Pentium 4 to get the highest clock speeds and the fastest system bus."​
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
Preferred User said:
Shoot that's right. That was about cache wasn't it?

Preferred,

I don't think so. Its been a while (so my memory is a bit cloudy) but, at least on the 386, the SX didn't have a math co-processor that was incorporated into the DX. Hence, some apps wouldn't work on the SX. The reason I remember that is because I bought an SX and tried to run AutoCAD r. 9 or 10 on it, and it wouldn't run. Luckily, I was able to return the machine and get one that would.

There were probably other reasons, but thats the one I remember.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
we're geniuses! lol this thread makes me feel smart.

i disagree with the old explanation in the post above that says cache isn't important. it may have been true at that time, but now its not. processor cache makes a big difference. especially now that its up to like 2 or 4 MB. the new explanation is fairly accurate.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Cman said:
i disagree with the old explanation in the post above that says cache isn't important.

I didn't read it that way cman. I thought he was just saying faster cache is as good as, or even better than more chache that runs slower.

No question cache means a lot. I'm not a big hardware guy but I believe it is one of the main ways mobile chips make up for slower clock speeds. Cripes a Pentium M (Centrino) has 2 Megs of L2 now.
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
Cman said:
we're geniuses! lol this thread makes me feel smart.

Cman,

Have to agree. It seems MS is pretty darn predictable.
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
Preferred,

I'm thinking that the reason Vista is taking so long (at least partially) is that MS has finally got the idea that they have to take security seriously. They sure haven't until recently.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
mindido said:
MS has finally got the idea that they have to take security seriously. They sure haven't until recently.

Boy they haven't had they? I think it's very weird that you've been able to install a program w/o an administrative login...and I read that's finally coming to an end with Vista. But I think he's also tried to make his op sys more enterprise friendly too. The problem is, when you leave ways for an enterprise to control a work station....well you know the rest.
 

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
Preferred User said:
The problem is, when you leave ways for an enterprise to control a work station....well you know the rest.
its always been that way. look at NT or 2000
 
A

Andru

lol...vista is the best..i already have it installed on my pc..but it has some bugs...but it looks nice :>
 

vinotinto

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
45
Reaction score
159
It's fine to talk about it. But no one wil get used to hand this program once released.I mean,we are used to windows xp,2000,me between many more.
I did see the sistem,and the characters it has, but it's have a really seem to Longhorn,there is not something new in this program
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Andru said:
lol...vista is the best..i already have it installed on my pc..but it has some bugs...but it looks nice :>

Looks-schmoooks. How does it run? The word is that you need some serious horse power to make it go decent. How do things run for you?

I probably won't see it till it's on some client's machine. From what I've heard it's still on the Win 2K/XP model where all the stuff I care about is in My Computer> Properties, Folder Options, Network Connections, etc.
 
Top