Mission: Upgrade

Originally Posted by Magus

Well I use this computer as a working pc too as I am a student myself too. And my work isn't only Photoshop,Indesign,Illustrator,3DSMAX and Illustrator, I type alot too, and with the quick window switching, the enhanced alt tab and with 4gigs of ram I can say I will not change this for XP. With the minor annoyances, just stop the UAC service and all your problems are gone, so no more pressing ok for 10 times just to install something. Also a laptop preinstalled with vista has bad performance, always reinstall immediately, first of all it's full of crap, and second of all it just run as great as a nice fresh installation, and if you still think it seems slow, you could always use some tweaks to speed up animations.

Anyways I use Vista Business X64, it has no Media center like ultimate but I like it this way, with all the backup options etc. I got it free with my MSDNAA (Microsoft Developer Net Academic Alliance), Basically just MSDN for students, saves some costs and I have everything I want (XP, Vista, Visual 2008, Server 2008, Exchange 2008, Office 2008)

To be a bit more clear: I am talking about a tweaked OS, I have have put UAC off a few months ago (now its complaining that I put it off) and I regulary do some clean-up (i.e. clean the temp folders & registry, defragment the HDD and defragment the registry).
Yet, it is barely faster than my desktop, a single core athlon 64 of 2,2 Ghzwith 1 GB of DDR1 RAM (I increased it to 3 GB a few months ago and now the difference is even smaller). Despite the fact that my Vista-laptop (a dual-core Turion with 2 GB DDR2) is only marginally faster. I know it's no fast hardware, but still I think that with XP it would have been 10-15% faster.

And in my opion it's not an "office OS", because the icons are too big for a 17 / 19 inch screen. While the start menu is a bad design IMHO, its simply too inefficient (unlike XP's interface and Ubuntu's Gnome desktop).

Sorry Magus, we are having a different taste here

Windows XP is faster than Vista. Especially with old technology like you have posted above. But New Technology built correctly is plently fast for Vista and you get all of the new goodies. This is the same old arguement that went around when people were faced with Windows 95 and Win98 and again with Win98 and XP. In the end you'll be happier with Vista. I Luv Vista, I only use XP for the random Review and I hate every minute of it.

Yeah seeing as you get newer hardware, you should get a newer OS with it ;)

Also there's a big difference between a laptop and a pc that will have those specs (e8400, HD4850). And you should not base on that, I've seen lots of people that bought their new laptop with vista on it, hell they run like shit, seen it alot. But once you get the big specs like you will you will notice vista running like an angel. I've only dumped it once on this pc and that was with 2GB BROKEN ram, that way it locked up and bsodded alot. Now I don't have a problem at all. And for the icon problem, you shouldn't throw your desktop full of icons, you've got a nice user folder that has everything within reach, hell even firefox's standard download spot is a download folder inside your userfolder, instead of the desktop. Else you can always change the icon settings for it to be smaller. I did that when i had vista running on a AMD 2400+ 768MB RAM and a 15 inch screen. And yes that run like pure crap!

Even if there is no significant difference in speed (let's say 5-10%) the GUI stays annoying. I am used to the Gnome dektop (in Ubuntu Linux) and then Vista's GUI is a below standard imo.
Maybe you are having a different opinion, but Microsoft should have been trying harder to make a decent GUI and learn to program more efficiently (most Windows OSses draw more resources then necessary).

And the Atlon 64 system I mentioned runs XP, the Turion system (I use it for about 6 months now) is the one with Vista. I know it's not state-of-the-art, but I cannot call that "old hardware" (unlike my XP desktop, the Athlon).

When at least 90% of newly released games run only with DirectX 10, then I will think of buying Windows 7 when it's there

Anyway, is it necessary to add cooling paste to a boxed E8400? Some folks on the interweb are saying you don't need to if you don't overclock, but I would appreciate your opinion.
If it's depending on the case, here is the link to its product sheet: http://www.coolermaster.com/uploads/...lite331_v2.pdf

The stock heatsink comes with a thermal compound pre-applied but I would use a better product. Here's a review I did comparing 7 different thermal compounds :-)

Appetite for Tech | Reviews

Well most of them are hard to get, I have some coolermaster thermal compound, is it any good slay?

(Atleast better than the one that came with the boxed Intel) If it's better i might try to get off the cooler, it's seriously a hell to put it back on again and I hate the system they use for the coolers, amd has a nice system though

(BTW: That case is really ugly but that's your choice, but choose a CM690 or a Antec P182 )

Originally Posted by Slaymate

The stock heatsink comes with a thermal compound pre-applied but I would use a better product. Here's a review I did comparing 7 different thermal compounds :-)

Appetite for Tech | Reviews

Originally Posted by Magus

Well most of them are hard to get, I have some coolermaster thermal compound, is it any good slay?

(Atleast better than the one that came with the boxed Intel) If it's better i might try to get off the cooler, it's seriously a hell to put it back on again and I hate the system they use for the coolers, amd has a nice system though

Thanks, guys.

It is true that those Slay pointed to are hard to get. I found this paste, it looks good and the manual and "spreader" make it more beginner-proof. AK-TC 5022 Thermal compound (fore sale at komplett.nl for 10.50 euro)

Shall combine that with the standard cooler, or is it better to use a cooler like this one? It looks decent and comes with a pre-applied thermal compound. It also seems more suitable to me for someone who's inexperienced with building in cpu's. AK-955 Intel Cooler
4launch.nl sells it for 18 Euro.
Better may be this one though: AK-961 Intel cooler
Sold at Komplett for 23 euro.

Just keep it to the normal cooler, no need to waste money on everything, you're no OCer, if you do want to get a cooling you should save some money and get the Thermalright Ultra-120 heatsink

Originally Posted by Magus

Just keep it to the normal cooler, no need to waste money on everything, you're no OCer, if you do want to get a cooling you should save some money and get the Thermalright Ultra-120 heatsink

Okay, the standard cooler plus that Akasa paste then.