slipnfall wrote:BTW C-Kwik, mine doesn't work with any other USB cable either. If you want to know what any one particular USB device is requiring (500mA MAX for USB spec', but the device has to *request* that amount - it defaults to 100mA I believe for 'dumb' devices), you can check this in the control panel.

Under XP, go to device manager, expand USB controllers. Go to the properties of each item, and you should see one that lists whatever device you're looking for w/the power requirements.

I can't find a similar function in Vista. I ended up ordering a HP Pocket Media Drive as my PC has the drive bay for it. It was only $20 more than the passport and works through my USB rectractable cable. Also works when connected to the Kenwood headunit in the GF's car. So I'm returning the WD, even though it looks a little nicer and is slightly smaller. Plus, since the HP drive slides right into the PC it takes up less space at home.

Here you go. 1TB external for $90 http://accessories.us.dell.com...73913

PoorManQ45 wrote:Here you go. 1TB external for $90 http://accessories.us.dell.com...73913

A very good deal.

Z

I'd love to completely rebuild my computer, my big question is whether or not I want to stay with XP or upgrade to vista, and if I do upgrade to vista would it be better to stay with a 32 bit system or go for the 64 bit system as that's probably the direction that PC will be going in the near future as it allows for an almost infinite amount of memory.

I know that there really aren't too many programs that can run on 64 bit, particularly Flash, and while I would like to get back into the graphic design and 3D work (where 64 bit would be the best route) but without Flash then web pages won't work properly and a huge chunk of the whole graphic design side will be taken out of the picture until Adobe gets their head out of their a**.

I've been doing some research and have found that Vista Ultimate 64 bit allows you to run programs in 32 bit if needed.

One big thing to keep in mind is that when Windows 7 hits (and it'll be a huge improvement over Vista because the MS guys found their brains in one of the toilets after finishing Vista) you'll be able to upgrade from Vista, but NOT from XP.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:One big thing to keep in mind is that when Windows 7 hits (and it'll be a huge improvement over Vista because the MS guys found their brains in one of the toilets after finishing Vista) you'll be able to upgrade from Vista, but NOT from XP.

Any word on when MS plans on dropping Windows 7? I haven't even gotten any Hands on with Vista, is it really that bad? I thought MS designed Vista to compete with Mac's Leopard OS. Is Vista better or worse than Millenium? When I do get Vista, which I apparently have to do because Windows 7 won't upgrade from XP, I was thinking of just getting Vista Ultimate, but Vista Business is looking pretty good to as both have a 64 bit version that can run 32 bit programs.

It's not "bad" so much as "wrong." They went the wrong way with a lot of things. Vista was in development for so long MS wasn't really prepared for the market it released to. Windows 7 will be more efficient, "lighter weight," faster in operation, and easier on system resources. It's basically a refinement of Vista that addresses most of Vista's bigger weaknesses.

Windows 7 will probably be released late this year or early next year.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:I know that there really aren't too many programs that can run on 64 bit, particularly Flash, and while I would like to get back into the graphic design and 3D work (where 64 bit would be the best route) but without Flash then web pages won't work properly and a huge chunk of the whole graphic design side will be taken out of the picture until Adobe gets their head out of their a**.

I've been doing some research and have found that Vista Ultimate 64 bit allows you to run programs in 32 bit if needed.

There arn't many issues with programs running on 64bit. There is what's called the "windows on windows" layer for 32bit emulation. This works extremely well.

Flash is adobe's fault. And it's only flash integrated into the browser. If you have Adobe fireworks or something like that it works fine.

To get flash in the browser you can either use the 32bit version of IE or Firefox.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:I'd love to completely rebuild my computer, my big question is whether or not I want to stay with XP or upgrade to vista, and if I do upgrade to vista would it be better to stay with a 32 bit system or go for the 64 bit system as that's probably the direction that PC will be going in the near future as it allows for an almost infinite amount of memory.

I know that there really aren't too many programs that can run on 64 bit, particularly Flash, and while I would like to get back into the graphic design and 3D work (where 64 bit would be the best route) but without Flash then web pages won't work properly and a huge chunk of the whole graphic design side will be taken out of the picture until Adobe gets their head out of their a**.

I've been doing some research and have found that Vista Ultimate 64 bit allows you to run programs in 32 bit if needed.

I run 64-Bit Vista on 3 computers in the house. All work fine. Just choose your hardware based on your budget and power needs/desires. If you buy a copy of Vista, you can choose 32 or 64 bit. You can only activate one of them though. My OE copy of Home Premium works fine as well in 64-bit.

Frankly though, in terms of Vista, I had more issues with the 32-bit version. Nothing major, but the sidebar gadgets kept reorganizing itself occassionally. None of the 64-bit versions have displayed this problem. But I only had one 32-bit version running so I don't know if its an isolated issue or not. I recently swapped that system for my old XP system (my GF's parent's were using it and I wanted to upgrade them into Vista). I just installed Vista onto my netbook yesterday, but I disabled the sidebar as the system is limited in both power and screen space.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:Any word on when MS plans on dropping Windows 7? I haven't even gotten any Hands on with Vista, is it really that bad? I thought MS designed Vista to compete with Mac's Leopard OS. Is Vista better or worse than Millenium? When I do get Vista, which I apparently have to do because Windows 7 won't upgrade from XP, I was thinking of just getting Vista Ultimate, but Vista Business is looking pretty good to as both have a 64 bit version that can run 32 bit programs.

If the upgrade is anything like the XP to Vista upgrade, then it might take a really long time and run like crap. A friend of mine tried this and it took hours to complete and then some of the things he wanted to use didn't work. He then tried simply installing a copy on a fresh partition and it installed within 20 minutes and ran perfectly.

My OE copy of Vista 64 Home Premium also has the 32-bit version of IE. In fact, all of the systems run the 32-bit in default mode while the 64-bit is the optional version...

Yeah, I've heard a lot of reports of XP-to-Vista upgrades running like poo and being inferior to straight Vista upgrades. The Windows 7 upgrade shouldn't be that way, as Windows 7 is derived from Vista...Vista's a lot different than XP.

I'm perfectly content with XP, with the exception of 2 things.1. It's 32bit meaning only 3.25GB of ram is recognized.2. Doesn't suppoert DX10+Update that and I'll be happy...or strip down Vista so it's not so taxing. When I fresh restart, I want to use <300MB of system resources.

On topic, I bought a 1TB WD external HDD on sale at best buy. I filled my 500GB external.

Why do I need an external HDD? I carry it with me and regularly use it in 3 different locations.

I am nowhere near "content" with XP, but I wouldn't be any more content with Vista, either. As an avid computer user and gamer, I'm sick of wading through "user friendly" UI garbage. Give me functionality and leave it at that. I don't need 17 quick-launch options and I don't need the computer thinking it knows better than me ("There are unused icons on your desktop"...whuptyfarkindoo they're not hurting anything!).

MinisterofDOOM wrote:I am nowhere near "content" with XP, but I wouldn't be any more content with Vista, either. As an avid computer user and gamer, I'm sick of wading through "user friendly" UI garbage. Give me functionality and leave it at that. I don't need 17 quick-launch options and I don't need the computer thinking it knows better than me ("There are unused icons on your desktop"...whuptyfarkindoo they're not hurting anything!).

Well if that's the case, you are apparently a smart guy and know you're way around a computer. Why not just run Linux, it's free or at least relatively cheap to get, and you wouldn't have to worry about your PC running itself as you would have a pretty much cart blanche control over everything that is the GUI and the OS would only run the processing side of things, which means it's super light and hardly taxing to your systems.

I can't get into linux, it's way to hard to understand and I shouldn't have to type in commands just to get the damn PC started as it essentially boots into a command prompt state and you have to tell it to start the GUI. I do believe they have a Windows for Linux version which takes out all the unnecessary crap that you apparently don't want, but would still allow you to run windows based programs. Linux would be your main OS and the Windows would be essentially a slave to the linux as it's essentially the same size and weight as the windows found on cellphones (Think Windows CE).

It's not that I don't want a GUI (the visual "windows" aspect) it's just that I want the computer to do only what I tell it. I don't want it assuming things, I don't want it reminding me that what I'm doing is potentially unsafe...heck, WindowsXP by default has the Program Files folder inaccessible! That's the kind of stuff I don't want.

Linux is fun to play with but at the end of the day Windows has the compatibility down for most of what I want. It's just too hand-holdy. There needs to be an "experienced user" mode that takes off the kid gloves and gives you some breathing room.

If you haven't tried out Linux in a while, it may be worth a second look. The GUI portions and installations have come a long way from the bare-bones x-windows days. Almost all distro's (ie SuSE, Debian, etc) install with an auto-booting GUI.

If you want to get work done, I'd stick with XP. Much better support for the time being.

MS advises that if you *plan* to eventually go to Win7, to move to Vista in the time being. Their theory is that migration will be easier - you will have already resolved compatibility issues by that point. Clever marketing I say.

Oh and XP will be around for much longer than you think. Big brother is not making the move to Vista, and that is a *huge* motivator for MS's development/support cycles.

slipnfall wrote:Oh and XP will be around for much longer than you think. Big brother is not making the move to Vista, and that is a *huge* motivator for MS's development/support cycles.

At work, we have XP Pro, Office 2003, and IE 6. Because of standardization, that's the same software everyone in my company (should) uses...and I don't work for a small company.

Ditto - we will remain on IE6 due to compatibility(mainly) with existing large-scale web-based systems. Though we have moved to Office2007 (which I hate)

I have a question for you PC guru's out there. Why is that you can build a PC cheaper than you can buy one from a store, even though it may have the exact same parts. I understand that part of the purchase price from a store is name brand affiliation, packaging, and store mark up, but if I can buy the exact same HP desktop or Toshiba laptop on a website (ie Tiger Direct, New Egg) and still get it cheaper w/shipping than if I walk into a store like Sams Club (which is also a warehouse wholesaler like TD or new egg). I would think in this market and economy that a store would get its head out of its a** and price stuff competitively, but hey what do I know I'm a stupid consumer with no marketing experience.

Oh and I'm really starting to hate the fact that their aren't any computer stores any more, as corrupt and horrible as Comp USA was if I ever needed a part or wanted to look at something they had that I wanted, now I have to go to Best Buy and hope that they have the parts I'm looking for so I can get some hands on comparisons. I'm all for buying stuff online, but if there is a problem there isn't a store I can take the stuff back to and get a replacement part right away, no instead I have to box it up, get a shipping label made, ship it back (usually at my expense) and wait 2 weeks for a replacement part to be shipped back and pray that that part works. It's gay, and I really wish there were still stores around that sold strictly PC parts.