help section needs updating

[Wozza63]

i was looking through and some information seems quite outdated

Example
The hard drive is where all the information on your computer is stored.

Our hard drives are branded either Maxtor, Seagate, Western Digital, Hitachi or Samsung. We cannot guarantee which brand of hard drive you will receive on your new computer, but as you can see, we only use leading brands.

To decide what size hard drive you will need, you need to consider that for example an 80GB hard drive is 81,920 megabytes. Confused? Data in volume is called bytes:
1,024 Byte = 1 Kilobyte (KB)
1,024 Kilobyte (KB) = 1 Megabyte (MB)
1,073,741,824 Bytes = 1 Gigabyte (GB)
1 Gigabyte (GB) = 1,024 Megabyte (MB)
To safely install Windows XP on your computer you need approximately 5 gigabytes of space. A massive computer game may take up 1 gigabyte of space, but usually games only take up a few hundred megabytes.
Most programs range from 5 to 500 megabytes, and therefore the average computer user will struggle to use up 80gigabytes of hard drive space. However, if you download movie clips, music and install lots of games, you may find you will need a 120gb or larger hard drive to cope with everything.
RPM RPM (Revolutions Per Minute) is the speed that your hard drive rotates. The more revolutions per minute a hard drive rotates, the more data it can copy/move within the given period of time. A 7200rpm hard drive can copy/move data faster than a 5400rpm hard drive.
See also:

 

[liamnic2]

"A massive computer game may take up 1 gigabyte of space, but usually games only take up a few hundred megabytes."

lol that cracked me up

 

[stegor]

"A massive computer game may take up 1 gigabyte of space, but usually games only take up a few hundred megabytes."

lol that cracked me up

lol yes, Shogun 2 = 18gb

 

[Frenchy]

lol yes, Shogun 2 = 18gb

Even Flight Sim X was about 10GB lol

 

[DeadEyeDuk]

The use of XP rather gives it away as out dated. Though technically all the info is correct, just the numbers involved need elevating a tad

 

[Frenchy]

The use of XP rather gives it away as out dated. Though technically all the info is correct, just the numbers involved need elevating a tad

XP is still King of windows. I have XP installed on most of my windows machines and have vista and 7 installed for testing purposes. Gonna give 7 a go properly with my new PC when ti arrives but may switch back to 64 bit xp to be honest.

 

[DeadEyeDuk]

No, it isn't. 7 is where its at XP lovers are just living in a pretty much unsupported past

I'm sure a mod gave a pretty good explanation as to why, but I can't for the life of me remember where...

 

[Frenchy]

No, it isn't. 7 is where its at XP lovers are just living in a pretty much unsupported past

I'm sure a mod gave a pretty good explanation as to why, but I can't for the life of me remember where...

But why do you need anything that looks fancy etc when XP does everythin you need anyway

7 is just XP with a Vista look really tbh. I know its not code wise, but thts really hwo it feels to me, and since I do everything through the terminal anyway I much prefer xp anyday . Plus its cheaper lol

 

[DeadEyeDuk]

Plus its cheaper lol

Oddly, not always the case And also, XP won't be updated or supported (either now, or very soon), so still don't get the mentality of "XP is betah!" when as you say it does the same job, just without the support/progress of 7.

Each to their own I guess

 

[stegor]

I've always liked XP but like DED says it won't be supported soon. I agree with Frenchy - 7 does feel strangely like XP - I thought it was the same code, is it new then?

 

[Gorman]

But why do you need anything that looks fancy etc when XP does everythin you need anyway

7 is just XP with a Vista look really tbh. I know its not code wise, but thts really hwo it feels to me, and since I do everything through the terminal anyway I much prefer xp anyday . Plus its cheaper lol

7 is based on Vista and is nothing like XP, at all.

Besides the massive leaps in memory management (as in, it actually does have a memory management system) DX improvements and massive changes in hardware support, if someone really likes console so much, why would they avoid an OS that supports power shell?

I mean, really?

 

[Frenchy]

7 is based on Vista and is nothing like XP, at all.

Besides the massive leaps in memory management (as in, it actually does have a memory management system) DX improvements and massive changes in hardware support, if someone really likes console so much, why would they avoid an OS that supports power shell?

I mean, really?

Because I have a lot of test shells specifically designed for XP , I dont use windows day to day, im a Linux person. Ive not really taken the time to look into 7 much, as I said I dont see the point in upgrading when XP does everything I need. I only run 7, ME, 2000 and 2008 server because I have to for my regression tests.

I didnt say 7 was based on XP, I said it feels like XP, which it does. However I don't pretend to know what the code is actually based on.

 

[Gorman]

If it works on XP, it will work on 7 as far as your scripts etc go. The only difference is some permissions on some directories, UAC etc. 7 Pro / Ult also has a whole XP VM ready to go should that level of compatibility be needed.

XP always was and still is a buggy insecure mess. Things have moved on so much since then with Vista and the tune up that is now called 7.

Anyone who still prefers XP over any release after is missing out pure and simple.

I didnt say 7 was based on XP, I said it feels like XP, which it does. However I don't pretend to know what the code is actually based on.

No such claim was made, i said that 7 is based on Vista, and is nothing like XP, it feels like Vista!

 

[Frenchy]

If it works on XP, it will work on 7 as far as your scripts etc go. The only difference is some permissions on some directories, UAC etc. 7 Pro / Ult also has a whole XP VM ready to go should that level of compatibility be needed.

XP always was and still is a buggy insecure mess. Things have moved on so much since then with Vista and the tune up that is now called 7.

Anyone who still prefers XP over any release after is missing out pure and simple.

I cant afford to assume that running in XP VM on 7 is going to work for my products though, for testing I have to remain on XP. I cant say ive tried my scripts on 7 as I use other software to test on 7 such as RFT (Rational Functional Tester). When it comes to windows though its normally always because im sat on the machine testing that I am using it and therefore am just using a browser etc.

 

[Gorman]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/products/features/windows-xp-mode

XP mode is an integrated VM, it has the same access to almost everything the native install has.

Anyway, my point is. Anything XP can do, 7 can do better. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate at best.

If any XP software doesn't work natively it will using the integrated VM, and thats a very important message that our forum users need to have right, most of our customers are looking for home / hobby machines.

One last thing, go back to XP x64, you cannot be serious, that was the worst OS released by MS ever! The driver database has about 5 entries and hardly anyone supplied any third party.

 

[Frenchy]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/products/features/windows-xp-mode

XP mode is an integrated VM, it has the same access to almost everything the native install has.

Anyway, my point is. Anything XP can do, 7 can do better. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate at best.

If any XP software doesn't work natively it will using the integrated VM, and thats a very important message that our forum users need to have right, most of our customers are looking for home / hobby machines.

One last thing, go back to XP x64, you cannot be serious, that was the worst OS released by MS ever! The driver database has about 5 entries and hardly anyone supplied any third party.

For testing as a developer a VM although it should run identically is not appropriate, hence why I will never run a VM to run my regression tests, not while my software still supports XP, and considering a large number of customers still use XP I cannot currently discontinue supporting XP.

I never had a probelm with XP 64 bit, never had a problem with drivers for it either, I may have been one of the few but as I said, Ive never had any problems with it. Each to their own really, but as I said XP for the purposes of what I do as a tester does everything I need it to do and very well, so surely you can see why I am reluctant to change. I do run 7, but for other types of tests and once 8 comes out then 7 will become another regression machine.

 

[Gorman]

I beta'd XP x64 back in the day and returned to it several years later, still couldnt get all the drivers for the hardware i was running at the time. Its not that it was any worse than XP, it just had really bad support from third parties.

So you do all your regression tests on all those historical OS's on bare metal? No Xen, no Hypervisor, no virtualisation at all?

 

[Frenchy]

Yup, well some is done using VM's for certain functionality, but the software I work on isnt normal everyday software, its safety critical and therefore some functionality has to be tested that way, as much as I dislike doing it.

 

[Gorman]

what a pain in the a***

 

[Frenchy]

what a pain in the a***

Lol yup, but it pays very well so I cant complain lol.