It just tunes off instantly, taking things with it regulary. 
This one looks a lot like CCleaner which is also free but nice and small, it's also the one most techies seem to use:romerojpg wrote:http://www.vistatuneuptips.com/recommen ... QwodcheoXw
so I guess I have changed a we bit at least. Wont take weeks to install them like I said, but will not be quick for some things as even a few games can take hours! esspecially if they are on old multiple cd's. Cleanup programs specifically don't. They're just designed to make life a wee bit easier. They are useful for clearing registry crud though which obviously is much harder to do yourself.I used to use a few clean up programmes etc.. for XP, but hell most I found did nothing or nothing I did not normally do anyway.
Me too. Remember uninstall programs never ever 100% remove all traces of a program and because of this it's simply better to not install at all then install to only uninstall it later. Only install what you actually regularly use. The rest you can put on later.Yup your right with the over installing stuff, I used to put way to much on my system and always had a full Hard drive. Always had to delete things to add new ones.
Most people still do, then wonder why their PC's performance sucks. It's amazing how much crud many people have in their System Tray and running in the background (found via Task Manager). It can be staggeringly high.When I first got my PC I was installig everything like an insane loony! game demos and stupid programmes from coverdiscs (I would try hundreds of things from cover dvds, most crap), urrggh makes me sick thinking of doing that now.
Agreed. It does take a few weeks to get a system setup just right.Wont take weeks to install them like I said, but will not be quick for some things as even a few games can take hours! esspecially if they are on old multiple cd's.
Wholly mother of godI have well over 1TB HD space, so space aint a problem anymore I guess.
, don't go filling it with crud for the sake of it. Obviously user data (such as documents, videos, music etc...) doesn't count as that leaves no trace behind or causes performance issus when it's on there. they get backed up onto DVD's as well safe, rather than sorry I say. so should end up over £1000, yes its not cheap and I could have made it myself (maybe £100 off that price) by ordering everything seperate but still not sure I could do it. Ah, that makes more sense.Ahh I aint got 1TB in the computer, a combo of External back up drives make up my space to about 1.25TB's. 1x500GB in PC, 1x500GB external regular back up and a 250GB reserve back up.
. The laptop HDD 51Gb free (sometimes down to 10Gb but not often) and the 80Gb backup drive has 10Gb. I even have two DVDs backed up to the Backup HDD Surely you'd be better off selling the 250GB on eBay?I know its probibly over the top, but hell at least I have space.
Is it that hard to put a disc in?I put dvds on one back up drive, no need to hog my pc with them.
Once a month I backup my crucial data (E-Mail, Documents etc...) to DVD-RW too. It's definitely worth having a backup.they get backed up onto DVD's as well Very Happy safe, rather than sorry I say.
That spec. looks ace. I've no idea if it's a good price as I don't keep up on it but knowing you I bet it's a super price. Why didn't you get a Quad Core?Spec wise the PC is not top of the line.
How many RAM slots does it have? 2Gb will be fine to start off with.But may take it a bit more in a while with another 1GB Ram.
There was a time when you could save a packet by building it yourself but today it's less true.yes its not cheap and I could have made it myself (maybe £100 off that price) by ordering everything seperate but still not sure I could do it.
Not at all.My current PC lasted 5 years, so overall year by year its not that much.
in the future Quad will obviously surpass duel in every way, but at the moment many seem to still go for Duel ones. Its the wrong time to get a new PC really, its on the verge of Quads taking the world over. I did consider going Quad as this top range Duel core and the lowest Quad were the same price, but suport does not quite seem to bring Quad as the winner yet, unless you overclock the hell out of em thus creating loads more heat again, I prefer as quiet as I can get.
this current PC is gone, its gonna blow very soon and its off more than on latley. So I had to get a new one asap. If I had waited a few months I am sure I could have got a better PC for my cash thats for sure, but then isnt that always te way.Your loss, moron. At least the motherboard can overclock the shit out your CPU.romerojpg wrote:The E6850 and Q6600 was THE biggest thing I had to think about and loked at many comparisons and discusions on many places, your right mind you I was probibly a bit silly not to future proof with the Quad core, but I thought hey here and now if I am not overcloking I would rather have a tiny bit faster Duel Core than Quad. I may well regret that in a year or two thats for sure.
) What have you been reading?as reading how well XP and Service Pack 3 is going and how poorly Vista SP1 is going, does not exactly make me that happy.
XP is largely based on code that is now 8 years old (i.e - Windows 2000). It was also written for hardware released 8 years ago, it cannot take advantage of Dual Core (AFAIK) for instance. It's no surprise it whizzes on today's hardware.XP seems to be only getting faster, Vista just aint that quick compared to it for practially everything.
It's a given it will do. PC hardware gets better all the time. It will take 3-4 years though. Probably when Windows 7 is out, which is due out in 2010 I believe. Microsoft aren't going to make the same mistake again and let an OS being out there for so long.But you never know Vista may get up to XP speeds one day (in 5 years maybe).
Congratulations, you've been scammed.romerojpg wrote:SOUND: Creative Labs SB X-Fi Xtreme Audio 24-BIT PCI Sound Card
The XtremeAudio is NOT a true X-fi, it's a rebadged software-driven piece of shit. Identical to other such cards like the Soundblaster 24-bit, Audigy 1 Value, etc. You would've been not much better off if you had stuck with integrated sound.Wrong. Even NT4.0 had SMP support. Multiprocessing ain't a recent thing.bradavon wrote:XP is largely based on code that is now 8 years old (i.e - Windows 2000). It was also written for hardware released 8 years ago, it cannot take advantage of Dual Core (AFAIK) for instance. It's no surprise it whizzes on today's hardware.
Microsoft never said such a thing. It was claim made by an IT testing firm whom tried out early builds of Vista SP1 and XP SP3.bradavon wrote:Still it is impressive Microsoft claim SP3 will make XP even faster. I wonder how?
I knew that but didn't appreciate Dual CPU's was the same as Dual Core. AFAIK it isn't.Wrong. Even NT4.0 had SMP support. Multiprocessing ain't a recent thing.
I thought I read it in some MS article, maybe not.Microsoft never said such a thing. It was claim made by an IT testing firm whom tried out early builds of Vista SP1 and XP SP3.
Great. Any news of major changes? That should mean it's out soon to download.EvaUnit02 wrote:Final SP1 is out now, but just to OEM builders and not the public. Leaked versions up now in the usual places.
You must play games a lot. It seems to be a huge reason to you.EvaUnit02 wrote:Still no incentive for me to install Vista though TBH, even though I've got a DX10 card now. It plays DX9 games like a bat out of hell, and I get 20-30fps in the Crysis demo under XP so I'm satisfied.
Microsoft claims Windows Vista SP1 will provide key improvements on the security, performance and reliability of Windows Vista by providing :bradavon wrote:Great. Any news of major changes? That should mean it's out soon to download.
Yes, but I don't play many bleeding edge new games (mostly critically acclaimed ones and classics) and the majority of the DX10 games still run better with their DX9 renderer and/or XP. Some slightly better visual effects ain't really worth the performance loss IMO. I do also have consoles.bradavon wrote:You must play games a lot. It seems to be a huge reason to you.
No, for two reasons:EvaUnit02 wrote:Braddy, you gonna make a slipstreamed disc and do a fresh installation on a clean partition?
Good. It's okay but copying files really does take too long. There is a Hotfix that was supposed to fix or help it. In my experience it did naff all.EvaUnit02 wrote: * Performance and reliability improvements in core scenarios such as file copy, network browsing, and improved response time to resume from sleep.
Only for Ultimate usersEvaUnit02 wrote:* There are improvements to the administration experience. One of the most important changes we’re making is that BitLocker now supports encrypting for multiple volumes.
Fair enough.EvaUnit02 wrote:Yes, but I don't play many bleeding edge new games (mostly critically acclaimed ones and classics) and the majority of the DX10 games still run better with their DX9 renderer and/or XP. Some slightly better visual effects ain't really worth the performance loss IMO. I do also have consoles.
