Ubuntu 64 bit
Looks good though.
Use a linux distro with AMD64 Architecture.
Also for the processor, Intel is not good when it comes to 64-bit, Get an AMD dual core 64 bit. I have one that clocks out at default at around 3.2 ghz
Vista isn't a good OS at the moment. I found it's clunky, and constricting, not to mention irritating. Most programs don't even work with it, and other programs have serious problems with it. Even then, soon it's going to be replaced by Windows 7.
Ahah Rex you forget, good job with Vista 64-bit.
Windows 2000 was more stable then anything. Actually thats the best operating system I ever really liked, didn't have flashy lights like vista but it ran like a dream. :)
I got Vista 64 bit when I was building my computer and it wouldn't run any programs. Vista just isn't a good OP as 98,2000,XP was.
Good job guys, good job.All of your comments are composed of unsupported, outdated and anecdotal reasoning. None of your advice is the least bit valid and would barely suffice for even the wild ravings of a fanboy. You didn't even bother to throw in some random jargon you found lying around the internet.
1. The rig he is attempting to build is for gaming and therefore it would be unwise to use a Linux Distro. He can always dual boot later if he finds himself enjoying life too much.
2. Again, no need to waste time on a linux distro and Intel is just as "good" at producing a 64-bit processor as AMD. I mean...it's not like they haven't been making them for years
and share the same architecture as AMD processors
and is widely used in mainstream computers and servers world wide. AMD isn't bad either, but don't be spreading crap like that around. By the way, you can easily OC most modern CPUs above 3.2 Ghz, that isn't anything special.
3. Ronin...easy mistake. XP 64 bit did (and still does) have awful driver support and that combined with Vista's (undeserved) reputation would probably leave a sour taste in anyones mouth for 64-bit Vista. That being said...
4. Save the "back in my day we...." crap for someone who cares. Modern operating systems require modern hardware. All OS's start their lifetime with poor driver support, performance and reception. No one, especially not businesses, wants to spend the time, money and effort on upgrading...but over time that all fades away. How quick we all are to forget that Windows 2000 and XP both suffered from those troubles when they were first released.
Vista was no different, a rough start and a gradual reparation of the issues. Sadly, unlike it's predecessors, Vista has never managed to regain it's reputation. Most of the media outlets that jumped on the bandwagon against Vista have never retracted their statements and the average consumer never bothers to read on further into these issues so just regurgitates what they hear. And now we have the perfect setup for MS's white knight...Windows 7. It's vista with some optimizations and UI upgrades...which is ironically what Vista was to XP...but we all soon forget those "little details".
Rex, I'll just PM you what you need to know. It is quite clear this isn't the place for trying to make an informed decision on computer hardware.
