Dell Diagnosis Charges?!?

Run_to_da_hills · 27-01-2009 4:11am

Aidan Whining Cork wrote: »

I have 4 Pc's, two with XP one with Vista and one with Vista SP1, I can honestly say that vista SP1 is the best OS I have used.

Run_to_the_hills, if your ram is rubbish then it won't work that well. It uses more resources than XP, but it doesn't need 4 gigs of ram. Nothing does that is on the market.

I have never used a mac, I cannot comment on it.

Explain to me what you mean by "fully loaded" you mean a lot of programs, full HD? I don't understand what you mean by that.

(Most machines loaded with Vista has slots to take up to 4 gigs Ram. (Unless its a celeron.

)

When the machine hasn't been gutted of stuff for some time it slows right down. I have a mate using 4 gigs on his desktop, he says he wouldnt go below that, he has several TBs.

yoyo · 27-01-2009 4:19am

Why do any computer related posts these days end up being a XP vs Vista bashing thread? There is nothing wrong with Vista, the "more memory used" in Vista is related to Superfetch which automaticly pre-loads most common used apps into memory which allows them to open faster as a result (this is a useful feature and the memory is made free again if a heavy intensive app is being run such as a video game).
Vistas UAC is a feature Unix like OS's including Mac have to stop the problem of user being easily prone to viruses by the OS running a user as a Admininstrator allowing any such application malicious or not to write to System folders/Registry. It may not be perfect, but imo it is a step in the right direction and it can be totally disabled!
Vista runs slower than XP? On slow machines of course this will be the outcome, but my brothers Dual Core, 4 Gig RAM, 7600GT video card pc running Windows XP runs ridiculously slow compared to my Vista desktop, he has even commented on this himself, My laptop which is modest spec for a laptop (Dual core CPU, 1 Gig RAM, Integrated intel video) ran XP imo sluggishly but runs the Windows 7 BETA very fast! Also these XP machines have all chipset/video card etc drivers fully up to date before all those replies come in :pac:

Thought I had to make this long post, sorry if it bores, but I'm fed up of hearing Vista sucks threads in every single computer post nearly lately

Nick

yoyo · 27-01-2009 4:26am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

(Most machines loaded with Vista has slots to take up to 4 gigs Ram. (Unless its a celeron. )

Why can't a Celeron machine take 4Gig of RAM

, Most motherboards will support up to 8Gig and many these days prob more, it would be pritty pointless having a huge amount of RAM I.e over 4 gig with a basic CPU, but more than likely the motherboard which the celeron is installed into (Which is possibly a socket 775 board and will also take any of the Core2 CPUs usually aswell) will support it, also just because a motherboard has 4 memory slots, doesn't mean its limited to 4gigs of RAM, RAM modules come in different sizes such as 2 gig, 4 gig etc modules

Nick

The guy · 27-01-2009 4:28am

This is why I love Xp.

tallaght01 · 27-01-2009 4:37am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I have a mate using 4 gigs on his desktop, he says he wouldnt go below that, he has several TBs.

I don't think Dell can help him with that. i reckon he needs to see a doctor :pac:

Donald-Duck · 27-01-2009 7:08am

yoyo wrote: »

Why do any computer related posts these days end up being a XP vs Vista bashing thread? There is nothing wrong with Vista, the "more memory used" in Vista is related to Superfetch which automaticly pre-loads most common used apps into memory which allows them to open faster as a result (this is a useful feature and the memory is made free again if a heavy intensive app is being run such as a video game).
Vistas UAC is a feature Unix like OS's including Mac have to stop the problem of user being easily prone to viruses by the OS running a user as a Admininstrator allowing any such application malicious or not to write to System folders/Registry. It may not be perfect, but imo it is a step in the right direction and it can be totally disabled!
Vista runs slower than XP? On slow machines of course this will be the outcome, but my brothers Dual Core, 4 Gig RAM, 7600GT video card pc running Windows XP runs ridiculously slow compared to my Vista desktop, he has even commented on this himself, My laptop which is modest spec for a laptop (Dual core CPU, 1 Gig RAM, Integrated intel video) ran XP imo sluggishly but runs the Windows 7 BETA very fast! Also these XP machines have all chipset/video card etc drivers fully up to date before all those replies come in :pac:

Thought I had to make this long post, sorry if it bores, but I'm fed up of hearing Vista sucks threads in every single computer post nearly lately

Nick

At least on windows you just have to click a button, you have to type your password into OSX and the Linux OS's

thebman · 27-01-2009 9:29am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

2 Gigs would be the bare minimum for Vista, try running demanding stuff like some games etc. Of course Dell would flog you a machine with 2 gigs of ram and then expect you to upgrade. :rolleyes:

I can run Crysis on my laptop with 2GB of ram on Vista. It would perform better again with XP but it came with Vista and it isn't worth switching back.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

(Most machines loaded with Vista has slots to take up to 4 gigs Ram. (Unless its a celeron. )

When the machine hasn't been gutted of stuff for some time it slows right down. I have a mate using 4 gigs on his desktop, he says he wouldnt go below that, he has several TBs.

Then he probably needs a server if he's talking about 2TB not a desktop.

I have a 250GB hard drive that is pretty much full in my laptop and it still ticks over fine.

Run_to_da_hills · 27-01-2009 9:45am

yoyo wrote: »

Why can't a Celeron machine take 4Gig of RAM

Putting 4 gigs of ram in a celeron would be like trying to super charge an Austin Allegro.

Thirdfox · 27-01-2009 9:53am

I've seen the windows 7 builds and they are quite impressive - even for a low resource netbook user like myself (a colleague increased his battery life from 1.5 hours on high performance in Vista to 3 hours in 7).

And the fact that the upgrade didn't re-format his drive, his drivers were all set up and his old stuff was kept in a newly created partition called "windows old" lol... Hard to believe but windows might have created a 3.1/win95 all over again

Dord · 27-01-2009 11:54am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

(Most machines loaded with Vista has slots to take up to 4 gigs Ram. (Unless its a celeron. )

When the machine hasn't been gutted of stuff for some time it slows right down. I have a mate using 4 gigs on his desktop, he says he wouldnt go below that, he has several TBs.

Ahh but the problem with that is that even if you put 4GB of RAM in your PC it may not be able to use 4GB of RAM. 32bit Vista can't use all of this while 64bit can (also the latest Windows Server OS).

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 27-01-2009 12:50pm

Celleron is trash. Really bad chip. Most motherboards have 4 gig support as standard, a lot have 8 and the better ones have 16. It doesn't matter what the OS is on the PC. They don't know that when they build the motherboard. I have 1.25 TB's

Cianos · 27-01-2009 1:03pm

OP, I bought the 3 year Warranty for €100. I've only had the laptop for less than 6 months and have had two call outs already, and need to have someone else come out again for a couple of minor issues.

At least someone is getting their value out of that crowd.

But if they built better laptops I think everyone would be happy

Run_to_da_hills · 27-01-2009 1:05pm

Aidan Whining Cork wrote: »

Celleron is trash.

+1

They are a reject chip that don't make it through QC and end up in budget machines rather than on the scrap heap.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 27-01-2009 2:12pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

+1

They are a reject chip that don't make it through QC and end up in budget machines rather than on the scrap heap.

Yea they do now, when they first came out they were not though, I bought a laptop for €1250 with a celeron chip in it, about 3-4 years ago. It lacked power and over heated if my memory serves me right.

Cianos I think they would save a lot of money if they built them right in the first place. Building computers is not too difficult, I built a few of my own myself. It seems they allow lesser qualified personnel to put them together and test them?

madmik · 27-01-2009 2:29pm

why shouldnt dell charge customers for support?

it costs to get your car,washing machine ,any other thing fixed once its outside warranty

it costs to see the doctor without insurance etc

i dont see why people think dell should provide any kind of free service outside the agreed length or time

they have plenty or optionms to extend your warranty to 3 or 5 years ,with next day service in your home,and accidental cover as well

if people are too tight to pay for support theres no point in complaining after the fact

i have had a few problems with dell laptops but all were sorted out within reasonable time

i have also had a knightmare case with fujitsu siemens laptop which went to court and i won a full refund but it took six months

the one point i do agree with is the help desk should be in the country the computer is sold to avoid language difficulties

yoyo · 27-01-2009 2:54pm

Donald-Duck wrote: »

At least on windows you just have to click a button, you have to type your password into OSX and the Linux OS's

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/User_Account_Control.png

Set a password in Vista and its like that too

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Putting 4 gigs of ram in a celeron would be like trying to super charge an Austin Allegro.

Didn't I say that in my reply

Nick

Wagon · 27-01-2009 3:18pm

Epic Tissue wrote: »

It came with XP and I switched to Vista. I play games all the time. You don't know what you're talking about.:rolleyes:

I do though, and I actually agree with him. There's alternatives to vista, and if it isn't causing you problems now see where you are a few months down the line.

I used Vista for about 4 days and got rid of it and went back to XP. It is a horrible system that is a pain in the arse to use and manages resources very badly. It's also very unreliable, and crashed frequently on me. XP never game that hassle. It's built for games, and when you run a game like Far Cry 2, you need all the resources you can get. I only have a dual core 2.1 GHZ in there but I got a very good graphics card and it runs the game very well (not on full but Microsoft were **** and made DX10 exclusive for vista :mad:)

When you overclock a machine, vista can become very unstable as well, even after stress testing etc... The interface was nice after i got used to it, but it treats you like an idiot. For example, on a fresh installation of vista you aren't default administrator. you have to set it up seperately. That to me is an absolute joke.

I've tested Windows 7 and it actually runs alright at the moment. The interface is similar to vista but it seems to have a lot of the background crap removed so you don't have it hogging resources. But I'm willing to bet Microsoft are going to change that in the final release and by the time it comes out it'll be bloated with rubbish.

So yeah, if you want your PC to boot up peroperly 99% of the time, get XP. if you want it to slowly tear itself apart in the background over the course of a few months, get Vista.

SirLemonhead · 27-01-2009 3:28pm

Ahhh, novice computer users

Epic Tissue · 27-01-2009 5:06pm

Wagon wrote: »

I do though, and I actually agree with him. There's alternatives to vista, and if it isn't causing you problems now see where you are a few months down the line.

It's not causing me problems now, and hasn't in a year. Why would it just start causing me problems?

Do you also agree with rtdh that you need 4 GB minimum of ram to run Vista? Because if you do you're wrong..

Wagon wrote: »

So yeah, if you want your PC to boot up peroperly 99% of the time, get XP. if you want it to slowly tear itself apart in the background over the course of a few months, get Vista.

You didn't use Vista for a few months

Wagon wrote:

I used Vista for about 4 days and got rid of it and went back to XP.

Ontopic, I'd agree with madmik on the Dell issue. But maybe if you don't get the PC fixed or any followup, then the diagnosis charge might be a bit harsh.

chamlis · 27-01-2009 5:35pm

I'm liking windows 7 I have to say. So far it hasn't broken my heart like Vista has on many occasions - on my own machines and customer's repairs.

People seem to have a very short memory when it comes to XP. It's "great" now, but that wasn't always the case pre-service pack 2 imo.

Dell Diagnosis Charges?!?

Comments