Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
torswin
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 23:44:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Patch86
You can't have looked terribly hard. Most places still sell XP, that I've seen, both online and in person.
The shops ive checked dont sell any computer with xp. And if they do i would imagine its an old model which sort of sucks
Quote:
In fact, the only shop I've seen that wasn't selling XP ready PCs was Curry's, but they're all corporate shills anyhoo.
Never heard of Curry's
Quote:
I wish I had so much money to burn that I could buy something I really didn't want just to save me looking harder
Wasnt mine, but my dad's To be frankly, I didnt look for a computer with XP, but now after ive got vista im regretting deeply. Can't really see how this is worth the 1000++ kr. If i wanted bling bling i woulda installed linux with beryl. (but i cant, cause it voids the warranty) --- Signature radius: 150 mm Unless explicitly stated, this post does not represent my alliance, corporation, my own, or any other living organism's view. |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 23:49:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: Tortun Nahme no, you have dx10.1, the latest commercial release
do I have to draw you a schematic?
i still don't get your point.. explain what your trying to prove?
I'm not trying to prove ANYTHING, My point is that the current dx10 hardware "is" obsolete already, its not unusual, most hardware is obsolete before it is commercially available
1987.08.31 00:29:09 Combat Your Smooth Criminal perfectly strikes Annie, wrecking for A Crescendo. |
Mtthias Clemi
Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 00:01:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: Tortun Nahme no, you have dx10.1, the latest commercial release
do I have to draw you a schematic?
i still don't get your point.. explain what your trying to prove?
I'm not trying to prove ANYTHING, My point is that the current dx10 hardware "is" obsolete already, its not unusual, most hardware is obsolete before it is commercially available
so you posted becuaseeee???? -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!!
PEW PEW PEW PEW!
|
Mtthias Clemi
Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 00:02:00 -
[94]
Originally by: torswin
Originally by: Patch86
You can't have looked terribly hard. Most places still sell XP, that I've seen, both online and in person.
The shops ive checked dont sell any computer with xp. And if they do i would imagine its an old model which sort of sucks
Quote:
In fact, the only shop I've seen that wasn't selling XP ready PCs was Curry's, but they're all corporate shills anyhoo.
Never heard of Curry's
Quote:
I wish I had so much money to burn that I could buy something I really didn't want just to save me looking harder
Wasnt mine, but my dad's To be frankly, I didnt look for a computer with XP, but now after ive got vista im regretting deeply. Can't really see how this is worth the 1000++ kr. If i wanted bling bling i woulda installed linux with beryl. (but i cant, cause it voids the warranty)
Yeah, i said that but i called you stupid, sorry. lol drink = angry at people who cba to look for things lol -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!!
PEW PEW PEW PEW!
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 00:13:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: Tortun Nahme
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: Tortun Nahme no, you have dx10.1, the latest commercial release
do I have to draw you a schematic?
i still don't get your point.. explain what your trying to prove?
I'm not trying to prove ANYTHING, My point is that the current dx10 hardware "is" obsolete already, its not unusual, most hardware is obsolete before it is commercially available
so you posted becuaseeee????
the same reason you did obviously
1987.08.31 00:29:09 Combat Your Smooth Criminal perfectly strikes Annie, wrecking for A Crescendo. |
Mtthias Clemi
Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 00:14:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: Tortun Nahme
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: Tortun Nahme no, you have dx10.1, the latest commercial release
do I have to draw you a schematic?
i still don't get your point.. explain what your trying to prove?
I'm not trying to prove ANYTHING, My point is that the current dx10 hardware "is" obsolete already, its not unusual, most hardware is obsolete before it is commercially available
so you posted becuaseeee????
the same reason you did obviously
I posted beuase you did.... -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!!
PEW PEW PEW PEW!
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 00:18:00 -
[97]
well then we have a causality loop don't we?
1987.08.31 00:29:09 Combat Your Smooth Criminal perfectly strikes Annie, wrecking for A Crescendo. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 03:44:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme
Originally by: Mtthias Clemi
Originally by: Tortun Nahme no, you have dx10.1, the latest commercial release do I have to draw you a schematic?
i still don't get your point.. explain what your trying to prove?
I'm not trying to prove ANYTHING, My point is that the current dx10 hardware "is" obsolete already, its not unusual, most hardware is obsolete before it is commercially available
I guess he's talking about this inflamatory older story which was semi-quelled by that announcement. So, you're kind of both wrong and both right at the same time. _
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 05:07:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Tortun Nahme on 23/09/2007 05:06:59 no, im not
thank you for being wrong
10.2 adds more functionality to dx10 that 10.1 did, 10.1 added functionality that the current gen cards cant use but didnt break backwards compatability 10.2 takes those features to the next level and at the moment WILL NOT RUN with the current gen cards, which is why it isnt slated for commercial release yet, just for developers
1987.08.31 00:29:09 Combat Your Smooth Criminal perfectly strikes Annie, wrecking for A Crescendo. |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 08:21:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Pottsey on 23/09/2007 08:26:44 ôreally potthead? cause thats not what microsoft says, the current industry version of dx10 (10.2.00356) does NOT work with the current dx10 compatible cardsö Not only are you wrong 3 times but youÆre very rude about it. Sam Glassenberg said "DX10.1 fully supports DX10 hardware.ö So the next version of DX 10 will work with current hardware. Secondly there is no DX10.2 the next version is DX10.1 comeing with SP 1 before being rude and saying ôno, you have dx10.1, the latest commercial release do I have to draw you a schematic?ö you should check your facts, stop going on about DX10.2 its something you made up or miss read. If we do get DX10.2 it will be years from now.
Thirdly there are DX10 3d chips that support all or some of the features of the next version of DX10 depending on the chip. The next version of DX10.1 has 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA as compulsory but cards like the current 8800 can do that. The SGX supports all of DX10.1
DX10 is just a minor update. No one expects there to be any DX10.1 only games.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 08:49:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Hooch Flux M$ finally doing the right thing...
LMAO
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 08:51:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Pottsey ôjust a correction but the DX10 cards are already obsolete, the newest version of dx10 wont run on themö ThatÆs a load of rubbish all DX10 cards out now work with the newest version of DX10.
Think it was meant about dx 10.1 none of the existing cards support dx 10.1, afaik.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 08:54:00 -
[103]
ôThink it was meant about dx 10.1 none of the existing cards support dx 10.1, afaik.ö They do. Some half support it some chips fully support it. Things like FSAA x4 are compulsory in Dx10.1 but that something all cards today can do.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Neena Valdi
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 08:58:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Pottsey
DX10 is just a minor update. No one expects there to be any DX10.1 only games.
Same as you won't see DX10 only games either. For a long time the games will run both on dx10 and dx9.
DX 10.1 is like an optional upgrade. The existing DX10 cards will run on it, but they doesn't support all the functionality which DX 10.1 offers. So for the end-user DX9->DX10 is almost same as DX10->DX10.1. There is a big, I mean VERY big difference for developers, but for end-user it's only a question of eye-candy.
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 09:00:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Pottsey ôThink it was meant about dx 10.1 none of the existing cards support dx 10.1, afaik.ö They do. Some half support it some chips fully support it. Things like FSAA x4 are compulsory in Dx10.1 but that something all cards today can do.
Could you please tell us what chips are fully support DX 10.1? :)
The most popular GeForce 8800 GTS (GTX) does NOT support DX 10.1.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 09:32:00 -
[106]
Originally by: torswin
Originally by: Patch86
You can't have looked terribly hard. Most places still sell XP, that I've seen, both online and in person.
The shops ive checked dont sell any computer with xp. And if they do i would imagine its an old model which sort of sucks
The age of the computer model has exactly nothing to do with which OS it ships with. It's entirely vendor's choice what they put on it before they sell it to you.
I helped my sister buy a new lap top last month, and every shop we looked in online had a simple choice between XP and Vista for every model. The physical shops were all teh same, with the aforementioned exception of Curry's. ------
Originally by: CCP Prism X There's no such thing as playing too much EvE! You all obviously need more accounts! |
Tao Han
Synthetic Frontiers
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 09:36:00 -
[107]
I have 0 (zero) problems with it, that is why I'm sticking with it. ------
|
Major Stormer
Caldari Copperhead Inc. Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 10:31:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Tao Han I have 0 (zero) problems with it, that is why I'm sticking with it.
I find most of the "problems" with vista is either user error, or UAC, which you can turn off.
Originally by: SirMolle Excuse me? BoB slave corp?
k, if thats what you wish, you just got your wish granted. Forever.
|
Xen Gin
The Dragoons X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:46:00 -
[109]
I've dual booted XP Pro and Vista Ultimate.
I am quite surprised how my system manages to run pretty slick with aero with only having an Athlon XP 3400+, 1gig of DDR400, and a FX5600XT, But I can feel its slightly slower in a few miliseconds compared to my 6 month XP partition.
And stability wise, I don't see any difference as XP for me was really stable. I did have problems with Vista BSODing when I opened the control panel, but that's been resolved now.
The only thing I don't like so far, is the Start menu, Its too self contained when using the 'All Programs' menu.
|
CaldFighter
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:55:00 -
[110]
theres a lot of good stuff in vista besides eyecandy and dx10. However, the only reason i'm not bothered in upgrading is the whole dumbing down of stuff.
Really, i don't want to jump thru hoops to do something.. i don't care how ******** some people are by downloading spyware, visiting dodgy sites, etc... just let me do what i want and stop asking me to confirm i really friggin want to perform that action.
And i thought that damn paperclip was annoying in office
So xp stays until eve comes out in 64bit and i get time to look into turning all those stupid 'help' features off.
|
|
Xen Gin
The Dragoons X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:59:00 -
[111]
Dont get me wrong, i'm still not up to spending ú189 on an OS, ANY OS, even if it was the greatest and best OS ever made/that will be made etc etc.
Nothing justifies paying ú189 for a desktop OS.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 13:50:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 23/09/2007 13:51:35 Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 23/09/2007 13:51:00
Originally by: Pottsey
Its far better once setup correctly and run on high end hardware its way faster/More responive then XP.
Are you comparing between a correctly set up XP, or just the run-off the mill spyware trojan XP with lots of crap services installed? This statement is just empty without the proper backing. I can easily say just the opposite, VISTA uses more resources to begin with than XP does, hence it seems erronous to claim that it somehow performs better than XP.
Quote:
From being powered down in the new mode, fans, lights e.c.t all off it takes 3 to 5 seconds to get to the desktop. Once on the desktop you can load and use programs straight away. XP means waiting till everythingÆs loaded.
I -very- much doubt it, BIOS alone takes around 3 seconds from power off to power up, I don't care what your hardware is. Unless your seconds are different than mine. XP for me takes from power up to "everything loaded" 9 seconds. That's with a U360 SCSI-RAID 15000rpm. VISTA was about on par when I ran it.
Quote:
[...]
Vista is faster and more response then XP once it has been running a week and if you turn on high performance, which is off by default.
Are you referring to power savings? o.O
Quote:
Vista gets faster over time its very slow for the first few days which is what puts most people off. Make sure you turn on all the enhanced speed options as well.
Vista has been more stable then XP for me. Not one BSOD or crash yet.
Sounds like a lot of subjective rambling from someone who likes his OS, but with little basis in reality. Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, and most respectable sites have done rigorous performance tests showing XP to perform better (eg. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page4.html). And firingsquad proved that the same applies 7 months after release with the most current hardware.
Even BioShock that supposedly was DX10-optimised ran better on XP.
Further sources: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/page3.asp
In any case, the Radeon HD 2900 XT and GeForce 8800 GTX both performed better in this game under WinXP rather than Vista. The 2900 XT in particular ran around 8% faster in XP at 1920x1200, while CrossFire was 10% at the same resolution.
BioShock is the one title that AMD really needs to work on. As we noted in our BioShock performance articles, DX10 performance is significantly slower than DX9
- Recruitment open again-
|
Mtthias Clemi
Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 14:13:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Mtthias Clemi on 23/09/2007 14:14:26 Im not surprised that Xp seems to run faster than vista, it would do, if i installed 98 or 95 on my computer that would faster than xp...
Vista is still new, im sure when sp1 comes out it will sort a few of the problems some people have, ive not had an issue with it yet to be honest, works perfectly. It uses a lot of memory, atm im on msn media player running and firefox with 3 windows and its using 512 out of 2gigs of ram.
Either way, when whoever it was was talking about it powering up in 3 seconds she meant from the sleep button that replaced the shut down button in the start menu, press that the computer basically switches off (all internal lights and fans go off etc) but when you press the power button everythin is back to what it was within about 3 seconds. just sleep mode, ive not seen a computer unsleep (i like that word) itself that fast before, my xp laptop certainly doesnt.
I like vista! it does everything i want works perfectly finds drivers for me etc etc and ive not had 1 program that worked on xp that doesnt work straight away on vista.
EDIT: lol found out the other day my school only upgraded to XP Sp2 over the summer... thought they had done that a looong time ago, they bought some new computers in with the little windows vista stickers on, still running XP though! -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!!
PEW PEW PEW PEW!
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 17:44:00 -
[114]
"Could you please tell us what chips are fully support DX 10.1? :) The most popular GeForce 8800 GTS (GTX)" SGX from PowerVR as for the 8800 it might not have full support but it does some of DX10.1 features. I dont know how many but all the DX10.1 features that have been talked about so far work on the 8800.
ôAre you comparing between a correctly set up XP, or just the run-off the mill spyware trojan XP with lots of crap services installed? This statement is just empty without the proper backing. I can easily say just the opposite, VISTA uses more resources to begin with than XP does,ö Correctly setup XP v Vista. The start-up speed in Vista is far faster then you could ever get in XP its 1 or 2 seconds from pressing login to being able to use the desktop. XP you wait for everything to load sometimes as long as 30+ seconds after xx months and lots of programs in the task bar.
Yes Vista does use up more resourceÆs as its makes use of what you have. Instead of gigs of ram sitting there doing nothing like in XP, Vista will use that ram for cach making the system more responsive. Right now I have 15meg free out of 4gig which is great. Programs load very fast.
ôI -very- much doubt it, BIOS alone takes around 3 seconds from power off to power up, I don't care what your hardware is.ö The new power down mode skips the bios so its 3 to 5 seconds. Basically everything but the ram is powered off, CPU, hard disk, graphics card e.c.t all off. So the system is completely quite and all the lights are off as well. The ram is in a low power state storing certain files so the computer can power up in 3seconds from those files. So even after a 8+ month install you will be able to get to the desktop in 3 to 5 seconds. XP on the othre hang after 8months slows down a fair bit.
ôAre you referring to power savings? o.O!ö No, Vista is slow for the first few days to a week as it indexÆs files and SuperFetch sets its self up. After about a week once indexing is done and SuperFetch has done its thing, then Vista gets much more responsive. You cannot fairly judge Vista speed/response time during the first few days of a new install. Add in Readyboost as well for an even faster response time.
On low end hardware yes XP is faster but start using high end hardware and Vista gets much more responsive then XP. Its like Win98 on lower hardware it was faster then XP only once higher end hardware was used XP got faster.
ôSounds like a lot of subjective rambling from someone who likes his OS, but with little basis in reality.ö Some of it is subjective but Vista has a reliability and performance monitor built in which lays out everything in a chart. My stability chart has been at 10.00 (max) for months showing no crashÆs. So yes it is subjective but I stand by what I said ôVista has been more stable then XP for meö
ôEven BioShock that supposedly was DX10-optimised ran better on XP.ö My understanding is it only runs slower on XP as graphics settings are a lower on XP. If you lower DX10 image quality down to XP level would it still be slower in Vista?
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Xen Gin
The Dragoons X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 19:12:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Xen Gin on 23/09/2007 19:12:10 What Vista needs it tighter graphics!
http://tightgraphs.ytmnd.com/
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 19:23:00 -
[116]
Good reply Pottsey, though I'd like to address a few things:
Quote:
Correctly setup XP v Vista. The start-up speed in Vista is far faster then you could ever get in XP its 1 or 2 seconds from pressing login to being able to use the desktop. XP you wait for everything to load sometimes as long as 30+ seconds after xx months and lots of programs in the task bar.
I would not call that properly set up then, no defragment tools running? I've never had a 30 second bootup, and I'm on the same XP installation I had in 2005.
Quote:
Yes Vista does use up more resourceÆs as its makes use of what you have. Instead of gigs of ram sitting there doing nothing like in XP, Vista will use that ram for cach making the system more responsive. Right now I have 15meg free out of 4gig which is great. Programs load very fast.
You have to run the program once before though, this is the same in XP when you run applications, close them down and then run them again. This is not new in VISTA. 4GB RAM works just as well in the 64bit version of XP (though granted, that is based on 2003 server).
Quote:
The new power down mode skips the bios so its 3 to 5 seconds. [...]
There is nothing new about it, this has been in Windows since the age of Windows 98, previously it was called Hibernation mode, basically the computer does a dump of what's in the RAM, and upon booting just resumes at that very spot. Please tell me you are better informed than this.
Quote:
No, Vista is slow for the first few days to a week as it indexÆs files and SuperFetch sets its self up. After about a week once indexing is done and SuperFetch has done its thing, then Vista gets much more responsive. You cannot fairly judge Vista speed/response time during the first few days of a new install. Add in Readyboost as well for an even faster response time.
Superfetch is a kind of hit and miss thing, and no it doesn't just get better, as you install newer games it needs to "learn" which ones, and it caches them. This turns out (in worst case) into a churning steaming piece of crud. Luckily you can disable the thing, so it's optional for those that don't like it. And there are many drawbacks to this feature.
Quote:
On low end hardware yes XP is faster but start using high end hardware and Vista gets much more responsive then XP. Its like Win98 on lower hardware it was faster then XP only once higher end hardware was used XP got faster.
This is a complete falsehood. Your claim has no backing in reality whatsoever. Like many performance tests will prove to you, VISTA does not improve performance on newer rigs.
Quote:
Some of it is subjective but Vista has a reliability and performance monitor built in which lays out everything in a chart. My stability chart has been at 10.00 (max) for months showing no crashÆs. So yes it is subjective but I stand by what I said ôVista has been more stable then XP for meö
I can of course not deny that "Vista has been more stable than XP for me". I won't get into that. However, built-in VISTA applications made by Microsoft measuring a Microsoft product...
- Recruitment open again-
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 19:29:00 -
[117]
Originally by: "Pottsey"
My understanding is it only runs slower on XP as graphics settings are a lower on XP. If you lower DX10 image quality down to XP level would it still be slower in Vista?
Image quality and settings are the same. This DX10 thing is a hype that I clearly see that you've bought into. I implore you to compare it yourself. I've done so, and the same settings in VISTA look just as good in XP. Yes, DirectX10 do contain things that improve graphics, but to say that BioShock uses them to any great extent is misinformation to try and sell a product. DX10 has the potential, but thus far it is largely unused.
Quote:
Most of the benchmarks are within margin of error between XP and Vista 1fps is nothing. As for Boshock well Vista is 5fps slower but has higher graphics settings
Of course, but for a next-gen OS? Should it not increase performance? At least that would motivate me to upgrade.
Quote:
tomshardware.com is not a respectable sites site they are well known for making amateur mistakes.
Granted, there has been some things Tom's Hardware has done that has left me a sceptic, but go to any other big hardware site such as Firingsquad and they will corroborate it. When multiple sources tell the same stories it's hard to denounce one of them because they had a past of doubtable reviews.
- Recruitment open again-
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 20:43:00 -
[118]
ôYou have to run the program once before though, this is the same in XP when you run applications,ö One of the main points of Superfetch is you donÆt have to have ran the program once before that day. Superfetch adapts to your usage patterns and proactively puts the application into main memory before you need it.
So its no the same way as XP. In XP you need to load up the program for it to go in memory then itÆs in memory so if you close the program and it loads faster. The first time you load that program up its slow as itÆs not in memory. In Vista often the program is in main memory before you load it up.
ôThis is a complete falsehood. Your claim has no backing in reality whatsoever....VISTA does not improve performance on newer rigs.ö Yes it does improve performance as I said before I can turn on my PC, load up outlook and check for new mail all before XP has booted to the desktop let along started to load outlook. Surly thatÆs improved performance? If I can do my morning jobs way faster then in XP I see it as improved performance. Vista starts up faster, loads up programs like Outlook faster and it closeÆs program/swaps to new programs faster.
A new system with 4, 8 or more gigs of ram will be faster as Superfetch will have more ram to use. I donÆt mean game performance your FPS will not go up but you system response time will be much faster. Vista will use up as much ram as you have. I find 2gig or less and XP is often better once you get in the 4, to 8+ gig range Vista is better. I mean using the system as a hole not just for games.
ôThere is nothing new about it, this has been in Windows since the age of Windows 98, previously it was called Hibernation mode, basically ....ö You really need to go and read up on it. ItÆs not the same as windows 98 or XP. I am not talking about Hibernation, thatÆs still in Vista.
I am talking about the new mode hybrid sleep thatÆs a mix of sleep mode and Hibernation. The new system state restores the system from RAM making it way faster then XPÆs Hibernation. Look on youtube type in Vista boot time.
ôSuperfetch is a kind of hit and miss thing, and no it doesn't just get betterà.. And there are many drawbacks to this feature.,ö Are you aware SuperFetch does more than caching? What draw backs? Either it works and you get a benefit or worst case nothing happens. SuperFetch will populate as much free memory as it can which is good as that makes your computer more responsive. XP doesnÆt use up free ram so you get slower programs.
One of the things Superfetch lets you do is run background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority. It does this in a way so those program are used in spare cycles and so they donÆt have an impact on what you are doing.
Superfetch mixed with ReadyBoost makes your system more responsive them XP could ever be.
ôImage quality and settings are the same. This DX10 thing is a hype that I clearly see that you've bought into.ö & ôI implore you to compare it yourself. I've done so, and the same settings in VISTA look just as good in XP. Its not hype there is a difference. Various 3d effects are only in the Dx10 version like the water ripple effect applied to the water when the splicerÆs move in. ItÆs very different from DX9. There are more detail surfaces with DX10, better shadows e.c.t.
Screenshots prove it though the ripple needs to be seen in motion. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1188859168W3Q3PDdCdy_6_4_l.png http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE4ODg1OTE2OFczUTNQRGRDZHlfNl81X2wucG5n DonÆt tell me you cannot see a difference? The fact is Image quality and settings are not the same. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 21:45:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Pottsey
So its no the same way as XP. In XP you need to load up the program for it to go in memory then itÆs in memory so if you close the program and it loads faster. The first time you load that program up its slow as itÆs not in memory. In Vista often the program is in main memory before you load it up.
OK, the application starts quicker. That's nice.
Quote:
Yes it does improve performance as I said before I can turn on my PC, load up outlook and check for new mail all before XP has booted to the desktop[...]
I don't mean performance as in that you save (which I haven't experienced) a few seconds booting the OS. I mean performance as in running two applications/games and one performing better than the other. Eg. improved FPS, or application speed. VISTA has generated a lot of issues with many applications (such as Photoshop, which I outright refuse to run) - and try to produce music with it using programs such as CuBase with it's plugins, etc. - I appreciate the fact that you find that the apps start up faster, but such has not been my experience.
Quote:
A new system with 4, 8 or more gigs of ram will be faster as Superfetch will have more ram to use.
If you use 64bits VISTA, yes you can utilise more than 4GB of RAM, but the 64bits version of VISTA compatibility with 32bit apps and drivers is a new can of worms.
Quote: I mean using the system as a hole not just for games.
A stable 64bits OS benefit from high amounts of RAM. But that's something for the future.
Quote:
You really need to go and read up on it. ItÆs not the same as windows 98 or XP. I am not talking about Hibernation, thatÆs still in Vista.
I experienced it first hand, to me it looks just like the same old. Care to link me to an article verifying your claims.
Quote: Look on youtube type in Vista boot time.
I did, it took some guy 37 seconds to be at the desktop. That's almost twice the time it takes me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5_k3x61aM
Quote:
Are you aware SuperFetch does more than caching?
Yes, I've used VISTA as a secondary OS off and on, to try and see if it's worth the upgrade. For the past months I've repeatedly decided against it. I am quite aware of how it works - but in practice I have yet to find anything with these hyped features that has convinced me that they are the next-gen thing Microsoft (and you) claims.
Quote:
What draw backs? Either it works and you get a benefit or worst case nothing happens. SuperFetch will populate as much free memory as it can which is good as that makes your computer more responsive. XP doesnÆt use up free ram so you get slower programs.
Wait, what? One program uses X amount of RAM, never more than X. And having 10x free RAM is bad because? VISTA fills up the RAM, which means that as soon as you start a new application it's not familiar with it has to a) Empty RAM to make space available for the new application b) Load the app, and hopefully allocate that RAM properly. And this is not an issue? If you use your computer very habitually, this wouldn't be a problem - but having heaps of software and alternating makes it problematic.
Quote: [...]run background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority. It does this in a way so those program are used in spare cycles and so they donÆt have an impact on what you are doing.
Another case of bullhockey. Defragmenting a hard drive uses something else aside from CPU or RAM, it uses the hard drive. Having running processes while you work - with prefetch etc. running is a lot of processes that while maybe looking to improve performance, just can do quite the opposite.
Check this out: http://www.windowswatch.co.uk/2007/08/superfetch.html
Quote: Superfetch mixed with ReadyBoost makes your system more responsive them XP could ever be.
Prove it.
- Recruitment open again-
|
Mtthias Clemi
Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 21:53:00 -
[120]
Crysis looks much much better on DX10 though, that is true. -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!!
PEW PEW PEW PEW!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |