Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 06:53:00 -
[121]
ôIf 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.ö Well I came from 64-bit XP which I had been using for a long time so never had that problem. I can see how it could be a problem for others though as when I first moved to 64-bit XP I had to stop using a few programs and find alternatives.
öI experienced it first hand, to me it looks just like the same old. Care to link me to an article verifying your claims.#ö http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItLsK5Q1y8 shows Vista booting in 3 seconds. Skip to 50 seconds in. http://www.dvhardware.net/article7269.html http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/4384
They say SP1 is going make it even faster.
ôEmpty 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?... but having heaps of software and alternating makes it problematic.ö No its works very well as the new ram manger is far better then XP something Microsoft got right. I donÆt see how itÆs problematic. Much better then having your ram sitting there doing nothing like XP.
ôAnother case of bullhockey.ö This is a quote from the Superfetch page on Vistas website ôruns background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.ö
ôDX10 for BioShock doesn't support AA, and you still claim that it's better looking?ö You can force AA on in the Nvidia drivers at least with Nvidia you can. I head ATI are stuck without AA for now.
ôCheck this out: http://www.windowswatch.co.uk/2007/08/superfetch.htmlö ThatÆs just the problem I had for the first few days of using it. It doesnÆt get better till itÆs had a few days to make up its database it helps if you turn on enhanced harddisk performance as well. That hard disk trashing should go away in less then 1 week of use.
ôYes, the image quality is not the same - but if you read through the very review you linked to on HardOCP, you'll find out that they're hard-pressed to determine a clear winner.ö What matters is DX10 had extra effects not in DX9 so when comparing benchmarks you have to take into account the 3dcard has more work to do in Dx10. I was just pointing out its not fair to say both have the same IQ so should be the same speed.
Find a movie of the ripple effect in DX10 its way better in motion then DX9. Yes some areas of the game are pretty much the same between DX9/10. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 07:17:00 -
[122]
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItLsK5Q1y8 shows Vista booting in 3 seconds. Skip to 50 seconds in.
He's using sleep-mode, that's a power-savings feature that has been in Windows for a long time. Nothing really special.
Quote:
http://www.dvhardware.net/article7269.html
Yes, that's an article describing Microsoft marketing. Why you again would use Microsoft as some sort of factual source when a lot of it is PR for their product, I dunno. I understand your like for VISTA. And I don't want to argue against that, you clearly like VISTA - but there are some issues with your claims, those are the ones I want to discuss here, and this is one of them.
Quote:
http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/4384
Ahh, it's a "new" sleep-state. My previous computer had this feature too. Worked with XP, and Linux too. So I dunno what's so new about it. :)
Quote:
They say SP1 is going make it even faster.
Do you always believe what "they" say?
Quote:
No its works very well as the new ram manger is far better then XP something Microsoft got right. I donÆt see how itÆs problematic. Much better then having your ram sitting there doing nothing like XP.
Pottsey! I've ran both OS, and neither has issues with how it runs applications. Having your computer spending time loading applications you don't currently use into RAM when you aren't using them is not a feature, it's a resource hog.
Quote:
This is a quote from the Superfetch page on Vistas website ôruns background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.ö
*sigh* Did you know there is this new miraculous stain-vanish called Liquid-Lustre, on the packaging it says it can remove any stain under one second! It says it right here on the package. That must mean it's true!
Reality is that VISTA accesses the hard drive A LOT, especially during the first week(s) of using it. You covered this, but what you don't cover is that as you install more apps, more hard drives, it has to cache these too, which means that this is an on-going thing, not just something that happens in the beginning of the week. If you disable SuperFetch and those features. The hard drive is mostly silent, and to me it's good that this option is there. Because in my experience, all this are resource-hogging processes that's a load of bull-hockey.
Quote:
You can force AA on in the Nvidia drivers at least with Nvidia you can. I head ATI are stuck without AA for now.
False.
Originally by: "firingsquad"
In order to enable AA for GeForce cards you have to use the driver control panel, and as we mentioned previously it only works under the games pure DX9 codepath. Neither the hybrid path nor the DX10 path can be run with AA, although NVIDIA is working on integrating AA support into DX10 for a future driver release.
source: Firingsquad
Quote:
What matters is DX10 had extra effects not in DX9 so when comparing benchmarks you have to take into account the 3dcard has more work to do in Dx10. I was just pointing out its not fair to say both have the same IQ so should be the same speed.
Granted.
Quote:
Find a movie of the ripple effect in DX10 its way better in motion then DX9. Yes some areas of the game are pretty much the same between DX9/10.
Surely miniscule details such as ripple-effects is something most barely consider "reasons to upgrade". I have yet seen one single performance test (and I spend a lot of time looking into these things) where VISTA has performed better. This, and my first-hand experiences (that are ... somewhat dissimilar to yours) make me a strong sceptic, and not your VISTA-supporter.
- Recruitment open again-
|
Maggot
Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 07:22:00 -
[123]
Its crashed once in 3 months, not bad really.
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 09:27:00 -
[124]
Use normal quoting oO
Originally by: Pottsey
öI experienced it first hand, to me it looks just like the same old. Care to link me to an article verifying your claims.#ö http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItLsK5Q1y8 shows Vista booting in 3 seconds. Skip to 50 seconds in.
Ehm its not booting. Its recovering it from RAM hibernation. XP can do same.
Originally by: Pottsey
ôEmpty 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?... but having heaps of software and alternating makes it problematic.ö No its works very well as the new ram manger is far better then XP something Microsoft got right. I donÆt see how itÆs problematic. Much better then having your ram sitting there doing nothing like XP.
Prove? Saying "OS X have much better kernel / memory management / etc / etc" worth nothing unless you can prove it with proper tests and algorithms explanation.
Originally by: Pottsey
ôAnother case of bullhockey.ö This is a quote from the Superfetch page on Vistas website ôruns background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.ö
You can do same on XP.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 09:47:00 -
[125]
Its the same as always with windows. Wait for a few Service packs before you consider switching.
|
Strife Phoenix
Acerbus Vindictum
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 11:18:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Strife Phoenix on 24/09/2007 11:19:29
Xpt I would not go mac.. I got severe apple allergy.
ACERBUS-VINDICTUM - Revelare Pecunia! |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 12:11:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Pottsey on 24/09/2007 12:13:11 ôEhm its not booting. Its recovering it from RAM hibernation. XP can do same.ö How? My copy and every other copy of XP I have seen cannot restore from RAM.
Vista is designed to use RAM hibernation as the main form of turning the PC on and off every day. Your not meant to do a full reboot.
ôFalse.ö Perhaps I misunderstood something as I havenÆt tried it my self. But I was under the impression if you rename the bioshock exe to say Oblivian or anything else. Get the newest Nvidia drivers then you can make a profile and force FSAA.
ôBecause in my experience, all this are resource-hogging processes that's a load of bull-hockey.ö I guess itÆs all down to how you use your PC. At the start of a workday I pretty much follow the same pattern loading the same programs in the same order. Superfecth is great for me as it already has each program loaded into memory before I need it. I have lots of ram and a fast hard disk so I never noticed the on-going caching. Its not like I install new apps every other day either. I can see how it might not be good for someone who installs new apps constantly and never useÆs the same programs.
ôHaving your computer spending time loading applications you don't currently use into RAM when you aren't using them is not a feature, it's a resource hog.ö No itÆs a feature that makes sense. It does not slow down the system but it does speed things up. It only loads things into RAM when nothing is going on so itÆs not doing any harm and slowing you down. But it when it gets its right it does speed your system up as what you need is already in ram. The more ram you have the more likely itÆs going get this right.
Why would you want your ram sitting there doing nothing like in XP?
ôProve? Saying "OS X have much better kernel / memory management / etc / etc"ö Will a screenshot do? All 6 gigs of my memory is being used (4gig ram, 2gig readyboost). Using ram is better then not using ram, unless itÆs a memory leak.
ôHe's using sleep-mode, that's a power-savings feature that has been in Windows for a long time. Nothing really special.ö Its not sleep mode. In sleep mode the CPU, lights, graphics card, fans e.c.t all stay powered up.
As I keep pointing out its not the same as XP sleep or habitation as it saves the state of the system into the ram. This means you system restore from ram, which is far faster then XP which restores from the hard disk not ram. In XP you can either sleep which leaves stuff powered up or you save to harddisk in habitation.
Vista has those two options sleep and habitation plus a 3rd new option which is better then the two old options.
ôI see small differences, but to claim that either one is "WOW! AMAZING THAT LOOKS SO MUCH BETTER"ö I never said amazing looks much better. I was pointing out your where wrong in saying they are both the same. DX10 has extra effects.
ôI can barely see a difference, and even when I can, I wonder how much is due to the shot being from a slightly different angle, or similar ûô Or could the difference be DX10 and the extra effects which you can turn on in the options?
Assuming I have the right video, this shows a pretty significant improvement with DX10 over 9. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2209023500883849090&hl=en (at work so cannot view video)
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 17:11:00 -
[128]
Thanks for the argument Pottsey, I feel I've said my piece, and I feel I understand your viewpoint. I think any further debate will just keep reiterating the same things over and over.
I'm glad you like your OS. I like mine. :)
- Recruitment open again-
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 20:32:00 -
[129]
Sure it was fun and I have to agree Vista is not for everyone. It does have its problems. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Glarion Garnier
Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 23:12:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Grez Edited by: Grez on 16/09/2007 20:28:51 If you have a machine that can take advantage of all the bits Vista offers, then it's way faster than XP, and far more stable. They stated right from the start, and there's no misinterpretation of it, that Vista is designed for modern day machines. That means 2GB of memory, a dual core processor, and a decent graphics card. It doesn't mean bottom dollar machine, or a high-end machine that you purchased a few years ago - that is not modern in the computing age - that is yesterdays news.
If you don't have a modern day machine - stick with XP.
It's really quite simple.
I've never had any stability issues with Windows XP- never. come to think of it.. hmm yeah I kinda like it
Linux over Vista any day.
|
|
Glarion Garnier
Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 23:21:00 -
[131]
On a side note would be sweet if there was a Eve Linux client.
Open GL 3.0 .. I hear it does most things that DX 10 does and perhaps more. OPEN GL 3.0 and linux .. that's a combination to aim for. The recentCarmack fiasco shows how evil MS is .. Carmack to make a statement that they would not support dx10 .. and then what carmack actually went and did was prolly planned from the very beginning.
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 10:02:00 -
[132]
Here is something construtive
http://www.pfeifferreport.com/trends/trend_vistauif.html http://www.pfeifferreport.com/trends/Vista_UIF_Rep.pdf
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |