| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
GoleanT'Ar
   |
Posted - 2006.01.27 11:47:00 -
[1]
Righty-o,
The time has come, To say goodbye....
There'll be no tears, Cause windows will die.
It's jammed with sheet, Gonna get beat [fdisked]
Rebuilt to the funk, so EvE will be sweet. [it rhymes ok]
Have any of you had the same idea & what was the performance change?
Need to know cause when XP first got released is sukked major style.
I hated the wizards & instability, but if it's pretty stable now I might change over. Key factor here is performance and stability.
Generally when I've got my computer stable with drivers etc, I have it on for weeks at a time... no DT on this baby.
Essential hardware will remain the same.
Been running Windows 2000 for a while, and it's pretty stable... but getting sluggish again.
AMD 2600XP+ (32bit),
512MB 333Mhz CAS2,
SATA RAID (2x250GB) + 120GB IDE (MEGA GIGAGE),
ATI Radeon 9600Pro,
SB Audigy
|
Lijah Valencourt
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 11:53:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Lijah Valencourt on 27/01/2006 11:53:37
I have run Win XP with EVE for over a year, and have never had a single CTD, ever. Nada. Even right after RMR and so on. Hope that helps.
As to performance, I'm running:
P4 3.4 GHz
1 Gb 333MHz Ram
120 Gb 10,000 rpm HD
NVidia 6600 GT (Changing to something newer soon thankfully)
SB Audigy Plat
Forgot to add, I usually have it running for at least 6 hours a day with no issues too :)
I run in 1280x1024 res, full colour depth with 4x AA and 4x Anisotropic, with all effects and sound and never drop under 50 fps in small (1o ships) fights. During fleets, with effects and sound off I hover around 35-40 fps (not counting server lag).
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 11:54:00 -
[3]
Win2k is/was the best OS made by MS, hands down.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 11:54:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Avon on 27/01/2006 11:54:35
NT makes you double post :/
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Turia
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 11:55:00 -
[5]
XP is much, much better these days. It's still Windows, so don't expect miracles, but eh.
I recently moved from 2k to XP x64 myself. Mainly to take advantage of my shiny Opteron. Mmmm, Opteron. As for stability, I reboot maybe once a month. I've seen programs go nutty far less than I did on 2k, as well.
By default, XP is still ugly unless you're under the age of five, but you can adjust it so it pretty much looks and feels like 2k. The Emperor help us when they release the next version of Windows, though. 
Just.. Do go with Professional. For as bad as XP Pro was when it came out, XP Home was about a billion times worse. It probably still is. 
|
GoleanT'Ar
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 12:06:00 -
[6]
Been running perfectly well in 2K, just support ends pretty soon and 2K wasn't exactly built as a gaming platform but SP3 + 4 pretty much made it solid.
Oh well... Looks like it may be time for an Upgrade (It's still Windows tho).
Got an all powerful solution to that common error:
"Microsoft has identified a problem where a malicious script can be run in Internet Explorer to allow a remote user take over your computer"
It's called FireFox! 
|
Fooball
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 12:20:00 -
[7]
Server 2003 Enterprise. It's newer branch than XP from the trunk, with loads of bugfixes and features (most of them under the hood). It's slightly faster in everything, has a lot of unnecessary stuff disabled by default and is way more robust and secure. It beats XP 100-0 hands down.
And, you can download free evaluation version from Microsoft and use it legally for 180 days. (Long enough until you will be downloading the Vista evaluation next summer.)
|
GoleanT'Ar
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 12:24:00 -
[8]
Edited by: GoleanT''Ar on 27/01/2006 12:25:18
 Originally by: Fooball
Server 2003 Enterprise. It's newer branch than XP from the trunk, with loads of bugfixes and features (most of them under the hood). It's slightly faster in everything, has a lot of unnecessary stuff disabled by default and is way more robust and secure. It beats XP 100-0 hands down.
And, you can download free evaluation version from Microsoft and use it legally for 180 days. (Long enough until you will be downloading the Vista evaluation next summer.)
OOooo... Actually may be a good idea..
Will soon be doing a MCAD course, may prove to be useful to experience 2003, as will need to be using VS (either express or studio) + MS-SQL.
Anybody got any performance comparison/experience with 2003? good, bad and ugly opinions wanted.
Mainly gaming, but will need to work too!!
|
CB Apollo
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 12:25:00 -
[9]
Windows, phh.
I used to use slackware, then switched to Arch Linux.
It runs games fine, eve runs at 1600x1024<- think its 1024 ???
And my fps never drops below 60. Ever!
My PC is nothing special, 2 years old man:
2.6Gig P4C with dual 120mm fan radiator, thus running at 4.4gig
2gig ram
radeon 9800 pro golden edition, with 20% natural overclock and raised via liquid cooling of gpu to 38% overclock.
Two 120gig sata 150 15k rpm
one 250gig ide ata100 (archive drive)
all running totally silent from 0.5 metres away.
So old, but chugging.
Oh and I dont use wine, cedega, mvware. ;)
|
Fooball
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 12:39:00 -
[10]
Originally by: GoleanT'Ar
Anybody got any performance comparison/experience with 2003? good, bad and ugly opinions wanted.
Mainly gaming, but will need to work too!!
It's a bugfixed Windows with small modifications all the way. It wont make a huge difference but some things like disk caches might work couple percentages faster. The same codebase anyways so don't expect wonders. I doubt anyone has ever benchmarked it for real against XP in gaming..
|
GoleanT'Ar
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 12:44:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Fooball
It's a bugfixed Windows with small modifications all the way. It wont make a huge difference but some things like disk caches might work couple percentages faster. The same codebase anyways so don't expect wonders. I doubt anyone has ever benchmarked it for real against XP in gaming..
Gotcha, Like XP built on 2000 platform (+bug fixes etc from scratch rather than patched)
2003 built on XP platform (rebuilt from source rather than patched?)
So prolly better off with 2003 for excessive disk access programs (Games.)
Think EvE uses more processor & HD than Graphic Cards T&L anyways. (usually sits at 98% -which is pretty high for a game)
|
fatboymicro
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 12:51:00 -
[12]
Originally by: GoleanT'Ar
Will soon be doing a MCAD course, may prove to be useful to experience 2003, as will need to be using VS (either express or studio) + MS-SQL.
Anybody got any performance comparison/experience with 2003? good, bad and ugly opinions wanted.
Mainly gaming, but will need to work too!!
I run XP pro, with 2gb ram and two biggo hard disks. For work I use VMware on the same machine. More than 1 high end install running and I get a bit of a performance hit, but never need to run more than 2 at the same time. I've used 2k adv. svr, 2003 svr + loads of flavours of client setups, mainly for testing, development etc.
I run on a bit, but what I'm trying to say is vmware helps me keep my machines separate, without the need to choose a "one for all" operating system.
A little pricey, but worth it when work pays for it :D |
Fooball
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 13:00:00 -
[13]
VMWare just can't handle the DirectX stuff without falling back to a lot of software emulation.. 
|
GouldFish
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 13:02:00 -
[14]
Use winXP, I using it on my main and I hvae to use 2K on my work PC and it's So bad it's unbelevable.
|
Fooball
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 13:05:00 -
[15]
Originally by: GouldFish
Use winXP, I using it on my main and I hvae to use 2K on my work PC and it's So bad it's unbelevable.
2K was kind of half assed attempt to renew the base... It's very buggy, especially if someone tries to use it in corporate environment. (Stuff like policies not really working for weird reasons.) Also it's easy to screw Windows up if you don't know what to do when you start using AD and all those shiny fun tools, making it unbelievably slow and unstable..
|
Cetshwayo
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 13:39:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CB Apollo
Windows, phh.
I used to use slackware, then switched to Arch Linux.
It runs games fine, eve runs at 1600x1024<- think its 1024 ???
And my fps never drops below 60. Ever!
My PC is nothing special, 2 years old man:
2.6Gig P4C with dual 120mm fan radiator, thus running at 4.4gig
2gig ram
radeon 9800 pro golden edition, with 20% natural overclock and raised via liquid cooling of gpu to 38% overclock.
Two 120gig sata 150 15k rpm
one 250gig ide ata100 (archive drive)
all running totally silent from 0.5 metres away.
So old, but chugging.
Oh and I dont use wine, cedega, mvware. ;)
How do you run EVE under linux then?  
|
Dave Toz
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 13:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CB Apollo
Windows, phh.
I used to use slackware, then switched to Arch Linux.
It runs games fine, eve runs at 1600x1024<- think its 1024 ???
And my fps never drops below 60. Ever!
My PC is nothing special, 2 years old man:
2.6Gig P4C with dual 120mm fan radiator, thus running at 4.4gig
2gig ram
radeon 9800 pro golden edition, with 20% natural overclock and raised via liquid cooling of gpu to 38% overclock.
Two 120gig sata 150 15k rpm
one 250gig ide ata100 (archive drive)
all running totally silent from 0.5 metres away.
So old, but chugging.
Oh and I dont use wine, cedega, mvware. ;)
I wish i had a crap old computer like yours ;)
Anychance you can point me to some links about getting eve running on LINUX any flavour of linux, im a noob with it (just too damn used to M$).
Seriously looked at moving over to linux completely (2 pcs, laptop and a basic filesharing server), i dont mind jumping in feet first to figure out most things but id kinda want my eve running straight away. ( i need my fix and all that :)
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 13:45:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Avon
Win2k is/was the best OS made by MS, hands down.
Without a shadow of a doubt.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Frools
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 14:02:00 -
[19]
Originally by: CB Apollo
Windows, phh.
I used to use slackware, then switched to Arch Linux.
It runs games fine, eve runs at 1600x1024<- think its 1024 ???
And my fps never drops below 60. Ever!
My PC is nothing special, 2 years old man:
2.6Gig P4C with dual 120mm fan radiator, thus running at 4.4gig
2gig ram
that has nothing to do with your os, its because you've got a 4gig p4
i run eve at 1600x1200 on XP and get 80fps most of the time
but then im using a good cpu  A64 ftw!
XP is by far the best version of windows too 
|
DukDodgerz
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 14:08:00 -
[20]
<sarcasm>
MS Windows ME 4tw!!!
</sarcasm>
|
GoleanT'Ar
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 14:27:00 -
[21]
Originally by: DukDodgerz
<sarcasm>
MS Windows ME 4tw!!!
</sarcasm>
Well.... Thank gawd they used 2K as a base for XP Pro & XP Pro as a base for XP Home.
Just imagine XP Home built on the ME core?
Whole OS could be packed into a 40k GIF giving BSOD
|
M3ta7h3ad
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 19:52:00 -
[22]
Edited by: M3ta7h3ad on 27/01/2006 19:54:34
Win2K = NT 5.0
WinXP = NT 5.1
There is negligible difference between the two, to the extent that the 70-210 (windows 2000) is acceptable in place of the 70-270 (windows xp) core module for the MCSE/MCSA.
Windows 2k3 is meant for server use, not workstation gaming use. I'd advise against using it as such.
Oh and as someone pointed out you can get trial cd's of most of microsoft products from their site.
If your doing MCAD, you can get along quite admirably with just the MSDE instead of MS-SQL.
-----
Memorable Quotes
<Jarltan Dimtras> OH MY GOD MY GF IS A DUDE |
Fooball
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 20:27:00 -
[23]
Originally by: M3ta7h3ad
Windows 2k3 is meant for server use, not workstation gaming use. I'd advise against using it as such.
The only difference for gamers is practically that couple kernel parameters have been tuned (cache sizes, disabling some backwards compatibility to 16-bit world, the kernel objects are not swappable out, larger maximum process size, ...).
There's nothing actually negative towards gamer with the Server 2003. It's just slightly faster, meaner, pre-patched and more bugfixed Windows. 99% the same otherwise.
It includes already the same DirectX, multimedia devices support, windows media player and all the other flashy things. The same crappy themeing engine too (yeah, you can enable the XP default teletubby look too).
All you have to do is to enable couple things (directx acceleration, sound system), disable couple things (it asks why you are rebooting/shutting down by default and stuff like that) and after couple minutes of tweaking it just rocks.
|
Dave Toz
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 20:37:00 -
[24]
ive considered using 2003 as im licensed to do so through work............................but but but but id have to give it an escuse to turn off or plead with the thing to restart!
this maybe something that can be turned off but its the 1st thing i noticed on 2003 and it still pops in my head when some1 mentions it
|
Jonkai
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 20:47:00 -
[25]
Enclosure: PLUSVIEW1000AMG-EU w/5x Akasa AK-170CB Blue LED 80mm Fans
CPU: Pentium 4 3.2e Prescott FSB800 1MB Cache
Mobo: Abit A17-Guru
Memory: 2x512MB Crucial DDR400 PC3200 CL=3 w/ Aluminium Heat Spreaders
Graphics: ATI 9800XT 256MB cooled with Artic Cooling ATI 3
Sound: On board
Storage: Seagate 120GB 7.2 8MB Cache
PSU: 550W Jey Joy or something
Cooling: ThermalRight XP-120 w/Vantec SF12025L Stealth 120mm fan
Viewing: iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 19" (nice) or Dell 2405FPW 24" WS (even nicer)
using 1280 x 1024 on the iiyama and 1920 x 1200 on the Dell 2405FPW. Evertything runs like a dream, using WinXP Pro SP2 with the latest Omega drivers (6.1 Cats) and everything thing else with the latest drivers.
FPS: In combat (small skirmishes) 62
FPS: In space (Few npcs and roids) 94
In Space:
|
M3ta7h3ad
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 20:59:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Fooball
Originally by: M3ta7h3ad
Windows 2k3 is meant for server use, not workstation gaming use. I'd advise against using it as such.
All you have to do is to enable couple things (directx acceleration, sound system), disable couple things (it asks why you are rebooting/shutting down by default and stuff like that) and after couple minutes of tweaking it just rocks.
Your recommending an OS intended for corporate server use as a throw away gaming system. The things you mention above are the reasons why I'd advise against using it as that. Yes its possible.. but your effectively using a damn expensive piece of kit, and disabling what makes it useful for that task, to turn it into windows xp with service packs.
Why bother?
-----
Memorable Quotes
<Jarltan Dimtras> OH MY GOD MY GF IS A DUDE |
Fooball
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 21:33:00 -
[27]
It's not that simple issue I'm afraid
|
LDMcFear
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 21:46:00 -
[28]
Edited by: LDMcFear on 27/01/2006 21:47:19
I use XP pro on all my machines with all the service packs and have never had a problem Especialy in gaming. If you know what you are doing in XP or are willing to do a little research you can have XP humming along great and using very little resources. Every time I have to fix someones PC Because of the ever wonderfull problem of "My PC is running Slow" or some other phrase as equaly descriptive. It winds up being because said individual is a retard and spends most of there time Surfing **** and self inflicting themselves with oodles of spyware addware and every other ware out there and of course (insert name of favorite viruse here) onto there PC. My Point is Windows XP Pro Runs freaking great if you know what the hell you are doing. If you don't well I hope you have some ISK to pay the service guy when the time comes, and it will. 
|
LNX Flocki
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 22:09:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Cetshwayo
Originally by: CB Apollo
Windows, phh.
I used to use slackware, then switched to Arch Linux.
It runs games fine, eve runs at 1600x1024<- think its 1024 ???
And my fps never drops below 60. Ever!
My PC is nothing special, 2 years old man:
2.6Gig P4C with dual 120mm fan radiator, thus running at 4.4gig
2gig ram
radeon 9800 pro golden edition, with 20% natural overclock and raised via liquid cooling of gpu to 38% overclock.
Two 120gig sata 150 15k rpm
one 250gig ide ata100 (archive drive)
all running totally silent from 0.5 metres away.
So old, but chugging.
Oh and I dont use wine, cedega, mvware. ;)
How do you run EVE under linux then?
Cedega works reasonably well. At least for simple things as skilling, evemail, chat, etc. Personally I wouldn't try PvP on it as some effects make it crash. But it runs surprisingly fast.
YMMV though, some peeps I've talked to don't even get past the login screen.
|
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2006.01.27 22:30:00 -
[30]
Cedega has never really supported EVE nor will it anytime soon. You won't find a bigger Linux advocate here than me ( well maybe but it would be hard ) but I will continue to run EVE on Microsoft Tech. Hell ask me polite enough and I will show EVE running on Vista beta 1 
Originally by: "Oveur"
I don't react to threats any better than you do
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |