| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Havand
   |
Posted - 2006.03.25 21:30:00 -
[1]
How is eve checking for direct x? I am trying to test eve on windows vista and it says that vista has 9.0 installed when it clearly has 9c installed.. This results in eve just showing black dialog for login screen..
|
pshepherd
|
Posted - 2006.03.26 00:31:00 -
[2]
yeah, apparently EVE is borked with Vista
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.03.28 07:43:00 -
[3]
Why has EVE to run with a piece of early beta software?
Btw, one of the next upgrades will bring a new client, so ... I suggest you test again when the new client is avialable. Vista is a new OS, not just an upgrade.
Did you miss the message that Vista is will be delayed at least until '07?
It isn't perfect yet, so no go.
80% of the existing computer hardware will not run under Vista due to the completely new driver system, so I think it is really pointless for most computer users.
Current base RAM usage I have seen is somewhere between 600MB and way over 1Gig.
That's without any programs running. Unless you count implemented spyware and so called copy and rights protection functionality additional software.
--*=*=*--
Megadon
CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray |
ElfeGER
|
Posted - 2006.03.28 16:44:00 -
[4]
check the logserver output if eve stops due to a missing registry key
(check the 10+ page thread about linux - should be at around page 8-9)
|
Havand
|
Posted - 2006.03.28 18:10:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Havand on 28/03/2006 18:13:34
Edited by: Havand on 28/03/2006 18:12:28
it was a simple question since it was on of the focuses to test software as a beta tester for vista and since EVE isn't in beta its a valid test. If it were beta on beta I wouldn't bother. Other games have run successfully eve and lineage 2 are 2 games that don't run. Even in compatibility mode.
nope didn't miss the message about RTM... as for the memory usage expecting it to get better since debug symbols are still being used to debug the OS. As for that each build has progressively been better and better with respect to hardware detection and running of other software.
try not to get so bent when the question wasn't directed towards you. Just trying to get answer that would help out my bug reports
|
Opiette
|
Posted - 2006.03.28 20:36:00 -
[6]
guys I bet you know that Vista requires 800MB of ram for idle mode alone..
I Dont want to have it if I can avoid it.
Hell I would like operation system build around CELL processors instead or.. something away from W_NTEL let's dominate the world.
-- |
|
Mephysto
|
Posted - 2006.03.29 09:17:00 -
[7]
Work is ongoing on preparing Eve for Vista.
|
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.03.29 17:19:00 -
[8]
"Work is ongoing on preparing Eve for Vista."
The recent interview makes it sound actually like the graphics update is going to be Vista-exclusive...
"TheyÆre planning to have everything redone for DirectX10 and Windows Vista. Their graphics, while award winning, are three years old. Rather than rest on their laurels, theyÆre redoing all the textures in high resolution, adding normal maps, pixel shaders and much more. But donÆt worry if you donÆt think youÆre computer is ready. The old graphics will still be there."
... is that correct impression and if so, is there some technical reasons why the graphics engine upgrade is geared to such limited part of customer base..? o.O;
|
ElfeGER
|
Posted - 2006.03.29 17:53:00 -
[9]
hmm let's see:
shaders are available in dx9
hdr/64bit frambuffer are also available
so I don't see a real reason why it should be vista exclusive
as I already said the vista problem might be a missing registry key (HKCU/Software/Microsoft/CurrentVersion/Explorer/Shell Folders/ create string "fonts" there and add "c:\windows\fonts" as value) if that value does not exist there Eve crashes because of an unhandled exception
could you look up the exact version string of your d3d9.dll on vista?
|
Havand
|
Posted - 2006.03.29 17:54:00 -
[10]
 Originally by: Mephysto
Work is ongoing on preparing Eve for Vista.
Mephysto thx for the info. Appreciate an occasional update so I can test the changes and updates to Eve on Vista.
|
Emilia Stratos
|
Posted - 2006.03.29 20:16:00 -
[11]
Originally by: j0sephine
"Work is ongoing on preparing Eve for Vista."
... is that correct impression and if so, is there some technical reasons why the graphics engine upgrade is geared to such limited part of customer base..? o.O;
I'd have to agree with j0sephine here. I mean if you will be redoing graphic engine wouldn't it be best to make it platform independent? Or at least wider? I don't think many ppl will switch to Vista imho.
ps: and my win partition is there only because of EVE 
|
Rox Robsonner
|
Posted - 2006.03.29 20:18:00 -
[12]
stupid alts
|
9854365
|
Posted - 2006.03.30 03:00:00 -
[13]
Baah not too impressed with Vista atm from what I have read.. Guess I wil wait till it releases then see..But I dare say I will br running xp or xp64 for quite a while.
|
Kim Chee
|
Posted - 2006.04.12 19:42:00 -
[14]
Sorry, I only have 2G of RAM in my machine.... I won't be using vista until at least 2008.
I figure by then, you'll be buying a video card with 8G of ram on it and attatch a motherboard as a daughter-card.
<=----=>
Vila Restal: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Kerr Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
|
Jacobz
|
Posted - 2006.04.12 21:19:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Opiette
guys I bet you know that Vista requires 800MB of ram for idle mode alone..
I Dont want to have it if I can avoid it.
Hell I would like operation system build around CELL processors instead or.. something away from W_NTEL let's dominate the world.
Lol and why the hell would you want that? Because Sony sold it to you pretty bad?
As far as I know, cell is still a dream. PS3 being delayed every 3 months. Im not saying it wont work, but our current hardware if fine. And vista will be by far the best OS on that hardware(palladium less). That being said, the real "vista" is fiji(vista rc2), with the new file system.
|
Jacobz
|
Posted - 2006.04.12 21:24:00 -
[16]
Originally by: j0sephine
... is that correct impression and if so, is there some technical reasons why the graphics engine upgrade is geared to such limited part of customer base..? o.O;
Uhhh? Think a bit, everybody will be running Vista at the beginning of 2008. They are not doing the full engine for only 1 year of support, they are doing it so in 2010 they can release a DX11 update. Microsoft got a solid and stable guideline and I completely understand CCP going this way.
2007 customer base 25%
2008 customer base: 75%
2009 customer base: 95%
Kudos CCP.
Less time developping engine and more money on actual content.
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.12 22:50:00 -
[17]
Vista works fine on what's today considered low RAM machines. You just don't get this memory eating eye candy.
|
Mortimus
|
Posted - 2006.04.13 02:56:00 -
[18]
I really. Really. wish CCP would port Eve to MacOSX. Yes that means porting the engine to OpenGL - but that's about it (isn't it?) because the rest of the game written in python?
I know - i know. Opengl = Unaccelerated in Vista but this game is very rapidly becoming the *only* reason i have windows on my laptop, and unless Vista has some very compelling features i certainly won't be switching until whenever WinFS comes out.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.04.13 07:59:00 -
[19]
Vista has not a single feature above what Win2k offered when you ignore the preemptive handcuffing of the user.
The fact that MS need another round of OS+unimproved software bundle sales coupled with another round of Intel hardware sales is not a reason why I would buy a completely new system or even upgrade my current computer.
Vista uses much more resources for the same job. Thank you, but I am not impressed.
EVE doesn't use DX9 to any extend yet.
--*=*=*--
Megadon
CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray |
elFarto
|
Posted - 2006.04.13 10:16:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Mortimus
I really. Really. wish CCP would port Eve to MacOSX. Yes that means porting the engine to OpenGL - but that's about it (isn't it?) because the rest of the game written in python?
Porting Eve should be easier than normal, because alot of the code is Python, but it's still no easy feat.
Porting it to OpenGL on the other hand is easy  .
Originally by: Mortimus
I know - i know. Opengl = Unaccelerated in Vista...
This is now incorrect. Vendors (NVidia and ATI) can now write a driver for Vista that provides full acceleration, just as they can now.
Originally by: Tachy
Vista has not a single feature above what Win2k offered when you ignore the preemptive handcuffing of the user.
The fact that MS need another round of OS+unimproved software bundle sales coupled with another round of Intel hardware sales is not a reason why I would buy a completely new system or even upgrade my current computer.
Vista uses much more resources for the same job. Thank you, but I am not impressed.
EVE doesn't use DX9 to any extend yet.
I don't do this often but, QFT!
Eve's graphics engine used lots of tricks to make it look nice before programmable shaders became available, and now CCP seem to want the latest and greatest technology. I'm sure DirectX 9 can do at least 90% if not more of what DirectX 10 can.
Regards
elFarto
npc.elfarto.com > Ingame NPC database
Wash: You know, it's very sweet -- stealing from the rich and selling to the poor. |
Megabond
|
Posted - 2006.04.13 14:45:00 -
[21]
Originally by: El***ER
hmm let's see:
shaders are available in dx9
hdr/64bit frambuffer are also available
so I don't see a real reason why it should be vista exclusive
as I already said the vista problem might be a missing registry key (HKCU/Software/Microsoft/CurrentVersion/Explorer/Shell Folders/ create string "fonts" there and add "c:\windows\fonts" as value) if that value does not exist there Eve crashes because of an unhandled exception
could you look up the exact version string of your d3d9.dll on vista?
The regkey worked for me. The version of the directx dlls are 6.0.5342.2 which is why the error message about wrong directx version comes up. It is expecting 5.3.1.904 or 4.9.0.904.
Thanks for the tip though, now I can run Eve again
|
Megabond
|
Posted - 2006.04.13 14:45:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Havand
How is eve checking for direct x? I am trying to test eve on windows vista and it says that vista has 9.0 installed when it clearly has 9c installed.. This results in eve just showing black dialog for login screen..
/scripts/sys/autoexec.py
|
Zeno Kang
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 14:49:00 -
[23]
I'll bet that you can't even spell Vista without the letters D R and M.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 15:45:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jacobz
Edited by: Jacobz on 12/04/2006 21:30:01
Originally by: j0sephine
... is that correct impression and if so, is there some technical reasons why the graphics engine upgrade is geared to such limited part of customer base..? o.O;
Uhhh? Think a bit, everybody will be running Vista at the beginning of 2008. They are not doing the full engine for only 1 year of support, they are doing it so in 2010 they can release a DX11 update. Microsoft got a solid and stable guideline and I completely understand CCP going this way.
2007 customer base 25%
2008 customer base: 75%
2009 customer base: 95%
Per the figures I have seen projected by market research agencies:
end 2007 customer base: 25%
end 2008 customer base: 50%
end 2009 customer base: 65%
That IS a limited part of the customer base. On the 3 year cycle for graphics CCP jave refered to, there seems to be every reason to do this update as DX9c - and there is still nothing which really pushes DX9c now - and the NEXT update (Trinity 3.0) as Vista-only.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 19:24:00 -
[25]
Doing anything as Vista-only would be a nail in the coffin for Eve and CCP as I suspect very few people will actually upgrade or stay with Vista even after they try it. 90% of what is new in Vista is completly superflous and has no business being in an operating system and the insane system requirements will hurt it even more.
An operating system's function is to act as an intermediary between the hardware of a computer and the software. It's function is not to provide glitz and flying 3D rendered windows or to have every little program such as Windows Messenger and Windows Media Player built into it. This is the reason why operating systems like Linux work on 386s still. Because the kernel and the core operating system components are seperate from the rest of the software. And why Mac OS X runs on 5 year old computers.
Window's monolithic nature and Microsoft's tendency to create a software monoculture will ultimatly be it's undoing. Because every component in Windows is intertwined with each other, a vulnerability in one can allow a hacker or *****er to compromise the other components. That is the reason why there have been so many Windows viruses. Not because it's the most popular but because it's the easier to exploit.
For example, the Windows web server is called IIS or Internet Information Services. It runs with a system account and also provides FTP, SMTP and News services. Currently, if IIS gets compromised, the attacker has gained a conduit to the entire operating system. In Linux, the web server of choice is called Apache. Not only is Apache seperate from operating system, but it also only runs as root (administrator/system) long enough to bind to port 80. Then it drops down to regular user permissions. So if someone compromises your Apache webserver, the most they can do is delete files that the web server has write access to or shut down your web server. But they won't be taking down your system.
And IIS is not the only example. Every component in Windows is integrated. There is an entire framework in Windows that allows for remote access over the network that is built-in to every version of Windows NT that cannot be disabled without dismantaling the operating system. A good majority of recent Windows worms have exploited this framework to take control of the system.
Vista may be changing all the APIs but that will only act as a stopgap measure. And doing so creates a rift in the Windows user base as stuff written for Vista is not backwards compatible. It took years for people to switch completly over to Windows 95 and Windows 95 had enough in common with 3.1 that making dual versions of a program was relatively painless in comparison. With Vista, you will have to write a program either only for Windows XP and earlier or in two completly different APIs.
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 13:50:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tachy
Vista has not a single feature above what Win2k offered when you ignore the preemptive handcuffing of the user.
Too bad that there always needs to be visible change to be labelled a feature. Lets just ignore the whole damn kernel overhaul. 
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 16:04:00 -
[27]
Yes, let's, considering it's so much slower and more bloated.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 19:19:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Deakin Frost
Originally by: Tachy
Vista has not a single feature above what Win2k offered when you ignore the preemptive handcuffing of the user.
Too bad that there always needs to be visible change to be labelled a feature. Lets just ignore the whole damn kernel overhaul.
The kernel is getting overhauled but not for the better.
Let's see :
1.Built-in DRM requiring you to purchase a new monitor and video card or be forced to watch HD-DVDs and possibly DVDs at downsampled quality.
2.Aeroglass, which is too integrated into the operating system and wastes far too many resources. Linux has the equivilant of Aeroglass (XGL/XComposite) but the difference is, it's not integrated into the operating system and I don't have to have the files on my harddrive.
3.Insane system requirements, ensuring that companies will not upgrade once they see the cost of getting computers that will run Vista.
4.Inconsistant interfaces. They got rid of menus in Office 12, moved menus below the address bar in Internet Explorer and use some funky toolbar/menu hybrid in Windows Explorer.
5.Inefficent UI design. Sure, graphics may look nice but the average window design in Vista has 30% of it's space or more being taken up by superflous graphics wasting screen real-estate.
6.Completly revamped APIs with no clear upgrade path. Any program written using Vista's APIs will not be backwards compatible and any program written in NT APIs will have to have some parts of it emulated or translated in Vista causing a performance degredation. At least with Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, the APIs were similar enough to make it easy to make two versions of a program.
7.Internet Explorer still cannot be removed and is still forcible integrated into the operating system.
8.Security holes that have been found in Internet Explorer 6 have also affected Internet Explorer 7 despite the fact that it is susposdly more secure and susposdly been rewritten.
9.The layout of the control panel and start menu have been changed, again, therefore requireing the user to relearn their way around. How is it that Mac OS's interface remained the same for 15 years before they decided to completly revamp it and yet Windows needs to be relearned every year or two.
10.Drivers will need to be WHQL-certified on some editions of Vista to be installed. There is no bypass option. That means that open-source drivers, such as those designed to allow Windows to interoperate with Linux file-systems, will be impossible to run. Meanwhile, anyone, even a dedicated virus writer, who can afford the extortion fee paid to Verisign for a certificate, can get their "drivers" signed.
11.Vista is still not truely 64-bit. While every other 64-bit operating system in the past 10 years uses the LP64 data-model where longs and pointers are 64-bit, Windows x64 uses LLP64 which keeps regular longs as 32-bits. This creates gratuitous incompatibilities with other operating systems and makes porting very difficult.s
12.Microsoft has attempted to break OpenGL by forcing every OpenGL call to be translated to the inferior Direct3D API and restricting OpenGL to a 1.4 featureset. Any attempt to use regular OpenGL disables AeroGlass and the assorted visual candy.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 08:47:00 -
[29]
Vista causes a little colateral damage to most existing modem/print/scan/fax/voicemail/telephony/tv/surveillance/... solutions.
But the MS propaganda machinery is already hitting the war drums to silence those pointing at these minor problems.
--*=*=*--
Megadon
CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray |
Vlip
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 14:02:00 -
[30]
Quote:
10.Drivers will need to be WHQL-certified on some editions of Vista to be installed. There is no bypass option. That means that open-source drivers, such as those designed to allow Windows to interoperate with Linux file-systems, will be impossible to run. Meanwhile, anyone, even a dedicated virus writer, who can afford the extortion fee paid to Verisign for a certificate, can get their "drivers" signed.
Incorrect, drivers will need to be signed. That's all. Not WHQL certified.
Anyone who can buy a 500$ certificate will be able to.
I'm sure linux driver writers will be able to raise 500$ in donations for a certificate, really.
Quote:
12.Microsoft has attempted to break OpenGL by forcing every OpenGL call to be translated to the inferior Direct3D API and restricting OpenGL to a 1.4 featureset. Any attempt to use regular OpenGL disables AeroGlass and the assorted visual candy.
I just learned today that this is not correct anymore. There is now a way for OpenGL ICDs to work without disabling the eye candy. |
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 18:33:00 -
[31]
In no particular order
1.If all the APIs will be backported, why isn't Direct3D 10? Or is that no longer an API but a "feature"? And a lot of the old APIs will be emulated under Vista such as GDI.
2.Under Linux, I will be able to legally bypass the HDDVD's DRMs under the DMCA's Interoperability Clause. The interoperability clause allows you to bypass copy-protection software for the purpose of interoperability with software that otherwise wouldn't be compatible. So yes, I'd prefer not to have DRM in the operating system.
3.They can rewrite the engine in OpenGL as well. Then everyone can enjoy DX10 quality graphics. You act like DX9 and DX10 are the only choices but they are not. Contrary to what Microsoft wants you to believe, OpenGL is not going anywhere. And OpenGL only disables eye-candy when you run it in a window, not for full-screen apps. And frankly, since I find the eye-candy completely superfluous to begin with, it's not something I would miss terribly.
4.Yes, a 386 powered Linux box wouldn't run games. But it would browse the internet and do word processing just fine provided you don't run Microsoft Bloatfice.
5."New rewritten Gfx driver model, new rewritten audo stack, moving most drivers in user space, integrated search in the UI, composited GUI, LUA,...
nah, true, only 2k with a theme, right?"
All of which is completly superflous to the function of an operating system. The only thing worth mentioning is the new GFX driver model and the user-space drivers. The GFX Driver Model is a blatant ripoff of Mac OS X. The only difference is Mac OS X uses industry standards so at least your programs remain portable.
6.IIS has a horrible security record. Most IIS vulnerabilities tend to be major, even if they are fewer than Apache. Then again, Apache does comprise some 60% of the webserver market. I could easily turn a favorite arguement of the typical MCSE drone around and say that Apache has more vulnerabilities discovered because it's more popular. But also, Apache does not run with more privilages then it needs.
One of the most fundamental concepts that you will learn in network security 101 is the principle of least privledge. You DO NOT run ANYTHING with more privledges than it needs. IIS had no business running with a system account. Anytime IIS gets compromised, it can be used as a conduit to perform any function that a system account can do. Apache only runs as root (administrator) long enough to bind to it's port (if it's a low port) and then it drops down to it's own account. If Apache gets compromised and your system is properly configured, the most the attacker can do is deface your website or cause Apache to suck up your CPU cycles. But because Apache is running as a regular user, they can't use it as a conduit.
7.Any increased security in Vista will be nullified by people's tendency to violate the above principle. Using an administrator account for day to day activities is asking for trouble. And writing userland programs that require an administrative account is idiocy. I will never cease to be amazed by the amount of crappy Windows software that breaks this privledge. Simply running a regular user account and using Run As to run as administrator when needed would eliminate a lot of threats right off the bat. A program that gets inadvertently executed runs at the permission of the user account. And theres a lot less a virus can do as a regular user.
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 19:02:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, let's, considering it's so much slower and more bloated.
What's on top maybe, the operating system kernel however benchmarks on par with the Windows Server 2003 kernel, which it is based on. Which means something, considering it's loaded with checks during the beta. Also, the NT kernel is considered one of the best kernel designs existing.
Remove the checks, disable the new eye candy and you get a faster operating system.
Originally by: damicatz
The kernel is getting overhauled but not for the better.
Let's see :
Nothing of that has anything to see with the kernel. The APIs are still native and an evolution of Win32. Nothing is emulated. And who cares about pointers, it does its job and doesn't affect performance.
And that OpenGL disables Aeroglass is no surprise considering the DWM needs exclusive access to the graphics card. The OpenGL D3D wrapper is there to make OpenGL apps work while the DWM is active.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 19:47:00 -
[33]
I don't care for kernel benchmarks I didn't setup by myself.
I tested Vista on a few systems, and it only feels faster while actually being slower.
It only feels faster as long as you're doing the standard stuff where the preemptive loading of programs and functions tries to kill the harddrives in the background.
Set up a Vista box close to the minimal requirements and jump from program to program - and do the same on the same box running Win2k or WinXP.
Adding aditional layers between the software and hardware makes programs run faster according to MS propagandists. Yes, I believe in MS.
Oh, and why should I pay 500$ for getting a certificate for a selfmade driver for a selfmade experimental device (ie. for a model train installation) for my own personal use? If I wanted a box I can't do nothing with, I'd buy me an XBox.
--*=*=*--
Megadon
CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray |
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.17 22:41:00 -
[34]
Edited by: damicatz on 17/04/2006 22:41:54
1.There is no legitimate reason to force the graphics card to always be in use by Direct3D 10. That's called vendor lock-in and it's an illegal practice. Not that the US government ever cared about enforcing their own laws. Mac OS X at least uses an industry standard API.
2.Most of the "kernel improvments" such as the rewritten stacks will help, but they still won't hold a candle to something like FreeBSD. Unless Microsoft borrowed more code from FreeBSD.
3.Microsoft has a tendency to lie when it comes to what is considered their orginal creation :
A.NT's netcode was licensed from Spider Systems which contained the BSD TCP/IP stack. So you can thank UNIX for that improved NT netcode. Utilities too. Look at ftp.exe or telnet.exe and you'll find the copyrights right in the file for the University of California Berkeley.
B.Internet Explorer started as a glorified version of NCSA Mosaic. They haven't added a single useful feature since, only bloat.
C.Frontpage was bought out from Vermeer Technologies. Microsoft's contribution to the program was it's excessively bloated coding style and it's intentional breakage of pages on browsers other than Internet Explorer.
D.Visio was the name of a company that marketed the product now called Microsoft Visio. Microsoft bought them out.
E.Microsoft patented the IPOD's Interface (http://news.com.com/Microsoft,+Apple+in+iPod+patent+tussle/2100-1047_3-5830435.html) and then the audacity to try and collect from Apple.
F.Microsoft has patented gamma correction. Obviously, it wasn't their invention. (http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/txt/ep/1429/293/)
G.Microsoft has patented wireless networking with 802.11. (http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/txt/ep/1424/829/#aclm)
H.Here's a good one. Encoding an XML file in binary format. http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/txt/ep/1439/462/
As I recall, the Open Document Format does that. Funny coicidence.
I.They've patented the storyboard for video editing. http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/txt/ep/1377/047/
J.Another good one. http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/txt/ep/1411/512/ They've attempted to patent the ability for a program to adjust it's menus based on the type of file that's opened.
I could go on but my point has been made.
|
Vlip
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 11:54:00 -
[35]
Quote:
1.If all the APIs will be backported, why isn't Direct3D 10? Or is that no longer an API but a "feature"? And a lot of the old APIs will be emulated under Vista such as GDI.
DirectX10 is indeed something that won't be backported. But then it is the exception and if you'd take a look at Apple you'd see how much Microsoft is a champ at long term compatibility.
See how much of Apple's software still works in OSX 10.2 for example, while 99.9% of our softwares still work in 2k.
Quote:
2.Under Linux, I will be able to legally bypass the HDDVD's DRMs under the DMCA's Interoperability Clause. The interoperability clause allows you to bypass copy-protection software for the purpose of interoperability with software that otherwise wouldn't be compatible. So yes, I'd prefer not to have DRM in the operating system.
Yes, and Microsoft will say to joe user that he can read HDDVD no problemo, just ***** the yet un*****ed encryption.
Please, really.
Quote:
3.They can rewrite the engine in OpenGL as well. Then everyone can enjoy DX10 quality graphics. You act like DX9 and DX10 are the only choices but they are not. Contrary to what Microsoft wants you to believe, OpenGL is not going anywhere. And OpenGL only disables eye-candy when you run it in a window, not for full-screen apps. And frankly, since I find the eye-candy completely superfluous to begin with, it's not something I would miss terribly.
Sure, now you want Microsoft to drop a technology that is used by 99% of the PC gaming industry. Sure, I can understand your idealism, it's neat. But keep reality in mind.
Besides, using OpenGL will not deactivate glass.
As for the eye candy, disable it! It's not like Vista will force you to use it.
You have the choice, stop acting like you have a gun pulled on your head.
Quote:
4.Yes, a 386 powered Linux box wouldn't run games. But it would browse the internet and do word processing just fine provided you don't run Microsoft Bloatfice.
You mean compared to takes3minutestostartOpenOffice? ;)
I'm all for being able to scale on older machines, but there really is no need to go as far back as a 386. Vista will adapt just fine on most machines.
Quote:
All of which is completly superflous to the function of an operating system. The only thing worth mentioning is the new GFX driver model and the user-space drivers. The GFX Driver Model is a blatant ripoff of Mac OS X. The only difference is Mac OS X uses industry standards so at least your programs remain portable.
Most of the things I mentionned are under the hood changes that are quintessential to how the OS functions and you say it's superfluous?
Quote:
6.IIS has a horrible security record. Most IIS vulnerabilities tend to be major, even if they are fewer than Apache. Then again, Apache does comprise some 60% of the webserver market. I could easily turn a favorite arguement of the typical MCSE drone around and say that Apache has more vulnerabilities discovered because it's more popular. But also, Apache does not run with more privilages then it needs.
IIS5 has a horrible security record. IIS 6 has as close to a flawless security record that can be attained. Really, stop rehashing talking points of the nineties ;). |
Vlip
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 12:02:00 -
[36]
Quote:
7.Any increased security in Vista will be nullified by people's tendency to violate the above principle. Using an administrator account for day to day activities is asking for trouble. And writing userland programs that require an administrative account is idiocy. I will never cease to be amazed by the amount of crappy Windows software that breaks this privledge. Simply running a regular user account and using Run As to run as administrator when needed would eliminate a lot of threats right off the bat. A program that gets inadvertently executed runs at the permission of the user account. And theres a lot less a virus can do as a regular user.
Well duh! There is nothing Microsoft, nor Apple, nor Linux coders can do against stupid users.
Quote:
I tested Vista on a few systems, and it only feels faster while actually being slower.
It only feels faster as long as you're doing the standard stuff where the preemptive loading of programs and functions tries to kill the harddrives in the background.
Set up a Vista box close to the minimal requirements and jump from program to program - and do the same on the same box running Win2k or WinXP.
It's a new OS with new functionalities. Of course it'll be a bit heavier.
So was MacOSX, so are nowadays linux with the new UIs.
XP was a heavy beast at its beginning, nowadays computers barely feel it.
The same will happen to Vista. I don't feel like being stuck in the nineties just so that some people can appreciate stagnation ;)
Quote:
Oh, and why should I pay 500$ for getting a certificate for a selfmade driver for a selfmade experimental device (ie. for a model train installation) for my own personal use? If I wanted a box I can't do nothing with, I'd buy me an XBox.
You won't.
There is a switch that you can toggle to boot the OS in developer mode which will let you load unsigned drivers.
Quote:
1.There is no legitimate reason to force the graphics card to always be in use by Direct3D 10. That's called vendor lock-in and it's an illegal practice. Not that the US government ever cared about enforcing their own laws. Mac OS X at least uses an industry standard API.
What are you talking about?
Quote:
2.Most of the "kernel improvments" such as the rewritten stacks will help, but they still won't hold a candle to something like FreeBSD. Unless Microsoft borrowed more code from FreeBSD.
Yes, of course, by some miracle all the coders at Redmond are incompetent and couldn't find their way out of a wet paperbag.
Quote:
A.NT's netcode was licensed from Spider Systems which contained the BSD TCP/IP stack. So you can thank UNIX for that improved NT netcode. Utilities too. Look at ftp.exe or telnet.exe and you'll find the copyrights right in the file for the University of California Berkeley.
That code was discarded years ago and anyway the IP stack has been completely rewritten in Vista. They claim a vast improvement of performance (will believe it when I'll see it) and support for hardware acceleration.
Quote:
B.Internet Explorer started as a glorified version of NCSA Mosaic. They haven't added a single useful feature since, only bloat.
That's disingenuous, really. That you can say such things with a straight face is impressive.
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 13:20:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 18/04/2006 13:23:51
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 18/04/2006 13:22:28
Originally by: Vlip
Quote:
1.There is no legitimate reason to force the graphics card to always be in use by Direct3D 10. That's called vendor lock-in and it's an illegal practice. Not that the US government ever cared about enforcing their own laws. Mac OS X at least uses an industry standard API.
What are you talking about?
He doesn't understand that you can't share the hardware with APIs totally out of your control if your desktop manager runs in Direct3D mode, and want it do to this in a stable manner, you know for Aero Glass. But he also disregards that you can disable that hardware accelerated mode and share your hardware as you wish. Kind of what automatically happens if you run a DWM-unaware OpenGL ICD. The other option was to run that OpenGL D3D wrapper to keep the DWM (AeroGlass) running. Now the new option being introduced are new APIs for ICDs that can share the graphics hardware resources, however you'll need a DirectX 10 crd for this, since the GPU scheduling and VMM are DX10 features and not available in current hardware.
One way or another, alone the fact that he's digging up the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack, whose code was discarded and rewritten with Windows 2000, makes me just disregard anything else he posted or will post.
In regards to the new stack, their performance gains come from the fact that it's been heavily parallelized. However to notice that, you'll need a multiprocessor/-core system with heavy network IO. A home user doesn't nearly generate enough network traffic to make the CPU perfcounter bump. The target scenario for the new stack is Gigabit traffic.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 13:29:00 -
[38]
Load your MS Office after removing all the preloading parts and it isn't faster than OpenOffice.
Vista is slowing down the program start of software more than any other system unless it is preloaded. It eats into program performance so badly it is not funny. Vista removes all speed improvements of the currently available hardware compared to the stuff from a few years ago.
For comparing the speed of different systems, you should compare the stuff on the same or similar hardware. Comparing a Win2k system on a 1998 computer to a theoretical Vista system on a computer we might see in 2009 just doesn't help. Do both installations on a todays standard computer. If it is a problem with the included drivers, MS has a few years of development ahead jsut to get it running at the same speed.
What is the reason to write a driver if I have to set the OS to boot in Dev mode to use it? Someone might have shot past the target with the security system in some areas until the signing of the certificates generates some extra income for him and his friends. Works hand in hand with the '100% new drivers needed' approach and the massive patenting of trivial software parts MS is doing these days.
--*=*=*--
Megadon
CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 15:13:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Deakin Frost
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, let's, considering it's so much slower and more bloated.
What's on top maybe, the operating system kernel however benchmarks on par with the Windows Server 2003 kernel, which it is based on. Which means something, considering it's loaded with checks during the beta. Also, the NT kernel is considered one of the best kernel designs existing.
Remove the checks, disable the new eye candy and you get a faster operating system.
Yes, it allready takes me 5 solid hours to remove the eyecandy in XP. I'm not looking foward to the 12+ (est., but realistic) hours it'll take in Vista. And performance STILL won't be equivalent.
(Aero glass will be the FIRST thing to go, for Classic)
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 16:33:00 -
[40]
15mins maximum to disable all crap in Windows XP. I don't know where you get those five hours from 
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 16:41:00 -
[41]
15 mins to disable the surface of the purely visual stuff, maybe.
But there's a lot more going on "under the hood" with all sorts of processes and elements which are uncessary and need to be stripped out for performance. Some of the stripping being fairly annoyingly fiddly.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 16:47:00 -
[42]
I counted that in the 15 minutes. It might maybe make a difference that I know most registry keys and services by heart (nerd) 
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 17:05:00 -
[43]
I suspect I'm doing a heck of lot more stripping than you. I use *checks* 27 programs in the process.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 21:00:00 -
[44]
1.Perhaps we have a different opinion of the definition of "flawless security record".
Windows Server 2003
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?o=0&l=30&c=12&op=display_list&vendor=Microsoft&version=%20SP1&title=Windows%20Server%202003%20Standard%20Edition&CVE=
Versus OpenBSD
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?o=0&l=30&c=12&op=display_list&vendor=OpenBSD&version=2.9&title=OpenBSD&CVE=
The crap in Windows is so integrated that the vulnerabilities in one part of the operating system can affect another. If you look under how some of vulnerabilities are exploited, you'll find in many cases that IIS components are used as a conduit.
OpenBSD, on the otherhand, has only had one remote security hole in the default installation in 8 years.
2.You have no proof that the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack was discarded in 2000 other than Microsoft's word. I have factual evidence that they did use the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack in NT. And Microsoft's word is worth the same as dirt as far as I'm cooncerned. And Windows 2000 still has the FreeBSD copyrights. Look at the files yourself if you're not convinced.
3.There is no business giving DirectX full access to the graphics hardware at all times. I don't give a damn about aeroglass and I suggest people learn the function of an operating system and why it's not appropriate to integrate such nonsense into it. By monopolizing the graphics hardware, Microsoft is deliberatly trying to discourage the use of all other APIs by using some half-witted wrapper scheme. That's an illegal practice in and of itself. It's a shame the US government is so easily bribed.
|
Xanthia Di'Makir
|
Posted - 2006.04.18 23:58:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Deakin Frost
Also, the NT kernel is considered one of the best kernel designs existing.
NT 3.51 Yes. Microkernel 4TW.
When MS released NT 4.0 with drivers running at ring 0, rather than where they are supposed to run: ring 1, they managed to completely bugger up one of the best OS architectures they had ever released.
So please do not ever describe the NT Kernel as a good architecture unless you explicitly state that you are referring to NT 3.51. kkthx.
|
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 00:21:00 -
[46]
Bill Gates probably found out that the concept of Rings came from MULTICS which was the predecessor of UNIX. And decided that Windows can't be like UNIX. Or their programmers got lazy. Or both.
Personally, I've always prefered monolithic kernels. They are older in design but are tired and tested. That's why most UNIX-style operating systems still use them (Mach/HURD being the notable exception).
And NT isn't a micro-kernel architecture. It's a hybrid. Some parts of the kernel are integrated into the main package and others run seperatetly. I never understood why they did that. Personally, I would have prefered they picked a paradigm and stuck with it.
Originally by: Xanthia Di'Makir
Originally by: Deakin Frost
Also, the NT kernel is considered one of the best kernel designs existing.
NT 3.51 Yes. Microkernel 4TW.
When MS released NT 4.0 with drivers running at ring 0, rather than where they are supposed to run: ring 1, they managed to completely bugger up one of the best OS architectures they had ever released.
So please do not ever describe the NT Kernel as a good architecture unless you explicitly state that you are referring to NT 3.51. kkthx.
|
Varban II
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 00:45:00 -
[47]
Hmm I am working to make Eve run under Vista as well. All I managed so far is changing the autoexec.py file adding a string stipulating that dx10 is ok. That gets rid of the msg about not having the correct dx installed. Other than that I cant get beyond the login screen.
Will be nice if the thread returns to the correct topic, Havand give me a msg if you find anything
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.21 10:40:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 21/04/2006 10:42:17
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 21/04/2006 10:40:31
Originally by: Xanthia Di'Makir
When MS released NT 4.0 with drivers running at ring 0, rather than where they are supposed to run: ring 1, they managed to completely bugger up one of the best OS architectures they had ever released.
Drivers on virtually every x86 operating system run in ring 0. Ring 1 and 2 aren't used except by some esoteric OSes. The reason is that other CPU architectures only have two protection modes and for sake of portability and complexity, this system has been adopted on the x86 platform, too.
This isn't an NT only thing, it applies to Linux, *BSD, Solaris x86 and whatever else there is.
Originally by: Xanthia Di'Makir
So please do not ever describe the NT Kernel as a good architecture unless you explicitly state that you are referring to NT 3.51. kkthx.
Excuse me if I value the opinion of *nix kernel developers over yours.
Originally by: damicatz
Bill Gates probably found out that the concept of Rings came from MULTICS which was the predecessor of UNIX. And decided that Windows can't be like UNIX. Or their programmers got lazy. Or both.
The Ring levels is something that's implemented in Intel architecture processors since the 386.
|
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.21 19:43:00 -
[49]
1.Rings was a MULTICs concept. Intel had nothing to do with it's creation. Look it up if you don't belive me.
2.Linux started moving towards userspace device drivers a long time ago. Granted, there are still kernel mode drivers but at least they are making the effort.
Originally by: Deakin Frost
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 21/04/2006 10:42:17
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 21/04/2006 10:40:31
Originally by: Xanthia Di'Makir
When MS released NT 4.0 with drivers running at ring 0, rather than where they are supposed to run: ring 1, they managed to completely bugger up one of the best OS architectures they had ever released.
Drivers on virtually every x86 operating system run in ring 0. Ring 1 and 2 aren't used except by some esoteric OSes. The reason is that other CPU architectures only have two protection modes and for sake of portability and complexity, this system has been adopted on the x86 platform, too.
This isn't an NT only thing, it applies to Linux, *BSD, Solaris x86 and whatever else there is.
Originally by: Xanthia Di'Makir
So please do not ever describe the NT Kernel as a good architecture unless you explicitly state that you are referring to NT 3.51. kkthx.
Excuse me if I value the opinion of *nix kernel developers over yours.
Originally by: damicatz
Bill Gates probably found out that the concept of Rings came from MULTICS which was the predecessor of UNIX. And decided that Windows can't be like UNIX. Or their programmers got lazy. Or both.
The Ring levels is something that's implemented in Intel architecture processors since the 386.
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 00:04:00 -
[50]
So let's see. So far I have read that the kernel is getting a major overhaul, Vista will be more secure than any previous OS released by MS and that Vista will be on everyone's system by 2008.
Firstly, if the kernel is getting such a "major overhaul", why does it need such extortionate resources? I could upgrade everything on my PC and throw in 8 gigs of memory and make XP run way better than it does now. If this Vista is such an all singing, all dancing OS, why would I need to upgrade so radically? Sounds to me like it's the MS standard issue - instead of making the OS fit the system, we'll throw more hardware at it to make it work properly.
Next comes security. I have used every MS operating system since Dos 5.0 and since Windows 3.11, every time they brought out a new operating system, it was "more secure" when in fact it was vastly more exploitable than it's predecessor. NT3.51 was probably the only OS that broke that record being only slightly more exploitable than Windows 95.
Considering how long it was between the release of XP and the time it took for everyone to be using it, I would think 2012 would probaly be a more reasonable time.
Before I had this sig, my original sig on almost every forum I visitted had exactly the same words:
My idea of an OS is one that Operates the System, not a complete package of every program ever written.
Half this junk in XP I neither use nor ever will have use for. The main drawback is that it is so integrated into the rest of the system that it can't be removed or have an option included so that it isn't installed. Without it, the rest of the system falls over. I don't always want to look at jpeg files so why is the DLL loaded? The idea of a DLL is Dynamic Link Library, the word Link should give you a clue as to how it was intended to be used and it doesn't mean loaded as standard and taking resources that could otherwise be used.
There is a second line to the phrase - "Jack of all trades" and that is - "master of none".
Windows proves this by trying to do everything and not being much good at anything. Going by Microshafts past record, Vista will be no exception to this phrase.
--
|
Commander Stringer
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 01:51:00 -
[51]
Vista is jumped up eyecandy nothin more..Hell my XP looks like vista without all the extra crap in it right the way down to the new styled start button. I Even have 3 of the screensavers and 5 of the vista games chopped in. I don't need vista, XP just does me fine (though i really need to take the 1gig of ram to 3). Quite interested in what WinFX can do. But i'm still *****ing my head thru Visual Studio2005 so i'll ***** that nut later.
........
'Blow your own trumpet 'cuz no other fecker is going to do it for you'
|
Commander Stringer
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 01:53:00 -
[52]
WTFPWNED?!
why did it auto censor c.r.a.c.k as in c.r.a.c.k a nut?
........
'Blow your own trumpet 'cuz no other fecker is going to do it for you'
|
XxCORPxX
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 19:35:00 -
[53]
Ah, it's the new kid. The old kid is always better.
Wait till they release the next OS. Everyone will be saying how Vista is better then the new one and why should I upgrade. Same sh*t, just a few years later with a different OS. I personally like the extra bells and whistles. Makes computing fun, not just work.
Anyway....
Running Eve on Vista perfectly on a new IBM T60 with the Font reg edit. Runs smooth as silk. I need to find the edit to make the directX nag go away. If someone wants to be contstructive, please post all the fixes in one post for everyone else to easily find. Thanks...Love this game. Such nice EYE CANDY! 
|
Romanov Iscariot
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 11:24:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Romanov Iscariot on 13/06/2006 11:27:45
Originally by: Tachy
Vista is slowing down the program start of software more than any other system unless it is preloaded. It eats into program performance so badly it is not funny. Vista removes all speed improvements of the currently available hardware compared to the stuff from a few years ago.
Wait! You have a copy of the non-beta Vista? With all the debug code off? :D Send it to me will you?
What's all the complaining about it being so slow anyway? The beta 2 runs fine on my old system: Pentium 4 2.4Ghz, 1GB DDR-266, 256MB Ancient nVidia
card :)
EDIT: BTW, I use Linux as well, so try not to flame me too bad  If you look at the Linux forums, etc, you'll almost always see a post called "Linux is not Windows!". The same is true in reverse, stop trying to compare each operating system, when they're usually used for different things.
And it uses how much RAM now with no other programs running? My system uses 223MB of RAM in idle mode, with all the "eye candy", which, btw, is what most normal users want to see.
|
Sirius Lonestar
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 08:26:00 -
[55]
Originally by: El***ER
hmm let's see:
shaders are available in dx9
hdr/64bit frambuffer are also available
so I don't see a real reason why it should be vista exclusive
as I already said the vista problem might be a missing registry key (HKCU/Software/Microsoft/CurrentVersion/Explorer/Shell Folders/ create string "fonts" there and add "c:\windows\fonts" as value) if that value does not exist there Eve crashes because of an unhandled exception
could you look up the exact version string of your d3d9.dll on vista?
Getting back to the original post, your suggestion did work. Thank you for the help. But the key listed is wrong, it is actually:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders
I appreciate the help. And for the record, I like Vista. You are going to need some better hardware but the experience is much better.
I think it is better for the industry as hardware has far exceeded software for a long time. It is good that I am finally getting the OPTION to get an OS that will give me extra features if I have better hardware.
Stay with XP if you don't want to upgrade but don't get all outraged because some of us want to do more stuff with our computers. 
|
MrTriggerHappy
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 15:07:00 -
[56]
Well actually a recent article in a PC magazine was going on about "why upgrade to vista", when all of the features that are going to be in it, you can get today for nothing with Linux.
I personally wont be upgrading to Vista, as far as i'm concerned the day that eve doesn't work with XP, will be the day i stop playing. Plus if the graphics engine upgrade is going to be "Exclusive to Vista", I will be thinking again if i plan to stay. Simple reason, I pay to play eve so why pay for an upgrade if I can't get to use it. However I don't see the upgrade being exclusive to vista.
|
Gothikia
|
Posted - 2006.06.26 23:33:00 -
[57]
for the people who keep complaining about vistas high memory usage its because of this..
IT IS BETA SOFTWARE. OPTIMISATIONS ARE JUST STARTING AS WE ARE NEARING THE RELEASE CANDIDATES.
I've been using vista since beta 1 from July 2005. I'm a developer who uses directx and with each build of both vista and d3d, things are getting greatly improved. As far as people saying, "im not upgrading, not worth it", all i can say to you lot is, Get a grip. Use Vista for a year then tell me what you think about it. I use it on 2 out of 3 main workstations i run here, and i use it for my day to day business and development and I love it. Keep in mind this is not an upgrade operating system. This is an entirely new OS altogether.
No matter what anyones feelings about microsoft might be, for every product they've pumped out from 2005 onwards has always been a fantastic piece of software, and vista will be no exception.
And no, I dont work for Bill... yet 
|
anthonieak
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 14:24:00 -
[58]
Reading all sort computerlanguage, where 50% of ever's don't know thing from.
In fact it all dazzles me. What i want too know.
I hear there will be tranquility I (Old tranquility direct 9.0c)
And I hear there will be new tranquility II (Cost Windows vista with direct 10, mayby compleet new pc new graphic card new memory. between Ç 500 till Ç 2.000 investment)
New graphics will be availeble but against what price.
This can only paid by rich parents and rich people and eve will be loose lot of players or not.
AK
|
Chippsetter
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 06:11:00 -
[59]
Ok, quoting from "Tale of Two Versions" on page 35 of Issue #003. "CCP is planning to publish two versions of EVE - the classic [current] version of EVE that will include a subset of the graphics upgrades, and EVE for Windows Vista." What I don't understand is how people seem to know everything about how a new OS will operate in the future when it is still BETA? Are you reading about it in you LINUX forums and magazines? Look, LINUX wants a bigger slice of the users. That is fine, that is called competition. Just do not tell me that Microsoft lies all the time and everything that LINUX community says is the absolute truth. That is pure BS.
|
ChalSto
The Galactic Empire
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 11:44:00 -
[60]
Edited by: ChalSto on 06/07/2006 11:46:07
Edited by: ChalSto on 06/07/2006 11:45:14
Edited by: ChalSto on 06/07/2006 11:44:39
Quote:
IT IS BETA SOFTWARE. OPTIMISATIONS ARE JUST STARTING AS WE ARE NEARING THE RELEASE CANDIDATES.
Compleatly right!
Quote:
And no, I dont work for Bill... yet
no.....you dont work for us.... yet 
After 3 years in EvE, I finaly can say, that I lost more ships due to lag and bugs, than in any battle.
|
Gonk Shack
|
Posted - 2006.09.22 15:14:00 -
[61]
Greetings,
I'm running Vista RC1, on a Pentium M 1.5 GHz laptop with 1GB RAM and a ATI Radeon 9600Pro Turbo with 128MB RAM on the card. I'm using the newest ATI Vista beta drivers and i'm getting horrible stuttering problems in EVE.
It ran smooth as silk on XP, but with every Vista release, it seems to be stutterish. I checked out the FPS while in game, and it's solid at about 70+ FPS when my ship is not moving or I am not moving the camera around, but as soon as I move the camera of move my ship, it drops FPS to have a half a second pause every second or so.
I read through some of the FPS tips and tricks, and some refer to making changes to your "prefs.ini" file. I cannot find this file anywhere in my EVE install, where might I find this? And if anyone has any tips to get EVE running smoother in Vista, I would appreciate it. Thanks!
-g0nk
|
Hepcat
|
Posted - 2006.09.22 17:19:00 -
[62]
The prefs.ini file is located in the cache folder in your eve directory.
Also, I've heard of many problems with the current ATI Vista Beta drivers, so you might try reverting to the drivers included with the RC1 install.
|
Wen Jaibao
adeptus gattacus
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.22 20:18:00 -
[63]
Vista is in beta. Stuff will not run perfectly. Oh, and necroing is bad, mmkay?
Sig size nerfed, click for full sig. |
Gonk Shack
|
Posted - 2006.09.22 21:04:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Hepcat
The prefs.ini file is located in the cache folder in your eve directory.
Also, I've heard of many problems with the current ATI Vista Beta drivers, so you might try reverting to the drivers included with the RC1 install.
Ok, well, i have no cache folder in my install.. and also, the same thing was happening with the RC1 Microsoft drivers..
|
Gonk Shack
|
Posted - 2006.09.22 21:05:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Wen Jaibao
Vista is in beta. Stuff will not run perfectly. Oh, and necroing is bad, mmkay?
I understand that Vista is beta, i've been a MS tester for a long time. I am merely looking to see if anyone has fixes or have come across the same problem..
and Necroing? not sure exactly what you are talking about, but i'm not doing anything "bad"...
|
Reincarnator
Amarr
adeptus gattacus
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.23 13:29:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Gonk Shack
Originally by: Wen Jaibao
Vista is in beta. Stuff will not run perfectly. Oh, and necroing is bad, mmkay?
I understand that Vista is beta, i've been a MS tester for a long time. I am merely looking to see if anyone has fixes or have come across the same problem..
and Necroing? not sure exactly what you are talking about, but i'm not doing anything "bad"...
Did you see the date on the post before your first one here?
Quote:
You will never quote this sig!
QFT |
Matrix Aran
Legio Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 01:07:00 -
[67]
AFAIK very few games nowadays run on Linux whitout doing some sort of tweaking, manhandling or emulating. If this isn't true please someone tell me how to load the current version of Eve, WoW, MxO, FEAR, and hitman blooodmoney in 4 steps or less and you have a convert. That out of the way, let me give away my two cents on Vista. Vista isn't specificaly targeted at all us computer geeks that can actualy understand these acronyms. If I put my poor aunt on a machine with linux (yes I have played around with it just a bit) she would have the most terrible time trying to use it. She likes windows XP. She likes MSN telling here the weather, showing her that she has hotmail, walking her through how to do simplistic things. She likes colorful pretty things and eyecandy.
This is one of the thing Microsoft is aiming for. They want to get as many people, not just the geeks using thier OS. I can't truely say from my perspective that I have seen anyone with limited computer knowhow even look at Linux. Vista is something they want Soccer Mom on, something that the kids will go: "Wow! Cool!" at when they see it. Something grandma can actualy learn without having to memorize acronyms and codes. The fact is, Windows is user friendly, and people will upgrade sooner or later. Computer companys will ship it, they want thier computers to look like they're on the cutting edge while being really cheap.
----
|
GLok
Caldari
Unauthorised.
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 08:45:00 -
[68]
This whole thing is pointless tbh.
Your all complaining about how eve wont run on vista and your pc's are good enough.
The devs said themselves that the old textures etc will still be in eve.
Logically therefore you dont need vista just run with the old graphics i dont see why they would be changed by vista?
Another thing is, people that play eve are addicted. People play ridiculous amounts of time on the game, im sure they wouldnt mind getting vista if it fed their addiction?
--------------------
|
Soratah
Amarr
Ubiqua Seraph
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2006.09.24 09:17:00 -
[69]
Considering that XP in its current form has a shed load of useless crap stuck in both kernal and registry it's about time that MS worked on a new OS. Simply to clear this up.
However, anyone who's an XP user for a longish time probably have programmes or edit the reg themselves to clean these unfortunate background programs up.
From what I saw of early Vista Beta excluding the advanced prefetch is that it handles hanging programs REALLY well.
However, it's still beta and like XP64 will take a while before all the optimisations are weaned out (and someone *****s it, strips it, and distros a streamlined release). Still, 2007 sounds like a pretty accurate estimate for release time and several people will probably pick up a copy out of curiosity more than anything.
My chief concern is backwards compatibility, I hope MS solve the issue.
As for the graphics update. I believ that the classic client will get the boosted poly models as well as the dynamic shadow mapping. HDR will be reserved for the Vista DX10 client version.
|
PROdotes
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 08:27:00 -
[70]
Also... like every windows it's slower...
it tryed it with wow... wow runs on 1280x960... cca 22-24 fps on xpsp2...
on vista... itos going 8-9 fps (2 year old pc hehe)
eve works fine so far... but only cause i set it to run on xp compactibility... on normal mode it "bumped" the cursor out of the eve screen each time it got near hehe
vista is prolly seeing me around the time i'll borrow the nasa supercomputer to run it... and then a normal pc for running programs on that ^^
|
Grez
Minmatar
The Raven Warriors
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 09:00:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Opiette
guys I bet you know that Vista requires 800MB of ram for idle mode alone..
You need to learn something about Vista it seems. XP does the same, as do all the Windows versions, they just hide it, so you can't see un-used memory. They finally turned around and said "What's the point in having all that free memory, and THEN loading it into memory when you need it to make it faster?". So, they changed it, Vista now logs which programs you use more, and pre-loads them into memory, even at certain times! So if you open MS Word at 9 am, and close it at 5 pm, then start EVE at 7 pm, it'll remember it, and it'll pre-load it into memory for you as quietly as possible. They have still to perfect the pre-loading, but it's pretty good, loads everything up much quicker.
Technology is called SuperFetch, look it up.
---
Cache Clearer
Still waiting for a Wrangler-edit! |
Raven DeBlade
Caldari
Bladerunners
Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 13:41:00 -
[72]
im just amazed at how people still compare XP wich is several years old, and a not yet released nor finished OS like Vista.
"To hunt pirates you need time and patience, because even monkeys fall from the trees" |
Eclipsen413
Disband
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 15:33:00 -
[73]
im running windows vista RC1 Build 5600, and eve and other graphic intensive games work very well.
my specs: AMD Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.8 ghz (OCed)
1.5gigs of RAM (corsair memory)
Nvidia GeForce 6800GT with 256 RAM
ASUS A8N-SLi Premium mobo
i have the latest beta drivers for all those components and all programs work fine Except for Aol Instant Messanger wich will not run for some reason even with compatability mode
__________________________________________________
you're slower than Stephen Hawking in a snow storm |
Kyla Cole
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 21:44:00 -
[74]
I love the blatent disregard Mac users have for history - Any of you guys heard of The Xerox PARC facility ???
I hear Mac users claiming Apple invented the mouse, the gui, the light bulb.
All Xerox - well apart from the lightbulb.
As for Linux is better than Windows yada yada - please grow up - it really doesn't matter - I use Windows because I find it reliable, fast, I rarely see a virus, spyware infects more than just Windows boxes as it's written for the universal language of the web i.e tracking cookies - seriously guys please don't hijack ppl's threads with my box is faster than your box DX10 is rubbish blah blah.
P.S DX10 isn't being released on XP - probably because all the MS guys were sick of hearing you whine about how crappy all their software is :P
|
Hawklin Nightrunner
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 02:42:00 -
[75]
In reponse to Gonk,
The comment further down the thread about the current Beta drivers from ATI being the problem I can confirm that, roll back to the ones that it defaulted to on the windows install and everything will be smooth sailing again. The ones released September 2nd of '06 kill your preformance without a doubt. I tested them myself and quickly threw them out the window due to those preformance issues.
Roll them back and it'll all be golden again.
Originally by: Gonk Shack
Greetings,
I'm running Vista RC1, on a Pentium M 1.5 GHz laptop with 1GB RAM and a ATI Radeon 9600Pro Turbo with 128MB RAM on the card. I'm using the newest ATI Vista beta drivers and i'm getting horrible stuttering problems in EVE.
It ran smooth as silk on XP, but with every Vista release, it seems to be stutterish. I checked out the FPS while in game, and it's solid at about 70+ FPS when my ship is not moving or I am not moving the camera around, but as soon as I move the camera of move my ship, it drops FPS to have a half a second pause every second or so.
I read through some of the FPS tips and tricks, and some refer to making changes to your "prefs.ini" file. I cannot find this file anywhere in my EVE install, where might I find this? And if anyone has any tips to get EVE running smoother in Vista, I would appreciate it. Thanks!
-g0nk
|
Laice
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:53:00 -
[76]
If Eve went to only vista, i would quit playing Eve.
I'm not into this Eye candy. Whats the point?
The computer is supposed to be a tool not something that you show your mates.
"HEY GUYS! LOOK AT MY NEW COLOUR START MENU!"
Sounds rather sad doesnt it to you?
Microsoft's history lets them down im afraid and the only reason i use windows, like every one else who says this, is to play eve.
Have you seen how much cash the vista ultimate is expected to be? we're talking over 250 pounts (500 dollars) maybe even as high as 300, 400. Who knows, it's microsoft after all.
I'm fed up with these companies offering "Free upgrade to vista premium" with a new pc or laptop.
What does vista premium entail?
That spells out "cut down version of vista"
And all it will be is a teaser for everyone who has this cut down version. When they notice where all the holes are and stupid companies tell them "sorry your windows isnt the right package to do that" how are they going to feel? Then they'll splash out on the new version of vista.
Then again. I used to hate XP. Now i've gotten more used to it i don't notice the slowdown anymore, but it still has a half life. The only reason im using XP really is because its on the reinstallation disk for my laptop. (that and i broke the disk inadvertantly for the windows 2000 copy i stole).
What's a guy to do eh.
I read an article of a guy who managed to claim a rebate on an OEM copy of windows that came with his dell PC. he managed to claim 80 pound back with the proof that he wasnt going to have it installed on his PC.
No doubt really that he was just going to use another copy of windows that he had at home.
I'll be trying to claim that back if i order a PC and it comes with a copy of an inferior version of windows.
Meh im rambling.
I'd better stop typing before i have a fit.
|
Zeno Kang
Amarr
Royal Knights of Khanid
Order of the Khanid Crown
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:13:00 -
[77]
Just say no to thread necromancy.
--
Move every sig for great justice. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |