Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ledneh
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.12.25 04:18:00 -
[1]
I basically have the choice between these three OSes right now. I've only tried EVE on XP, so while as far as features goes I consider Vista > XP > 2000, I don't know how EVE performs in each environment. So before I go gallivanting off and trying all three, does anyone have any experience with running EVE in these three OSes, especially 2000 and Vista (since I'm running XP anyway :p)?
I sort of expect 2000 will be marginally better than XP, and Vista somewhat worse, but it'd be nice to have this confirmed.
Also, if anyone has any experiences frame-rate wise in running multiple clients (2 or 3) at the same time in these OSes, I'd love to hear them.
Thanks! ---------- Sig removed, please use EVE related signatures only - Xorus Oh, come on! This ninja had lasers and EVE has lasers. It's totally EVE related! >:(
Oh yea. [b]I d |
Porphyro
Coreli Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.12.25 10:56:00 -
[2]
I've run eve on both XP and Vista and there's no performance difference at all. Running multiple clients is also indentical performance-wise, but alt-tabbing between them while in fullscreen is slightly slower; it lingers on a black screen for perhaps half a second longer than XP.
I think because eve relies more on the cpu than the graphics card it isn't affected much by the lack of refinement of the vista graphics drivers. More graphically intensive games certainly do run slower on Vista than XP.
|
MrBreaker
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.12.25 23:57:00 -
[3]
Well I have VAST experience of running multiple Eve clients on a variety of processors at work and home, including dual and quad core systems on both XP and Vista (sorry, 2000 is old so doesnt get a look in)
I run 4 accounts with an x1950 pro. Under XP with Kentsfield, it handled 4 clients like a dream. Minimising one Eve client and maximising another was no different to moving a few explorer windows around.
With my home E6700 Core 2 Duo setup running Vista, using 3 accounts was a lot worse than on a single core system (XP3500+) running 3 under XP.
Vista's poor performance with Eve when running multiple clients makes me want to go back to XP.
Part of it is memory. 2GB is NOT enough for more than 2 Eve clients under Vista. The OS swallows 800MB, leaving 1.2GB for Eve. Fine for 2 clients but stretching it with 3, and not possible with 4. Open Internet Explorer, your email and a few other things and watch your beloved PC crawl.
I should test it with Aero turned off, coz those beautiful preview windows when you hover over the taskbar *****your CPU.
I'd love to know if anyone has any advice for running 3 or more clients under Vista.
|
Porphyro
Coreli Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 00:37:00 -
[4]
Odd, with me Vista uses around 500MB, rising to 700MB with one eve client. Though I do only have 1GB of ram at the moment, so it might be something to do with the way Vista manages avaliable memory.
|
Sevarus James
Minmatar Meridian Dynamics Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 09:25:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Sevarus James on 26/12/2006 09:29:07 Edited by: Sevarus James on 26/12/2006 09:28:37 For those interested in some of the 'why's of Vista's reduced performance, this section from A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection might be an eye opener. This is pretty long, but for Vista users, its worth the read:
<snip> Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption ------------------------------------
"Since [encryption] uses CPU cycles, an OEM may have to bump the speed grade on the CPU to maintain equivalent multimedia performance. This cost is passed on to purchasers of multimedia PCs" -- ATI.
In order to prevent tampering with in-system communications, all communication flows have to be encrypted and/or authenticated. For example content to video cards has to be encrypted with AES-128. This requirement for cryptography extends beyond basic content encryption to encompass not just data flowing over various buses but also command and control data flowing between software components. For example communications between user-mode and kernel-mode components are authenticated with OMAC message authentication-code tags, at considerable cost to both ends of the connection.
In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms to ensure that everything appears kosher. This means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted drivers has to wake up thirty times a second just to ensure that... nothing continues to happen. In addition to this polling, further device-specific polling is also done, for example Vista polls video devices on each video frame displayed in order to check that all of the grenade pins (tilt bits) are still as they should be [Note F].
On-board graphics create an additional problem in that blocks of precious content will end up stored in system memory, from where they could be paged to disk. In order to avoid this, Vista tags such pages with a special protection bit indicating that they need to be encrypted before being paged out and decrypted again after being paged in. Vista doesn't provide any other pagefile encryption, and will quite happily page banking PINs, credit card details, private, personal data, and other sensitive information, in plaintext. The content-protection requirements make it fairly clear that in Microsoft's eyes a frame of premium content is worth more than (say) a user's medical records or their banking PIN [Note G].
In addition to the CPU costs, the desire to render data inaccessible at any level means that video decompression can't be done in the CPU any more, since there isn't sufficient CPU power available to both decompress the video and encrypt the resulting uncompressed data stream to the video card. As a result, much of the decompression has to be integrated into the graphics chip. At a minimum this includes IDCT, MPEG motion compensation, and the Windows Media VC-1 codec (which is also DCT-based, so support via an IDCT core is fairly easy). As a corollary to the "Increased Hardware Costs" problem above, this means that you can't ship a low-end graphics chip without video codec support any more.
The inability to perform decoding in software also means that any premium- content compression scheme not supported by the graphics hardware can't be implemented. If things like the Ogg video codec ever eventuate and get used for premium content, they had better be done using something like Windows Media VC-1 or they'll be a non-starter under Vista or Vista-approved hardware. This is particularly troubling for the high-quality digital cinema (D-Cinema) specification, which uses Motion JPEG2000 (MJ2K) because standard MPEG and equivalents don't provide sufficient image quality. --continued......
Updated Linux Desktop+EVE+EVE-TV |
Sevarus James
Minmatar Meridian Dynamics Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 09:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Sevarus James on 26/12/2006 09:31:21 Edited by: Sevarus James on 26/12/2006 09:26:50 -con't.
Since JPEG2000 uses wavelet-based compression rather than MPEG's DCT-based compression, and wavelet-based compression isn't on the hardware codec list, it's not possible to play back D-Cinema premium content (the moribund Ogg Tarkin codec also used wavelet-based compression). Because *all* D-Cinema content will (presumably) be premium content, the result is no playback at all until the hardware support appears in PCs at some indeterminate point in the future. Compare this to the situation with MPEG video, where early software codecs like the XingMPEG en/decoder practically created the market for PC video. Today, thanks to Vista's content protection, the opening up of new markets in this manner would be impossible.
The high-end graphics and audio market are dominated entirely by gamers, who will do anything to gain the tiniest bit of extra performance, like buying Bigfoot Networks' $250 "Killer NIC" ethernet card in the hope that it'll help reduce their network latency by a few milliseconds. These are people buying $500-$1000 graphics and sound cards for which one single sale brings the device vendors more than the few cents they get from the video/audio portion of an entire roomful of integrated-graphics-and-sound PCs. I wonder how this market segment will react to knowing that their top-of-the-line hardware is being hamstrung by all of the content-protection "features" that Vista hogties it with?
<snip>
Updated Linux Desktop+EVE+EVE-TV |
Draec Sjet
Dark Knights of Deneb Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.12.28 00:33:00 -
[7]
XP wins when itcomes to running games. XP renders the entire GUI through the CPU and sends all game info to the cpu which then sends it on to the gpu. Vista is rendered using the gpu already, so gaming is gonna be a little more poor on a vista system. i found i could run one instance of eve fine with 1Gb of ram with an Intel Centrino Core Duo 1.66Ghz cpu and a ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 512Mb card, but more than one was pointless.
|
bumcheekcity
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2006.12.28 11:12:00 -
[8]
I have run 2 EVE Clients in Windows Vista, both running as fine as they ran under WinXP. I can even keep my background applicationrs running (I use them windowed). Usin a 4400+ X2, 2GB RAM, and x850XT -- Interseted in skills? Necessary Skills
|
Drachma Golea
|
Posted - 2006.12.28 16:59:00 -
[9]
I don't see why running vista brings me any good...
I'd stick to XP till the first 40 or 80 major updates have come by the site of Microsoft...
|
MrBreaker
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.01.03 12:40:00 -
[10]
I tried reverting to the Windows clasic theme under Vista, removing the preview windows, transparency etc...
solved all my problems, 3 clients all flying around space perfectly.
Unfortunately Vista isnt a pretty as before.
|
|
Freada
Gallente Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 01:58:00 -
[11]
I am running 2 systems with windows 2000 pro and Eve runs just fine. I like win2k and I intend to keep using it.
|
Depko
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 14:32:00 -
[12]
i did run EVE client on VISTA with E6600 [email protected] (dual core), ATI X1900GT, 2GB RAM. my feeling is, the client is slightly slower in vista (cca 10%, thats negligible). I have the impression, the ALT+TAB from a game to desktop is much more responsive than in XP. The switching between game and other programs is almost instantly, like switching between 2 Internet Explorer windows (as somebody mentiones allready). In XP the ALT+TAB from or into a game takes much much more. . the main issues with VISTA were the drivers and consequent problems. my procesor has EIST technology, that means it slows down to 2.0GHz from 3.0Ghz in case of low processor load. The buggy VISTA drivers didnt however rise the frequency to 3.0 GHz after i started the game and the performance was hampered. i had to install 3rd party application to solve it (rmclock). similar issue is with ATI X1900 drivers, the graphics card has 500/600 frequency in 2D and 600/600 in 3D. overclocking doesnt work after a game is started again and i had to change the GPU speed manually with ATI tool.
|
Matthew Johnson
Gallente Federation of Synthetic Persons YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 08:59:00 -
[13]
Did anyone try Vista 64bit? I am going to do a dual-boot, XP and vista, to test 64bit a little. But if EVE doesnŠt run at all under Vista 64bit, IŠll wait with it.
AMD 4400 64 X2 2Gig RAM Radeon 1600 btw
+++ Trade...good for you, good for me +++ |
Depko
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 14:25:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Matthew Johnson Did anyone try Vista 64bit? I am going to do a dual-boot, XP and vista, to test 64bit a little. But if EVE doesnŠt run at all under Vista 64bit, IŠll wait with it.
AMD 4400 64 X2 2Gig RAM Radeon 1600 btw
tried VISTA 64bit. there was no native 64bit application, except the 64bit internet explorer available. the 32bit drivers (e.g for old webcam) didnt work for 64bit windows. video codecs had problems, hamachi too. but the EVE client did run without problems.
|
Teemu Rihianen
Gallente DaHOOD Communication
|
Posted - 2007.02.06 21:57:00 -
[15]
I upgraded to vista 64 and i must say that running 3 clients in vista 64 instead of xp32 is SLOW!!! fps. often is below 5 in vista and in xp it was at least 15. - - - Where did the sun go?! ME WANT IT BAAAACK! |
Claude Leon
Gallente Ixion Defence Systems The Cyrene Initiative
|
Posted - 2007.02.07 02:53:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Teemu Rihianen I upgraded to vista 64 and i must say that running 3 clients in vista 64 instead of xp32 is SLOW!!! fps. often is below 5 in vista and in xp it was at least 15.
Get use to having no support for Vista64. ANYWAY, I am having no problems running Vista Home Prem. As of right now, EVE uses 251,780k of memory.
|
RiotRick
Black-Sun
|
Posted - 2007.02.10 20:21:00 -
[17]
I have EVE running on a laptop: centrino 1,73ghz, 1Gb ram, ATI x700 mobility 64mb. Eve runs fine on XP. Last week I tried to run EVE on a laptop of my collegue, it has the same specs only a 128mb X700. He had just installed vista on it running aero glass and the latest ATI catalyst drivers. In station / empty space fps was just a tid bit lower than on my laptop, but nothing dramatic. Then I tried a belt which had 6 spawns in it, that's were the performance dropped to an unacceptable level. FPS dropped a lot, the game stuttered every now and then. Definately not a setup I would use in a fleet battle. So no vista for me for a while.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |