| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
   |
Posted - 2007.06.05 21:19:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Thanos Draicon
Originally by: Hatsim
Originally by: Frug
This discussion's been done to death and probably belongs in out of pod.
I can't think of any reason why you would want to run vista, or any advantages to having vista, other than support for future games which might require it. Cons being that it eats ram for no reason.
well with 4gb of ram it should not be a prob or ? since i only play on the computer i dont care will it preform good or bad or semi good ??? i need fps over 150 im at 20 now...
1. Technically you can't actually SEE FPS over 30.
2. Buy yourself said computer and put windows XP on it. It'll run just as well and not potentially break your hardware.
You can definitely see FPS over 30. 60-80 is the limit for most people.
I agree on the Windows XP part though. Vista doesn't offer even one feature that makes it superior to XP, IMO.
--23 Member--
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 21:21:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 05/06/2007 21:22:18
Originally by: PirateShampoo
Vista Ultimate x64 Quad Processor, 4gb ram. Vista runs multiple eve clients far better than XP did (presuming a lot of multi core optimizations in Vista that are not in XP).
I'm guessing its because of two reasons:
1. 64-bit operating systems can address more memory--32-bit OSs are limited to about 2.8GB of memory (at least with Windows).
2. Vista's graphics overlay system might be sharing graphics load somewhat better than XP. This might improve multiclient performance if its GPU-limited.
It may also be because Vista sets the disk cache to max out at total memory size, using "SuperCache". XP has the same, but its not on by default, so unless you set that on XP you'll notice a definite difference when moving to Vista.
--23 Member--
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 21:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: PirateShampoo
I was refering to x64 xp, so its not the addressable memory thing, I always was able to address all 4gb, you could be right on superfetch tho, it's the same data for each eve client.
Yup, if you have enough memory, Windows can load all of EVE into the disk cache in memory.
To set the setting in XP, go to My Computer/Properties/Advanced/Performance Settings/Advanced/Memory Usage and choose "System Cache".
--23 Member--
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 21:32:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 05/06/2007 21:31:34
Originally by: Alrione
Oh and there is second superior thing in vista as compared to xp. Apart from chess, its network performance is greatly improoved 
I tried a friend's Vista machine and the only improvement I saw was that it didn't hang up the whole window when searching for network computers, it just had a little loading bar. It still took well over a minute to find my computer on the network, just as long as the XP box.
An improvement sure, but not really that considerable. It would be nice if Windows machines actually reliably found other machines on a local network in less than 30 seconds.
--23 Member--
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.05 23:06:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 05/06/2007 23:04:45
Originally by: JoDirt
Originally by: Frug
This discussion's been done to death and probably belongs in out of pod.
I can't think of any reason why you would want to run vista, or any advantages to having vista, other than support for future games which might require it. Cons being that it eats ram for no reason.
Random Memory Addressing
Random SID assignment
More detailed process control UI
to name a few.
and the usual dx10 blah blah.. oh and pretty :p
anyhow, Eve runs fine on my Lenovo Laptop running Vista 32 Business.
I don't understand how the top two are improvements. The process control UI is still far, far inferior to Process Explorer (Microsoft's own process manager they've released!), so that isn't an improvement either 
<plug>Process Explorer</plug> 
--23 Member--
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 02:03:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/06/2007 02:02:44
Originally by: JoDirt
Buffer overflows can be perpetrated via predictable memory addressing. So by randomizing the addressing you take away that predictable element or make it HIGHLY unlikely.
Buffer overflows aren't even affected by memory addressing because they act within the address space of a single program.
You're thinking of a specific type of buffer overflow called the Return-to-libc attack, which rather than injecting malicious code into a program (what most buffer overflows do), it uses a buffer overflow to call an existing function in the system itself.
Its an improvement, but apparently the hackers have already found some ways around it (from what I heard) even though it only affects certain attacks.
--23 Member--
|
| |
|