The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
vista constipation
crake
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Got a new laptop recently. It's specs are nothing to write home about, but it's still quite a bit better then my last computer. This laptop is a dual core with a gig of ram. Now, the problem that everyone knows about - gaming and vista don't mix.
I've read that due to some of it's security features, the frame rate is slowed way down in games. Is there a way to resolve this in settings somewhere?
I've also read that there are plenty of driver problems. Now I haven't actually experienced any direct driver problems (yet), but I'm wondering if this can tie into the frame rate issue too? What about directX? Could I switch back to 9? Would it help?
Lastly, I read here in an old thread (that I decided against reviving) that you can apparently put in some flash memory to help increase ram. Is that really feasible? Does it really make a worthwhile difference? (that thread didn't go into detail)
I'd rather not switch back to xp or dual boot, as either option requires me going out and spending way too much money to buy it. (the start up disks from the old computer are non-transferable)
I've read that due to some of it's security features, the frame rate is slowed way down in games. Is there a way to resolve this in settings somewhere?
I've also read that there are plenty of driver problems. Now I haven't actually experienced any direct driver problems (yet), but I'm wondering if this can tie into the frame rate issue too? What about directX? Could I switch back to 9? Would it help?
Lastly, I read here in an old thread (that I decided against reviving) that you can apparently put in some flash memory to help increase ram. Is that really feasible? Does it really make a worthwhile difference? (that thread didn't go into detail)
I'd rather not switch back to xp or dual boot, as either option requires me going out and spending way too much money to buy it. (the start up disks from the old computer are non-transferable)
crake on
0
Posts
There's nothing security (or DRM) related that you can turn off that will give you more FPS in games, but there are probably plenty of Vista tweak guides out there.
You shouldn't see a lot of issues at this point, the OS had like a year long public beta and now it's been out for a while retail.
Early DirectX 10 games will likely have a DirectX 9 "rendering path" for DX9 cards to use, but if you have a DX10 card I am not sure how you force it to use DX9. If you have a DX10 card though, using DX9 rendering is not going to increase the frame rate, it will just lose some of the effects. In fact there are DX10 features created specifically for increasing performance, so dropping back to 9 is probably going to do the opposite of what you want -- it will probably reduce performance.
Yep, that's a feature called ReadyBoost; if you Google that you can find out more. It does help, but not as much as real additional RAM, and if you already have 1GB of RAM you might not notice the difference anyway.
Unless you spent a lot getting the upgraded vid card option (via dell or any other custom comp) then you are pretty much increasing the wrong thing.
A ton of ram helps, as does the dual core... but when you are running the equivilent of a 2 year old video card, with 1/2 the pipelines, etc of a desktop version.. you are not doing too well.
Vista DRM is present .. but I bet you have yet to run into the problem.. and it really has no effect on framerate.
The bigger culprit is yor video drivers... ATI has very good vista versions, and i think Nvidia JUST put out fairly decent ones after many false starts
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
Unless you spent big $$ to specifically get a great card installed. You will have issues. if you have a modern laptop and you are trying to play doom 1, etc ... look towards drivers.
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
But if you had 128MB of RAM, Windows XP ran like a dead sloth frozen in molassis?
Ya, the recommended specs for Vista is 512MB of RAM for the lightest version, and 1GB for Ultimate. I'd say the only safe bet is a minimum of 2GB.
And as someone who has been and continues to beta test Vista, I'd say it may be worth buying by the time they get a Service Pack released for it.
I'm still recommending to friends and family that they request XP if they build or buy new computers, especially notebooks.
1GB is completely reasonable, as you'll have about half of that free at any given time even if you are using a bunch of desktop apps. I might go to 2GB for power users or gamers, but calling it "the only safe bet" is just...well a lie.
I use Vista Ultimate on a Pentium 4 with 1GB RAM, and with the few days of uptime on this box, I have Firefox, Gaim/Pidgin, Google Desktop, and Thunderbird running, and my RAM usage is 591MB. I haven't done any tweaking to the default set of services that are running. Keep in mind also that Vista aggressively uses available RAM for caching binary images so that all possible RAM is being used, for better performance (the same way OSX has been doing for quite some time now). So the RAM usage can't be compared apples-to-apples with XP.
DirectX 10 and the security features alone make Vista a better choice for the new purchaser, but the Aero desktop UI, better standby/power-saving behavior, and other stuff makes it a no-brainer. The only negative about Vista is that they tarted it up with DRM bullshit, but if that bothers you, just don't pay for DRM content. The content providers will eventually get the message.
I don't know what people think they're benefiting from when they say they'll wait for the first service pack. If you're thinking it will be cheaper by that point, it probably won't be that much cheaper. If you think it will be more secure then, well it's already more secure than XP is now. If you think it will be more stable or less buggy, you're waiting for nothing because it works great right now.
[note: I only use OSX at home but have Vista on a work box and am a fan of both]