Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Flame on: Windows Vista

13468931

Posts

  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Rolo wrote: »
    lots of bitching about something you can just turn off

    if you are the annoyed user... and the 'administrator' of that machine... you reap what you sow... so turn UAC off for yourself

    on my machine it's off for me and ON for my wife's user account

    I know dude, why bitch about an uncomfortable seat belt when you can just drive without one, right?

    And really it's okay if condoms don't fit properly on my wang, I'll just take my risks with unprotected sex.
    car and sex analogy in the same post

    thread done then i guess unless someone has a valid point
    No, he's right. You're just dumb.

    Zoolander on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Zoolander wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    lots of bitching about something you can just turn off

    if you are the annoyed user... and the 'administrator' of that machine... you reap what you sow... so turn UAC off for yourself

    on my machine it's off for me and ON for my wife's user account

    I know dude, why bitch about an uncomfortable seat belt when you can just drive without one, right?

    And really it's okay if condoms don't fit properly on my wang, I'll just take my risks with unprotected sex.
    car and sex analogy in the same post

    thread done then i guess unless someone has a valid point
    No, he's right. You're just dumb.

    It'll be great when something installs itself because UAC is off on his account and he takes it out on his wife because them dumb women just can't be trusted not to fuck up his computer.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I really like Vista, but you will see slightly better gaming performance (probably along the lines of 3-5% better) with XP. SP1 might alleviate that.

    Dehumanized on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    I really like Vista, but you will see slightly better gaming performance (probably along the lines of 3-5% better) with Vista. SP1 might alleviate that.

    I think you mean "with XP".

    Honestly, if I was building a new machine and it didn't cost me any different between Vista or XP, I might go ahead with Vista. If I had an existing XP license from my prior machine though, I wouldn't bother with Vista. I simply don't see the sense in parting with money for something that still isn't quite there even by the most generous reviews.

    That might be different in six months or a year or it might not be. It could just go ME on everyone. As nice as it would be to be optimistic about SP1 improving matters, MS has released service packs that have been more trouble than good in the past.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • FaceballMcDougalFaceballMcDougal Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    DrDizaster wrote: »
    Zoolander wrote: »
    Rolo wrote: »
    lots of bitching about something you can just turn off

    if you are the annoyed user... and the 'administrator' of that machine... you reap what you sow... so turn UAC off for yourself

    on my machine it's off for me and ON for my wife's user account

    I know dude, why bitch about an uncomfortable seat belt when you can just drive without one, right?

    And really it's okay if condoms don't fit properly on my wang, I'll just take my risks with unprotected sex.
    car and sex analogy in the same post

    thread done then i guess unless someone has a valid point
    No, he's right. You're just dumb.

    It'll be great when something installs itself because UAC is off on his account and he takes it out on his wife because them dumb women just can't be trusted not to fuck up his computer.
    If we can move beyond the bullshit insults... I was trying to make a suggestion.

    The gripe is that UAC is annoying. The problem is that UAC is there for users who may be a little more careless with their PC usage and browsing.

    My solution at home is to give my wife a login, and have a login for house guests... both with permissions that make sense. If my wife needs to install something... she simply asks me to do it... or I come in and punch in the password. Since our PC is a pretty vital part of our existence (I don't just use it for games and porn like maybe most users here) she agrees that I should hold the keys since well... I do this for a living.

    If something manages to "install itself" on my admin account then I don't have anyone to blame but myself. I thought that was pretty clear.

    FaceballMcDougal on
    xbl/psn/steam: jabbertrack
  • FaceballMcDougalFaceballMcDougal Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I just realized the method that you turn UAC off only for 1 user is a bit buried and I didn't know you could at first.

    If anyone is interested here you go:
    Disable User Account Control (UAC) For The Administrator Account Only

    While the User Account Control (UAC) acts as a somewhat deterrent to users who are apt to attempt to make changes to the operating system, it can be a veritable pain for the administrator who is responsible for the day to day housekeeping, constantly badgering the administrator for the required permissions prior to an application performing its required job.

    However, by making a simple change in the Security options of Vista you can actually disable User Account Control (UAC) for the administrator account, but keep it in place for other users.

    1/ Click the Start Button

    2/ From the Start menu, Click All Programs followed by Accessories, then Run

    3/ In the Run dialogue box type: secpol.msc and then Click OK

    4/ User Account Control will prompt you for the necessary authorisation. Click Continue button

    5/ The Local Security Policies window now opens. This window is divided into a Left and Right hand pane

    6/ In the Left Hand pane look for the Local policies option and Click the > button to expand the list

    7/ From the expanded list, Click on Security options

    8/ In the Right hand pane you should see a list of available options (this is rather a long list)

    9/ Scroll towards the bottom of the list until you come to 'User account control: behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in admin approval mode'

    10/ Right Click on this option and Select Properties

    11/ In the Properties window, Click the drop down menu arrow and, from the available list, Select the 'Elevate without prompting' option and then Click OK

    12/ A warning message will appear in the notification area warning you that UAC has been turned off. This message will appear ever time you boot your PC unless you turn off the option to be notified of security alerts in the Security Center of Control panel

    13/ Finally, Close the Local security policy Window

    FaceballMcDougal on
    xbl/psn/steam: jabbertrack
  • SushisourceSushisource Registered User
    edited January 2008
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    Sushisource on
    Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
    kavinskysig.gif
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    DrDizaster wrote: »
    I really like Vista, but you will see slightly better gaming performance (probably along the lines of 3-5% better) with *XP. SP1 might alleviate that.

    I think you mean "with XP".

    Honestly, if I was building a new machine and it didn't cost me any different between Vista or XP, I might go ahead with Vista. If I had an existing XP license from my prior machine though, I wouldn't bother with Vista. I simply don't see the sense in parting with money for something that still isn't quite there even by the most generous reviews.

    That might be different in six months or a year or it might not be. It could just go ME on everyone. As nice as it would be to be optimistic about SP1 improving matters, MS has released service packs that have been more trouble than good in the past.

    Correct sir, thanks for catching that.

    Dehumanized on
  • halkunhalkun Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Nope, it's in Windows. It even does it for MS-DOS programs.


    nocert.png

    It asks even on 'verified publishers' on my Windows box, when it was working.

    This is not UAC. This is checking if the executable is signed. UAC halts all kernel execution, drops the background to a darker color, and pops up a box when you account has lesser credentials than what is needed by they system.

    The only time in windows XP SP2 where UAC-like functionality is shown is when you do a shutdown. In this case the background is halted and the "shutdown/restart" dialog box comes up.

    halkun on
    wVo0Rgr.png
  • LittleBootsLittleBoots Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    If I were you I would do some searching on the net to see if anyone is having any compatibility problems with the hardware you are going to buy and vista. Vista seems to have a wide range or "works perfectly for me" and "barely works at all for me" complaints on the net. I have the latter. I tried vista on my comp (not new hardware by any means but certainly enough to run Vista) AMD64 4000+, GeForce7800GT, Audigy2, Nforce4 mobo, 2gigs RAM, PATA HDDs and not only did vista have a problem playing MP3s without stuttering I saw a 10-20fps drop in TF2 under vista than XP. I went through 3 days of trying different driver combos and fixes and nothing worked. It seems to be a problem with MS getting rid of the HAL in Vista and my specific combination of hardware.

    My advice, do a lot of research before going with Vista as XP, though not as new and shiny, is a sure shot as far as compatibility and game performance.

    LittleBoots on

    Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    halkun wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Nope, it's in Windows. It even does it for MS-DOS programs.


    nocert.png

    It asks even on 'verified publishers' on my Windows box, when it was working.

    This is not UAC. This is checking if the executable is signed. UAC halts all kernel execution, drops the background to a darker color, and pops up a box when you account has lesser credentials than what is needed by they system.

    The only time in windows XP SP2 where UAC-like functionality is shown is when you do a shutdown. In this case the background is halted and the "shutdown/restart" dialog box comes up.

    Not only that, but UAC takes you to another environment, away from your user account and away from the system account. Taking you to a sandboxed security account where nothing exists but the process that wants to execute and the UAC dialog box giving you the choice to let it execute, or deny it's request.

    The faded background is just a darkened fullscreen snapshot of what you were last doing when the system level access request was triggered. UAC is a lot more than "just a dialog box", and most people don't know this.

    I guess the "snapshot" event should have been a bit more telling of what really goes on in the background. Like a 3D animation tastefully done that shows you being taken out of the system and User account environment. Too many people are lambasting UAC as just being an annoying little dialog box.

    Guess the dumbing down of the effect probably won out to keep the less experienced users from freaking out.

    victor_c26 on
    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • smallmouthsmallmouth Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah, the UAC is a good feature. And after most of your settings configured, you hardly see it. The first few days you use your system is not a good indication of how often you see it otherwise.

    smallmouth on
    PSN: smh17; Wii code: 0022 6537 1791 3136, Zune: smh17
  • PrimesghostPrimesghost Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    Umm, no. This information is incorrect. Take a look at the system requirements for most games released in the last few months. You'll notice a requirement for XP and another one for Vista. There's a reason for that, Vista is a resource hog compared to XP (sweet Jebus I never thought I'd say that.)

    Primesghost on
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Rolo wrote: »
    lots of bitching about something you can just turn off

    if you are the annoyed user... and the 'administrator' of that machine... you reap what you sow... so turn UAC off for yourself

    on my machine it's off for me and ON for my wife's user account

    I know dude, why bitch about an uncomfortable seat belt when you can just drive without one, right?

    And really it's okay if condoms don't fit properly on my wang, I'll just take my risks with unprotected sex.

    Ya, because those are really the same thing.

    Look, I run with UAC off. Had it off since day 1. And you know what, I haven't gotten a Virus. You know why? Because I'm not stupid on my computer. I'm careful with what I do. UAC is necessary for someone like my mother, who doesn't know what's really going on. I do agree that they need to improve how UAC works, but if they can ever hit the Apple/linux model, we'd have a winner, and I'd absolutely turn it back on.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • ViolyntViolynt regular
    edited January 2008
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    Umm, no. This information is incorrect. Take a look at the system requirements for most games released in the last few months. You'll notice a requirement for XP and another one for Vista. There's a reason for that, Vista is a resource hog compared to XP (sweet Jebus I never thought I'd say that.)


    What?

    Violynt on
    f4ded.png
    violynt.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Violynt wrote: »
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    Umm, no. This information is incorrect. Take a look at the system requirements for most games released in the last few months. You'll notice a requirement for XP and another one for Vista. There's a reason for that, Vista is a resource hog compared to XP (sweet Jebus I never thought I'd say that.)


    What?

    Counter! I use Vista now. It has the same if not more potential than XP did when it was initially released. However if XPs newest service pack lives up to the hype I might have to go back to dual booting. I had my first hardware imcompatibility though. My bluetooth dongle doesn't work :(.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ya, Vista does require more resources to use than XP. Just like XP needed more than 2000, 2000 needed more than ME, ME needed more than 98, 98 needed more than 95, 95 needed more than 3.1........seeing a trend here?

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    Violynt wrote: »
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    Umm, no. This information is incorrect. Take a look at the system requirements for most games released in the last few months. You'll notice a requirement for XP and another one for Vista. There's a reason for that, Vista is a resource hog compared to XP (sweet Jebus I never thought I'd say that.)


    What?

    Counter! I use Vista now. It has the same if not more potential than XP did when it was initially released. However if XPs newest service pack lives up to the hype I might have to go back to dual booting. I had my first hardware imcompatibility though. My bluetooth dongle doesn't work :(.

    What hype on XP SP3? As far as I know all it will do is include all previous updates, introduce UAC to XP, and have like a 3-5% performance gain. I don't exactly call that earth shattering(and actually, UAC takes it down a peg or three)

    I agree that it'll be nice to have the update rollup, and a nice way to tie up a few loose ends that still exist in XP, but I'm not all that excited for it.

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    Violynt wrote: »

    Counter! I use Vista now. It has the same if not more potential than XP did when it was initially released. However if XPs newest service pack lives up to the hype I might have to go back to dual booting. I had my first hardware imcompatibility though. My bluetooth dongle doesn't work :(.

    The second article is older than the first; July of 07 was still in the first few generations of drivers, and before any of the performance patches.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Shhh. Also I guess all of the stuff I've read about SP3 has to do specifically with Microsoft Office.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah, on average Vista is about 2% slower in most games, slightly faster in select newer ones depending on the rendering path you're using (you'll want DX9).

    Brolo on
  • SushisourceSushisource Registered User
    edited January 2008
    Basically, the only time you will notice slowdown in vista is if you already have a system that's on the very edge of being slow in XP.

    Sushisource on
    Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
    kavinskysig.gif
  • Monkey Ball WarriorMonkey Ball Warrior A collection of mediocre hats Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Basically, the only time you will notice slowdown in vista is if you already have a system that's on the very edge of being slow in XP.

    Well, I'm still upset about how slow XP is. I was hoping, a few years ago, that the new windows would be more optimized.

    When it became obvious that that wasn't the direction MS was going with this I was fairly disappointed.

    There's no reason an operating system should get slower over time.

    I'm looking at you apple. and shaking my finger.

    Monkey Ball Warrior on
    "I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
  • PrimesghostPrimesghost Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    Violynt wrote: »
    I realize this is the 'Let's hate on Vista' thread, but I'm building a new PC for gaming and I'm wondering whether it's better to get Vista, or keep XP and upgrade to Vista when it's necessary.
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    Umm, no. This information is incorrect. Take a look at the system requirements for most games released in the last few months. You'll notice a requirement for XP and another one for Vista. There's a reason for that, Vista is a resource hog compared to XP (sweet Jebus I never thought I'd say that.)


    What?

    Counter! I use Vista now. It has the same if not more potential than XP did when it was initially released. However if XPs newest service pack lives up to the hype I might have to go back to dual booting. I had my first hardware imcompatibility though. My bluetooth dongle doesn't work :(.

    What hype on XP SP3? As far as I know all it will do is include all previous updates, introduce UAC to XP, and have like a 3-5% performance gain. I don't exactly call that earth shattering(and actually, UAC takes it down a peg or three)

    I agree that it'll be nice to have the update rollup, and a nice way to tie up a few loose ends that still exist in XP, but I'm not all that excited for it.

    Personally I don't use artiles posted on the Net to tell me what to think about things. I tested it myself. On the day that Crysis was released I installed it on my computer at home. I wanted to see what the hype about DX10 was about so I did a clean install of Vista on an unused hard drive in my computer, downloaded the latest drivers and installed Crysis. It ran like crap at about 15 fps. I then booted into XP and installed it there. It ran like butter 40-50 fps. I don't need an article to tell there's a performance hit in Vista, I tested it myself and found it lacking.

    Primesghost on
  • ViolyntViolynt regular
    edited January 2008
    Well that's because you used DX10. It's not Vista, it's DX10 causing that performance drop.


    Edit: I would also like to see your specs.

    Violynt on
    f4ded.png
    violynt.png
  • FaceballMcDougalFaceballMcDougal Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Basically, the only time you will notice slowdown in vista is if you already have a system that's on the very edge of being slow in XP.

    Well, I'm still upset about how slow XP is. I was hoping, a few years ago, that the new windows would be more optimized.

    When it became obvious that that wasn't the direction MS was going with this I was fairly disappointed.

    There's no reason an operating system should get slower over time.

    I'm looking at you apple. and shaking my finger.
    I guess I have to ask... what makes you think this?

    Microsoft does have versions of Windows that are designed to run faster... Windows XP Embedded for example. For the versions of Windows we are talking about here though... the fundamental reason for these new versions is to take advantages of new hardware and technology.

    Ultimately you will see a benefit to the Vista platform as far as things that were developed with Vista in mind can run faster than if Vista was not in the picture.

    FaceballMcDougal on
    xbl/psn/steam: jabbertrack
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Anecdotally, my wife says CS3 is vastly faster on Vista than XP.

    Considering that Vista and XP are on par (from a gaming perspective) with XP having about three times as much driver development experience, I look forward to the potential Vista has. Especially 64-bit when games really start working with hyperthreading and push RAM usage.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • jonxpjonxp [E] PC Security Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Anecdotally, my wife says CS3 is vastly faster on Vista than XP.

    Considering that Vista and XP are on par (from a gaming perspective) with XP having about three times as much driver development experience, I look forward to the potential Vista has. Especially 64-bit when games really start working with hyperthreading and push RAM usage.

    That speedup is most likely due to readyboost and superfetch. Vista keeps often used files (including programs and their dependent libraries) cached in unused RAM so that when you need to perform an action everything is available in memory and much faster.

    If you are like me and a habitual multitasker, you can get even larger performance gains by using the readyboost on a flash drive option. If you have an available flash drive, Vista will copy much of your page file (where data goes when your RAM is full) to the flash drive, which has much faster seek times than your hard drive. This allows people who consistently work with "full" memory to have a better experience.

    jonxp on
    Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
    3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
    PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jonxp wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Anecdotally, my wife says CS3 is vastly faster on Vista than XP.

    Considering that Vista and XP are on par (from a gaming perspective) with XP having about three times as much driver development experience, I look forward to the potential Vista has. Especially 64-bit when games really start working with hyperthreading and push RAM usage.

    That speedup is most likely due to readyboost and superfetch. Vista keeps often used files (including programs and their dependent libraries) cached in unused RAM so that when you need to perform an action everything is available in memory and much faster.

    If you are like me and a habitual multitasker, you can get even larger performance gains by using the readyboost on a flash drive option. If you have an available flash drive, Vista will copy much of your page file (where data goes when your RAM is full) to the flash drive, which has much faster seek times than your hard drive. This allows people who consistently work with "full" memory to have a better experience.

    Prefetching, certainly, though she isn't using readyboost.

    I used readyboost quite a bit when my work machine had 1gb of RAM, but the gains are less spectacular on 2gb.

    Morskittar on
    snm_sig.jpg
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    jonxp wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Anecdotally, my wife says CS3 is vastly faster on Vista than XP.

    Considering that Vista and XP are on par (from a gaming perspective) with XP having about three times as much driver development experience, I look forward to the potential Vista has. Especially 64-bit when games really start working with hyperthreading and push RAM usage.

    That speedup is most likely due to readyboost and superfetch. Vista keeps often used files (including programs and their dependent libraries) cached in unused RAM so that when you need to perform an action everything is available in memory and much faster.

    If you are like me and a habitual multitasker, you can get even larger performance gains by using the readyboost on a flash drive option. If you have an available flash drive, Vista will copy much of your page file (where data goes when your RAM is full) to the flash drive, which has much faster seek times than your hard drive. This allows people who consistently work with "full" memory to have a better experience.

    Prefetching, certainly, though she isn't using readyboost.

    I used readyboost quite a bit when my work machine had 1gb of RAM, but the gains are less spectacular on 2gb.
    if you have 4 gigs of ram you can actually get negative gains with readyboost as it starts to cache stuff theres room for in the much faster ram onto the flashdrive D:

    taliosfalcon on
    WII U NNID- talios
    steam-taliosfalcon
    XBL-AdeptPenguin
  • jonxpjonxp [E] PC Security Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Morskittar wrote: »
    jonxp wrote: »
    Morskittar wrote: »
    Anecdotally, my wife says CS3 is vastly faster on Vista than XP.

    Considering that Vista and XP are on par (from a gaming perspective) with XP having about three times as much driver development experience, I look forward to the potential Vista has. Especially 64-bit when games really start working with hyperthreading and push RAM usage.

    That speedup is most likely due to readyboost and superfetch. Vista keeps often used files (including programs and their dependent libraries) cached in unused RAM so that when you need to perform an action everything is available in memory and much faster.

    If you are like me and a habitual multitasker, you can get even larger performance gains by using the readyboost on a flash drive option. If you have an available flash drive, Vista will copy much of your page file (where data goes when your RAM is full) to the flash drive, which has much faster seek times than your hard drive. This allows people who consistently work with "full" memory to have a better experience.

    Prefetching, certainly, though she isn't using readyboost.

    I used readyboost quite a bit when my work machine had 1gb of RAM, but the gains are less spectacular on 2gb.
    if you have 4 gigs of ram you can actually get negative gains with readyboost as it starts to cache stuff theres room for in the much faster ram onto the flashdrive D:

    It depends on what you're doing. It only gives you performance gains if you are paging a lot. It mirrors your cache onto the flash drive (to a point, anyway) and won't be proactively trying to take stuff out of RAM to put there. It uses RAM first, then HD mirrored to Flash if available.

    jonxp on
    Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
    3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
    PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
  • MonoxideMonoxide Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    The problem with readyboost is that not all flash drives have fast enough read/write times to make it useful. It's supposed to test it when you plug in the drive and see if it's suitable for readyboost, but I've heard of a lot of drives that it just flat out fails to test.

    It just errors out, so people assume it's the test's fault (which it kind of is), and disable the test. Then they have their OS use their slow-as-hell flash drive as spare swap space, and it bogs down the whole machine. It's another instance of the people being the problem and not the Operating System, but it is something to consider before recommending readyboost.

    Monoxide on
  • FrabbaFrabba Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I really enjoy Vista. I wont deny that when it first came out there were tons of stories of OMG DRIVERS SKY FALLING, but by the time I updated (March 07), I was not hit by any of them. In fact, the ONLY issues I've had with installing hardware on vista came when I didn't follow instructions for installing a USB Bluetooth adapter. Other then that, the OS is spot on. Also, I don't mind the new office suite's either. I think I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had a stability problem, and mostly that came from just being too ambitious with my computing. Lesson learned: Do not try to rip/burn a dvd while playing EQ2 and WoW at the same time.

    Frabba on
    I'm big in Internet Spaceships.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Frabba wrote: »
    I really enjoy Vista. I wont deny that when it first came out there were tons of stories of OMG DRIVERS SKY FALLING, but by the time I updated (March 07), I was not hit by any of them. In fact, the ONLY issues I've had with installing hardware on vista came when I didn't follow instructions for installing a USB Bluetooth adapter. Other then that, the OS is spot on. Also, I don't mind the new office suite's either. I think I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had a stability problem, and mostly that came from just being too ambitious with my computing. Lesson learned: Do not try to rip/burn a dvd while playing EQ2 and WoW at the same time.

    Nah man, you just need more memory.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • FrabbaFrabba Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    Frabba wrote: »
    I really enjoy Vista. I wont deny that when it first came out there were tons of stories of OMG DRIVERS SKY FALLING, but by the time I updated (March 07), I was not hit by any of them. In fact, the ONLY issues I've had with installing hardware on vista came when I didn't follow instructions for installing a USB Bluetooth adapter. Other then that, the OS is spot on. Also, I don't mind the new office suite's either. I think I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had a stability problem, and mostly that came from just being too ambitious with my computing. Lesson learned: Do not try to rip/burn a dvd while playing EQ2 and WoW at the same time.

    Nah man, you just need more memory.

    my current comp has 3 gigs, next ones gonna have 8. \o/ and I'm pretty sure it was either my vid card or processor that capped, especially given the way EQ2 binds to a single core.

    Frabba on
    I'm big in Internet Spaceships.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah, I harking back to the days when every problem could be overcome with 'moar memory'. I wish there was a way to make old games compatible with multiple cores. I mean, it's not like Sim City 4 is stressing my system, but the thought that it is running as efficiently as it could just rubs me the wrong way on some level.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • FrabbaFrabba Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Multi core capable Theme Hospital pls k tnks.

    Back on topic: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758&tag=nl.e550

    Frabba on
    I'm big in Internet Spaceships.
  • PrimesghostPrimesghost Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Violynt wrote: »
    Well that's because you used DX10. It's not Vista, it's DX10 causing that performance drop.


    Edit: I would also like to see your specs.

    What do my system specs have to do with anything? The statement I responded to was:
    Get Vista. It's a better operating system. Gaming performance hits are negligible at worst.

    This statement is false as I'm sure anyone would agree with. In a 1:1 scenario, that is one computer running clean XP and then the exact same computer running clean Vista, The XP computer will out perform the Vista computer every time.

    A more accurate statement would have been:

    "Get Vista, I like it more. Gaming won't be a problem as long as you make sure you have the current generation of CPU and video card as well as 2-4gb of memory."

    Primesghost on
  • ViolyntViolynt regular
    edited January 2008
    Alot of things, Nvidia drivers at the time you might of tried Vista were awful and I'd also like to know the amount of RAM you have.

    I my self have used DX9 in Vista and XP and have found that the FPS is almost identical, 1-2 fps difference at times.

    Violynt on
    f4ded.png
    violynt.png
Sign In or Register to comment.