Support NeoGAF

[RSLAEV]

VISTA DEFENSE FORCE, ASSEMBLE!

JK I'm running XP-feeling fine like wine. DX 11 sounds nice but unless they release a High Rez pack for WoW that requires DX 11 or windows 7 then no one's going to use it. I can do everything I need with XP, and unfortunately I don't have any reason at all to upgrade to a new OS.

 

[brain_stew]

why are people so fucking anal about os memory usage, if you have 4gb or 8gb of ram do you not want it to take advantage of this? you just want it to be sat idle yeah? name me a game that uses above 3gb

These people simply don't understand how a modern OS works. RAM that is sat idle is worthless. The fact that Vista and Windows 7, loads it with as much as possible is a good thing, and works wonders for load times. The more RAM you have, the more Vista/7 will use, and the more RAM Vista/7 uses, the faster everything will run.

 

[SonComet]

Well that was uncalled for. I just used Pixar as an example as that there is no hardware that can satisfy the realm of animation. And while my stuff isn't as detailed as say Miyazaki's films they are enough to the point where I get to a certain length of time or have significant amount of detail on the screen.

And the version of XP I have runs my RAM fine and eats less of it then Vista 64 would.

Why not get another 2X2GB sticks for really cheap if you need even more ram? 4GB is fine for gaming, but it sounds like you would benefit a lot from the 50-60 dollar expense.


On another note, I have been running Vista since the second beta. I tried the first but it was unusable. The 32bit version ran just fine before sp1, but due to a late 07 computer upgrade I switched to the 64bit version. That has run great since sp1 resolved a few little kinks that would annoy me. Specs are q6600 @3GHZ, 4GB DDR2-800, GTX 280, X-Fi Xtrememusic, 640GB WD HDD, Samsung DVD burner, and I think that's it. Runs Vista fantastically. I am excited to build a new comp (upgrade ever other year) and buy windows 7 later this year, just because I love trying new OSes. The Beta did not really impress me. It felt like Vista with a new coat of paint. It may be more than that, but for my uses that's what it was. Still can't wait though.

 

[brain_stew]

There isn't any amount of memory for sale (whether it's to render 3D textures, load 2D textures, or load frames) that is enough for animation. The less memory used for other things (such as the OS) and the more I have is just simply a bigger bandaid.

EDIT - And oh I'm using an 8800GT, 4GB (2 x 2), Q6600 Quad-Core, Windows XP, 650W Custom Built (by me) desktop.

You're running a 32 bit OS and complaining about lack of free memory? Do you realise how backwards that is? XP can't even see more than 3.25GB of your RAM, let alone use it effectively. You're curently limiting your animation programs to a max of 2GB per instance. How in anyway is that a better solution?

When Vista/7 fills up your RAM it doesn't just keep it there forever more, it gives it up if anything needs it. Memory management in Vista and Windows 7 is leaps and bounds above XP. That, really isn't debateable. If you were at all bothered about memory useage you would be running a modern 64 bit OS with 8GB of RAM (8GB of low latency, branded RAM can be had for less than $80, there are NO excuses to be burdened with anything less if free memory is important for your work).

 

[tino]

The initial hardware requirement of Crysis had a big hand in running the DirectX brand into the ground IMO.

People have learnt to game on slightly out of spec hardware is hard to get them back in the upgrading cycles.

 

[itxaka]

These people simply don't understand how a modern OS works. RAM that is sat idle is worthless. The fact that Vista and Windows 7, loads it with as much as possible is a good thing, and works wonders for load times. The more RAM you have, the more Vista/7 will use, and the more RAM Vista/7 uses, the faster everything will run.

An OS works managing the memory available to do the best use of it, not taking a huge hit on your ram and making you go buy another stick so you can run minesweeper on it. Optimization is a huge part on any OS. Win 7 is already proving it. More advanced OS, in beta but making an efficent use of the memory, even if you have 600MB of it it's gonna run fine.

It shows that they could have done it better on Vista but they failed and they stopped a lot of people jumping into Vista for it. I would have jump on it, but 1Gb it's not enough to make it run without dying 5 minutes later. Win 7 runs almost similar to winXP on my laptop, with all the advantages, that is why I will probably jump on it.

Stop thinking about a PC just like a console, there are hundreds of million pc's around not used for gaming and MS have to sell to every one of them.

 

[brain_stew]

Direct X10 was a joke. Here's to hoping they don't F up DX11. *tips glass half empty*

No it really wasn't. Ask any developer with extensive experience of the API and they'll ring its praises. Just have a look at the Beyond3D forums for proof of that. DirectX 9 games ported to DirectX 10 are a joke, but the problem is we really don't have many, if any, games developed around DirectX 10. Far Cry 2 was and that offers increased visual fidelity AND increased performance.

 

[zoku88]

Stop thinking about a PC just like a console, there are hundreds of million pc's around not used for gaming and MS have to sell to every one of them.

But MS makes most of its money from either businesses or from people buying OEM machines, not from people upgrading. So, obviously, MS thinks more about them than anything else.

Furthermore, you can blame some computers being underpowered by how OEMs and Intel have marketed computers in the first place. They make it seem like the processor is the most important variable in a computer for speed, but for Windows, at least, it really isn't.

Most OEMs are selling computers in which their RAM configuration becomes obsolete much faster than their processor.

EDIT: Btw, have you tried running Vista on a machine that had 1GB of RAM. Not an OEM install, but your own personal install?

Oh please, shut the hell up. Loads of uncomplete and buggy drivers were the main reason for the hate. And Microsoft *was* responsible for that.

How can they be responsible for other people's products?

 

[cedric69]

but FUD like this is why Vista got its undeserved hate in the first place

Oh please, shut the hell up. Loads of uncomplete and buggy drivers were the main reason for the hate. And Microsoft *was* responsible for that.

Also, why exactly should I've forked out new money for Vista? Tell me again, I must have missed what Vista people are doing with their PCs that I can't do on my XP SP3 one (Q6600, 2GB RAM). DX 10? It's been a joke (edit: looking at two posts above mine... FarCry 2 came out when? One month ago? And it's *one* game. Yeah, it's been a joke). What else?

 

[itxaka]

But MS makes most of its money from either businesses or from people buying OEM machines, not from people upgrading. So, obviously, MS thinks more about them than anything else

Furthermore, you can blame some computers being underpowered by how OEMs and Intel have marketed computers in the first place. They make it seem like the processor is the most important variable in a computer for speed, but for Windows, at least, it really isn't.

Most OEMs are selling computers in which their RAM configuration becomes obsolete much faster than their processor.

And what are all bussiness running rigth now? XP. They will need an upgrade in a few years and that is where the money comes in. You can refuse to get a license with your new computer to install a pirated version but bussiness needs the original licenses always.

Also, as you say, normally configurations are really low on ram, relegating it to a second place, and most bussiness have those configurations from Dell or HP, if MS wants to cater to them Vista is a no-no. You cannot spend hundreds of dollars getting new licences for all computers and add on top of that new ram for all of them. If MS offers a OS that can run really well in computers with 1/2Gb of ram, that is money that the bussiness doesn't have to spend on ram and can spend on other thing...like a office upgrade. Win-win for MS.

 

[zoku88]

And what are all bussiness running rigth now? XP.

That's because businesses are slow to upgrade. A lot of businesses still use 2000.

It's not really because of requirements. It's mainly a "it's a pain in the butt to upgrade."

EDIT: A lot of businesses are also afraid of software incompatibility as well.

 

[itxaka]

That's because businesses are slow to upgrade. A lot of businesses still use 2000.

It's not really because of requirements. It's mainly a "it's a pain in the butt to upgrade."

Damn tell me about it. Countless hours trying all apps on a laptop with a new OS installed on it is awesomly boring. I fucking hate it, only to see that you missed a small thing and have to redo all test again. ARRRGGGH

But believe me, requirements have a huge part on it. when you are talking about 500+ pc's even the most small thing like a usb stick changes into a huge amount of money and now with the financial crisis...let's say that the few machines we have still with 512Mb are gonna be like that for a looong time...all my request for upgrades are gonna be refused D:

 

[Nikorasu]

I love these threads.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

There isn't any amount of memory for sale (whether it's to render 3D textures, load 2D textures, or load frames) that is enough for animation. The less memory used for other things (such as the OS) and the more I have is just simply a bigger bandaid.

EDIT - And oh I'm using an 8800GT, 4GB (2 x 2), Q6600 Quad-Core, Windows XP, 650W Custom Built (by me) desktop.

If you are using XP, aren't you limited to a total of 3GB of memory? You can have 4GB, but doesn't the OS only utilize 3 of it?

If you upgraded to Vista or 7 and added another 4GB of memory, wouldn't you be over doubling your amount of usable memory even if your OS takes up 1GB or more?

 

[zoku88]

If you are using XP, aren't you limited to a total of 3GB of memory? You can have 4GB, but doesn't the OS only utilize 3 of it?

If you upgraded to Vista or 7 and added another 4GB of memory, wouldn't you be over doubling your amount of usable memory even if your OS takes up 1GB or more?

There are 64-bit versions of XP

Spoiler

Sure, the quality may be suspect. But that may have been because there weren't many 64-bit drivers back then.

EDIT: I was wondering about that, though. Why FP doesn't just double the amount of RAM he has.

 

[brain_stew]

If you are using XP, aren't you limited to a total of 3GB of memory? You can have 4GB, but doesn't the OS only utilize 3 of it?

If you upgraded to Vista or 7 and added another 4GB of memory, wouldn't you be over doubling your amount of usable memory even if your OS takes up 1GB or more?

The situation is even worse than that, in 32 bit Windows each individual program can't use more than 2GB of RAM. So if he made the upgrade to 8GB of RAM and Vista X64 he'd have between three and fours times as much addressable RAM. How one can argue that 32 bit XP is the OS of choice for memory hungry applications is beyond me.