Vista firstly just pisses me off with its change of interface. It feels like you have to be both stupider and smarter to make it work.
It takes some getting used too, but after a while it's pretty obvious. Things like 'My Documents' renamed to 'Documents', or 'Add/Remove Programs' renamed to 'Programs and Features' are fairly sane changes imho. The only bit i'm not so keen on is the re-designed windows explorer...
As you say, Vista uses more memory and I have been given to understand that it's really impossible to keep it from doing that.
You can, though there's no please use less memory option. Instead, it's a case of finding out what features may be using the memory, and then disabling them (if you don't think they are useful). There are quite a few new things in Vista, and it took me quite a while to locate all of them. From the top of my head, things that may impinge performance:
1. shadow copies.
2. disk indexing.
3. system restore.
4. Disk caching.
5. Disk defragmentor.
Also be aware, that things like disk-defragmentor will run on a daily schedule by default. If you notice your hard drives grinding away, that's probably the reason (or it's the virus scanner). Again, you can disable that and run it manually as you would in XP.
I do find it hard to believe Vista gets the same performance as XP
It does when you turn off all the new features;)
In general though, it does seem to scale better than XP - especially the 64bit version. The more you throw at it, the better it performs.
The changes they have made, whilst they might annoy a power-user (and can be turned off), are generally geared towards a more reliable system for the masses. Given the number of people I've seen over the years with XP + crapware heaven + a drive that has never been de-fragged, I can only think it's a good thing (especially if it means they don't come knocking on my door every 6 months with a banjaxxed install of XP asking me to fix it).
Actually, for consumer hardware, an ATI 3650 is rather high-spec. The most common integrated graphics chips are about 5-10% as powerful as a 3650.
I know, it was bought because it's the cheapest DX10 AGP card available. The primary reason I added that was to enable blu-ray playback since an old Althalon was never going to handle that on it's own.
Put simply, if you have unused memory available, Vista will actually make some use of it in a relatively sane way. XP just swapped crap out to disk all the time, and would never fully utilise the available RAM instead preffering the crappy swap file to installed RAM.
If however you are not aware of this, when you first use vista your first impression will be look! Vista uses more memory than XP!! OMG!! It must be crap!!
I've heard a number of people say exactly the same thing about linux, for the exact same reason. Does that mean that linux is more bloated and memory hungry than XP? Or does it just make better use of it?
And I still do not run out of RAM. How is that decent? I say it's *awesome* configuration.
So what's your point exactly? I currently have a 2.1Ghz duo, + 2Gb's ram, with 4 instances of VC++, a copy of Maya and a copy of Max running. I'm not out of memory on Vista either. So what's your point exactly?
So, 2 core 2 Gigs is many times more that average user would ever need if they use XP. If you say it's only 'decent' for Vista, then it is in fact pathetic.
But it's what an average user will be buying whether they like it or not. It's pretty difficult to buy a lower specced machine these days. You also seemed to have missed the bit I wrote underneath about the 32bit single core, 1.6Ghz Athalon. (that or you have selective hearing).
It's slower than XP in any case and requires more memory.
Not true. It uses more memory than XP, but it doesn't require it. In exactly the same way that linux uses more memory than XP, but doesn't require it (it's used for system cache if you bother to check). If you actually install the 64bit version, you'll see where MS's development budget has been spent (The 32bit version of vista feels a bit like Win ME in comparison). In every test I've done, 64bit vista has crapped all over XP from quite a big height.
The problem is I don't consider decent hardware to be something an IT'er would buy
Dual core machine + 2Gb ram + integrated ATI/Nvidia/Intel X4500 GPU is more than adequate. These are pretty basic machine specs by anyone's standard, and tbh you'd be hard pressed to find a brand new machine for sale with lower specs than that.
The worst machine I've installed vista on was an old 1.6Ghz Athalon XP. It was more than happy playing blu-ray disks, and didn't perform any worse than XP. (though I did add an ATI 3650 AGP card to help out with the blu-ray decoding). That's what, a 5year old machine and a £50 upgraded graphics card.... Not exactly high end spec I must say.
I have never in my lifetime managed to banjax an install of firefox/Safari/IE to the point it wouldn't work or un-install, which begs the question: what the hell are you doing to it? (If i didn't know any better, I'd suspect the cause maybe downloading too much pron?)
I don't like the guy's games, but I think the industry is better for his involvement.
If on average it takes you 5+ years of development for each title you release, and in doing so you use up all of your own money, and all of the money from VC's, end up filing for bankruptcy, and then hand out P45's to your employees before being rescued at the last minute by Microsoft; I think it's pretty easy to make the case that people working in the industry in the guildford area would be better off without him.
You've got to give the man credit for the early bullfrog games, but to ignore all of his recent failings is taking a slightly blinkered view of the man imho.
Fable and Black & White are good examples of this.
I always read Fable as 'feck, B&W sales are not good, we need to get a more commercial offering out there to start making some money'...
Look at how Black & White, which was undoubtedly one of the most broken experiences ever to be marketed as a leisure activity, laid down much of the groundwork for the modern virtual pet genre, which is seriously big money now.
ever been on holiday for a few weeks to find your car battery flat when you return? Need to replace/re-charge your battery? Then simply open the car door via the battery powered handle that pops up's when your battery powered RFID key is in range. When you've done that, pull the handle to pop the hood to change the battery. I have a feeling there may be a design flaw in there somewhere...
Anyhow, my original point: If my car battery is flat, the electronic key does not work (but that's ok because I have a normal one). If you have an electronic key (without a normal one) and you have a flat car battery.... How do you open the car door, to open the bonnet, to replace or re-charge the battery?
Intel has the largest share of the GPU market, so I'm not sure what makes you thin they can't compete.... link. Sure there hardware isn't anything to write home about, but if it can handle aero and blu-ray playback, it's more than enough for 99% of PC users...
Deluxe Paint 4. I still know professional artists in the FilmFX and games industries who still use it now for texturing work (via an emulator obviously...).
It also has vastly increased memory bandwidth (3600 vs 2000), a much improved CPU cache, support for faster RAM, uses less power (95 vs 125W), has a 65nm die instead of a 90nm one, works in AM2+ motherboards, and contains the latest set of SIMD extensions. The 6400+ maybe slightly faster (as this shows), however it is twice the price of the 7750 for not a lot of benefit. (and the 7750 overclocks better than the 6400)
With that in mind, I'd imagine the 7750 would have been solidly beaten the 6400+ CPU in all of the performance/$ graphs in the original article...
The only place dual core would really help most people with typical single-threaded apps is if they run at least two copies of programs heavy on number crunching but light on I/O and memory bandwidth
Not true, one core runs at 100% for the app you're trying to run, the other runs at about 90% with crapware, virus scanners, limewire or whatever crap the kiddies are installing on their PC's these days. As far as your average user goes, they probably will see a doubling of performance...
It's all well and good being able to charge a battery in 4.5 second, but it's not going to help you when your battery has run out and it's at least 2 hours until you're near a plug socket again.....
Pfft! Our webserver is using C90 cassette tapes as it's primary storage. I started re-booting it in July, and I swear the first thing I'm going to do is defragment those frickin tapes when it's done....
It'll take 30 mins for the court clerk to rummage around in some old case notes until they can find a previous case that set a precedent. If it's a relatively minor case, it'll normally be heard court in the morning - so you can be sure the judge(s) will have mild hunger pangs.
If you were a judge, would you want to be late for your date with an M&S sandwich? Or just let the guy speak for 10 mins ?
Slashdot Mirror
Vista firstly just pisses me off with its change of interface. It feels like you have to be both stupider and smarter to make it work.
It takes some getting used too, but after a while it's pretty obvious. Things like 'My Documents' renamed to 'Documents', or 'Add/Remove Programs' renamed to 'Programs and Features' are fairly sane changes imho. The only bit i'm not so keen on is the re-designed windows explorer...
As you say, Vista uses more memory and I have been given to understand that it's really impossible to keep it from doing that.
You can, though there's no please use less memory option. Instead, it's a case of finding out what features may be using the memory, and then disabling them (if you don't think they are useful). There are quite a few new things in Vista, and it took me quite a while to locate all of them. From the top of my head, things that may impinge performance: 1. shadow copies. 2. disk indexing. 3. system restore. 4. Disk caching. 5. Disk defragmentor. Also be aware, that things like disk-defragmentor will run on a daily schedule by default. If you notice your hard drives grinding away, that's probably the reason (or it's the virus scanner). Again, you can disable that and run it manually as you would in XP.
I do find it hard to believe Vista gets the same performance as XP
It does when you turn off all the new features ;)
In general though, it does seem to scale better than XP - especially the 64bit version. The more you throw at it, the better it performs.
The changes they have made, whilst they might annoy a power-user (and can be turned off), are generally geared towards a more reliable system for the masses. Given the number of people I've seen over the years with XP + crapware heaven + a drive that has never been de-fragged, I can only think it's a good thing (especially if it means they don't come knocking on my door every 6 months with a banjaxxed install of XP asking me to fix it).
Actually, for consumer hardware, an ATI 3650 is rather high-spec. The most common integrated graphics chips are about 5-10% as powerful as a 3650.
I know, it was bought because it's the cheapest DX10 AGP card available. The primary reason I added that was to enable blu-ray playback since an old Althalon was never going to handle that on it's own.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Put simply, if you have unused memory available, Vista will actually make some use of it in a relatively sane way. XP just swapped crap out to disk all the time, and would never fully utilise the available RAM instead preffering the crappy swap file to installed RAM. If however you are not aware of this, when you first use vista your first impression will be look! Vista uses more memory than XP!! OMG!! It must be crap!!
I've heard a number of people say exactly the same thing about linux, for the exact same reason. Does that mean that linux is more bloated and memory hungry than XP? Or does it just make better use of it?
And I still do not run out of RAM. How is that decent? I say it's *awesome* configuration.
So what's your point exactly? I currently have a 2.1Ghz duo, + 2Gb's ram, with 4 instances of VC++, a copy of Maya and a copy of Max running. I'm not out of memory on Vista either. So what's your point exactly?
So, 2 core 2 Gigs is many times more that average user would ever need if they use XP. If you say it's only 'decent' for Vista, then it is in fact pathetic.
But it's what an average user will be buying whether they like it or not. It's pretty difficult to buy a lower specced machine these days.
You also seemed to have missed the bit I wrote underneath about the 32bit single core, 1.6Ghz Athalon. (that or you have selective hearing).
It's slower than XP in any case and requires more memory.
Not true. It uses more memory than XP, but it doesn't require it. In exactly the same way that linux uses more memory than XP, but doesn't require it (it's used for system cache if you bother to check). If you actually install the 64bit version, you'll see where MS's development budget has been spent (The 32bit version of vista feels a bit like Win ME in comparison). In every test I've done, 64bit vista has crapped all over XP from quite a big height.
The problem is I don't consider decent hardware to be something an IT'er would buy
Dual core machine + 2Gb ram + integrated ATI/Nvidia/Intel X4500 GPU is more than adequate. These are pretty basic machine specs by anyone's standard, and tbh you'd be hard pressed to find a brand new machine for sale with lower specs than that.
The worst machine I've installed vista on was an old 1.6Ghz Athalon XP. It was more than happy playing blu-ray disks, and didn't perform any worse than XP. (though I did add an ATI 3650 AGP card to help out with the blu-ray decoding). That's what, a 5year old machine and a £50 upgraded graphics card.... Not exactly high end spec I must say.
I have never in my lifetime managed to banjax an install of firefox/Safari/IE to the point it wouldn't work or un-install, which begs the question: what the hell are you doing to it? (If i didn't know any better, I'd suspect the cause maybe downloading too much pron?)
Does anyone knows how opencl is supposed to work in windows or linux?
In the exact same way that it'll work on Mac.
I don't like the guy's games, but I think the industry is better for his involvement.
If on average it takes you 5+ years of development for each title you release, and in doing so you use up all of your own money, and all of the money from VC's, end up filing for bankruptcy, and then hand out P45's to your employees before being rescued at the last minute by Microsoft; I think it's pretty easy to make the case that people working in the industry in the guildford area would be better off without him.
You've got to give the man credit for the early bullfrog games, but to ignore all of his recent failings is taking a slightly blinkered view of the man imho.
Fable and Black & White are good examples of this.
I always read Fable as 'feck, B&W sales are not good, we need to get a more commercial offering out there to start making some money'...
Look at how Black & White, which was undoubtedly one of the most broken experiences ever to be marketed as a leisure activity, laid down much of the groundwork for the modern virtual pet genre, which is seriously big money now.
No, it really didn't. B&W came five years later.
ever been on holiday for a few weeks to find your car battery flat when you return? Need to replace/re-charge your battery? Then simply open the car door via the battery powered handle that pops up's when your battery powered RFID key is in range. When you've done that, pull the handle to pop the hood to change the battery. I have a feeling there may be a design flaw in there somewhere...
Wut? You think lexus and prius are electric cars?
Anyhow, my original point: If my car battery is flat, the electronic key does not work (but that's ok because I have a normal one). If you have an electronic key (without a normal one) and you have a flat car battery.... How do you open the car door, to open the bonnet, to replace or re-charge the battery?
Intel has the largest share of the GPU market, so I'm not sure what makes you thin they can't compete .... link. Sure there hardware isn't anything to write home about, but if it can handle aero and blu-ray playback, it's more than enough for 99% of PC users...
One word: Itanium.
How well does it work if the car battery is flat?
So you're saying that the car door will both be open and closed at the same time?
3rd even. can't count today.
I'd argue that windows ME was the 4th service pack of 95 tbh.... (95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> ME?)
Deluxe Paint 4. I still know professional artists in the FilmFX and games industries who still use it now for texturing work (via an emulator obviously...).
It also has vastly increased memory bandwidth (3600 vs 2000), a much improved CPU cache, support for faster RAM, uses less power (95 vs 125W), has a 65nm die instead of a 90nm one, works in AM2+ motherboards, and contains the latest set of SIMD extensions. The 6400+ maybe slightly faster (as this shows), however it is twice the price of the 7750 for not a lot of benefit. (and the 7750 overclocks better than the 6400)
With that in mind, I'd imagine the 7750 would have been solidly beaten the 6400+ CPU in all of the performance/$ graphs in the original article...
The only place dual core would really help most people with typical single-threaded apps is if they run at least two copies of programs heavy on number crunching but light on I/O and memory bandwidth
Not true, one core runs at 100% for the app you're trying to run, the other runs at about 90% with crapware, virus scanners, limewire or whatever crap the kiddies are installing on their PC's these days. As far as your average user goes, they probably will see a doubling of performance...
Of course, they might be lying about being honest about not being honest...
It's all well and good being able to charge a battery in 4.5 second, but it's not going to help you when your battery has run out and it's at least 2 hours until you're near a plug socket again.....
A visit from the local environmental health department telling you to turn it down?
Pfft! Our webserver is using C90 cassette tapes as it's primary storage. I started re-booting it in July, and I swear the first thing I'm going to do is defragment those frickin tapes when it's done....
It'll take 30 mins for the court clerk to rummage around in some old case notes until they can find a previous case that set a precedent. If it's a relatively minor case, it'll normally be heard court in the morning - so you can be sure the judge(s) will have mild hunger pangs.
If you were a judge, would you want to be late for your date with an M&S sandwich? Or just let the guy speak for 10 mins ?
I would have thought the pinto would be a better comparison.... ;)
As of today I can compile and execute a DX11 compute shader.
As of today I cannot compile and execute an OpenCL shader.
So what part of my assertion that there is no compute shader equivalent in GL just yet do you disagree with exactly?