Windows XP or Vista

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Gamers aren't mainstream users.

[CaptainKirk]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

The retail Vista disk can install 32 or 64 bit, but costs a deal more than the OEM disk (though less than buying 2 OEM disks). I hate 32 bit and love it dearly.

[=98=]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

I can never understand about when people complain about Vista's high memory use. Why would you pay for 4GB just to have it sit there doing nowt.

May as well use it for a useful technology such as superfetch that does speed up apps.

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Gamers aren't mainstream users.

Sure they are. They just think they aren't.


Obviously the guy who laps his CPU and water cools his GPU isn't, but the typical gamer is.

[=98=]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

I want to lap my CPU soon :|:

[iQue]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

I want to lap my CPU soon :|:

Yeah but you don't game much nowadays now do you

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Sure they are. They just think they aren't.


Obviously the guy who laps his CPU and water cools his GPU isn't, but the typical gamer is.

I'd say any gamer with at least an 8800 series GPU or a discrete sound card isn't a mainstream user. People like my sister, who plays the Sims and Peggle on her laptop between checking e-mails and surfing the web, are what I would consider to be mainstream users. She would say she's somewhat of a gamer, too.

What might be a great feature for >90% of computer users could also annoy the hell out of a lot of hardcore gamers. An example would be the crap OEMs put on their machines like all of the HP processes that are on HP and Compaq computers. Sure, it might be useful for a mainstream user to have CD burning software and MS Office applications ready to open more quickly, but a lot of gamers frown on permanently losing XMB RAM and X% of their CPU cycles.

I'm not saying Superfetch is exactly like that, just that what is best for a large majority of users isn't always good for hardcore gamers trying to maintain a certain FPS level.

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Amen to that.

I can never understand about when people complain about Vista's high memory use. Why would you pay for 4GB just to have it sit there doing nowt.

May as well use it for a useful technology such as superfetch that does speed up apps.

4GB isn't enough for Vista and large games to coexist; that's why I got 4 more GBs.

[[21CW]HIVictim]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Sure, it might be useful for a mainstream user to have CD burning software and MS Office applications ready to open more quickly, but a lot of gamers frown on permanently losing XMB RAM and X% of their CPU cycles.

I'm not saying Superfetch is exactly like that, just that what is best for a large majority of users isn't always good for hardcore gamers trying to maintain a certain FPS level.

It is obvious you do not understand how Superfetch works. Superfetch uses 25% of your available memory up to 1GB total to load your most often used programs into the active memory. If you open up a app/game and it needs the 2GB, Superfetch will dump the programs in the active memory and make way for the new app you just opened.

It does not permanently eat up your memory like most people think.

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Dumping => lag. Even if it isn't Superfetch, the number of processes Vista loads on startup is ridiculous. And, like all Windows OS's, there is no swap partition. You have to manually create one and store the pagefile there.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

It is obvious you do not understand how Superfetch works. Superfetch uses 25% of your available memory up to 1GB total to load your most often used programs into the active memory. If you open up a app/game and it needs the 2GB, Superfetch will dump the programs in the active memory and make way for the new app you just opened.

It does not permanently eat up your memory like most people think.

Did you read the rest where I said that, "I'm not saying Superfetch is exactly like that?" Or did you stop there and jump right into a reply? That was an example of something that is fine for general population but not quite fine for hardcore gamers. It was obviously referring to the junkware Office used to have and HP still puts on their computers.
About the rest of what you said there, Superfetch still might not be an awesome thing for everyone. It takes longer to dump something from RAM and put something else in it than it does for something to just jump into RAM. It might not be much longer, and most people would never know the difference, but it's still there.

[[21CW]HIVictim]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Did you read the rest where I said that, "I'm not saying Superfetch is exactly like that?" Or did you stop there and jump right into a reply? That was an example of something that is fine for general population but not quite fine for hardcore gamers. It was obviously referring to the junkware Office used to have and HP still puts on their computers.
About the rest of what you said there, Superfetch still might not be an awesome thing for everyone. It takes longer to dump something from RAM and put something else in it than it does for something to just jump into RAM. It might not be much longer, and most people would never know the difference, but it's still there.

Since it dumps and loads into the RAM simultaneously there is no difference.

[imported_Recon]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

4GB isn't enough for Vista and large games to coexist; that's why I got 4 more GBs.

i have 4GB and Vista, with an 8300GS and i can run CoD4 smooth getting constant 125fps most of the time.

so if i have that piece of sh*t system, i think anyone can be fine tbh.

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Try Crysis.

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

What might be a great feature for >90% of computer users could also annoy the hell out of a lot of hardcore gamers. An example would be the crap OEMs put on their machines like all of the HP processes that are on HP and Compaq computers. Sure, it might be useful for a mainstream user to have CD burning software and MS Office applications ready to open more quickly, but a lot of gamers frown on permanently losing XMB RAM and X% of their CPU cycles.

Gamers frown on a lot of things they generally know absolutely nothing about. Most gamers aren't computer scientists. Most gamers aren't software engineers. Most gamers aren't network system analysts. Most gamers are just hobbyist system builders who like to pretend they know a lot about operating system design. I consider myself to be considerably more knowledgeable than the typical home computer building end-user, and I haven't even made it past the tip of the ice burg, as far as software and operating systems go. I've built my own router and compiled my own Linux distro with Linux From Scratch, and there's still tons of stuff I don't know about.

I'm not saying Superfetch is exactly like that, just that what is best for a large majority of users isn't always good for hardcore gamers trying to maintain a certain FPS level.

What's good for most users is not going to have a significant impact on gamers. It's just that simple. They're not doing anything that would require anything different.

If you're talking about somebody who does audio production and sound engineering, or somebody who simulates fluid dynamics and particle physics through heavy-duty number crunching, it'd be a different story. But all you're talking about are gamers. Plain and simple. Games aren't affected much differently than other normal apps, since they work much the same way.

It is obvious you do not understand how Superfetch works. Superfetch uses 25% of your available memory up to 1GB total to load your most often used programs into the active memory. If you open up a app/game and it needs the 2GB, Superfetch will dump the programs in the active memory and make way for the new app you just opened.

Uhh....Not sure where you're getting these numbers. My PC, with only 2 gigs of memory, has 1226mb of memory currently being used as cache. That's over 50% of my physical memory, and more than the 1 gig limit you mentioned.

Dumping => lag. Even if it isn't Superfetch, the number of processes Vista loads on startup is ridiculous. And, like all Windows OS's, there is no swap partition. You have to manually create one and store the pagefile there.

Sure, but that lag isn't very noticeable. Memory is pretty fast, and the minuscule delay that would be caused is a far better trade off than having to wait a significant amount of time while your operating system seeks and loads other programs off the drive instead of from the memory.