Shaman Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I've just hit this article on the net: http://dreampc.ca/2006/03/windows_vista_requirements.htm I say: HOLY BULL! I think I'll turn off all the fancy stuff as soon I ever get Vista, or make separate account just for flightsimming with litestep as shell + all fancy stuff off. 1 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
Force_Feedback Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Great, they keep adding smooth edges and in-menu animations, flying birds on your desktop, f**king ducks in the control panel and internet explorer that somwhow takes up 200mb of ram (Firefox isn't that innocent with its 95) :( When will the software developers stop adding stupid interface gimmicks? I'm soo annoyed with all these flash sites, that use like 500mb to let you drive a 2d car race. Not even beginning about VB6, you know who owns it, you know who wants to release Vista, draw your conclusions. Can't we just have a "mode" on Vista, disabling all these unneeded gimmicks and fluffy super anti-aliassed screen edges with a 32 tone shadow and sunlicht coming from behind? How come software needs like 100 times the amount of space to do the same thing it did 8 years ago? No, not customizations, but lazy programmers, and better said, program languages that allow too many inconsistencies without optimizing the compilation process. 800mb just to run a friggin OS, this might be acceptable in 2020, when 8GB DDR4 RAM sticks will be in all mediocre pcs, jsut to allow them to run the daily news site. Somebody having an explanation for this ram/HD/CPU cycle rampaging going on lately? Is it that hard to design something that both works, and uses up as little resources as possible? They did it a decade ago, why don't do it now? P.S. This was not meant to say software devs are lazy, just that the programming languages are becoming soo complex, and don't really seem to add that much in functionality, while consuming lots of resources. 1 Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Pilotasso Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I think this just confirms once again that the more powerfull the PC's are the more waste of resourses the software developers do. This is self defeating because it will always make the PC's look slow no matter what. Ill hang on to XP as long as I can. Dont need no stupid interfaces eating up CPU cycles or starving my aplications up. To make things worse Hard drives are more and more a bottle neck for the whole system and we are closing on the rupture point here. 1 .
Bublik Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Try the following. Create a new project in Microsoft Visual Studio (C++). Do not add anything to the empty form. Build it (release mode). Run the exe-file. Check out the amount of memory it takes up. Guess what? More than 9 MB. And that's just empty form doing nothing :) 1 WR=210=Vladimir http://lockon-vpg.nm.ru http://whiteravens.nm.ru http://white-ravens.com
SwingKid Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I have found my people. :) Rep all around. Hey Bublik, what version of C++ is that? I still use v6.0. Are you the same young man who took Lock On 1.0 photos of Su-27 at a northern base? Do you know what "Bublik" sounds like it means in English? -SK
Bublik Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I have found my people. :) Rep all around. Hey Bublik, what version of C++ is that? I still use v6.0. The version is 8 (2005). Are you the same young man who took Lock On 1.0 photos of Su-27 at a northern base? Nope, that was not me. Are you talking about the splashscreen pic? Do you know what "Bublik" sounds like it means in English? -SK What? :D WR=210=Vladimir http://lockon-vpg.nm.ru http://whiteravens.nm.ru http://white-ravens.com
Shaman Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 Interesting. Look at that screenshot in this article. It is said system is idle. But there are 47 processes running in the background! I have 25-26 when my system is idle. And this is with firewall, antivirus, saitek profiling, nostromo profiling soft, and few other stuff. 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
NEODARK Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 do you know that Vista is supposed to have a "game mode" where it shuts down all non-essencial things to dedicate resources to the game? -in which case its supposed to be more efficient. As well as all the overhead DX10 is going to eliminate from the drivers. You guys should stop freaking out for a program using ram. Do you only have like 256mb or something? Most games today dont use over 1gig (with the xeption of BF2, or C0D2, etc) where they benefit form more. Dont worry, it's all good.
Prophet_169th Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I think this just confirms once again that the more powerfull the PC's are the more waste of resourses the software developers do. This is self defeating because it will always make the PC's look slow no matter what. Ill hang on to XP as long as I can. Dont need no stupid interfaces eating up CPU cycles or starving my aplications up. To make things worse Hard drives are more and more a bottle neck for the whole system and we are closing on the rupture point here. They should develop everything on a 486sx then =)
Pilotasso Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Yeah it makes me mad. To me it feels like sabotage on my PC. Every time I get a new machine Im forced to load up increasingly complex programs that essencialy have the same functions and work the same way (along the same glitches) but performs much worse. If they put cute animated bunnies on vista, when I upgrade to it in 10 years Ill find an animated freddy crougar to saw it in half with a virtual chainsaw. .
NEODARK Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I agree, but... The topic was Vista using too much memory. If it's anything like what we've been promised, it will be much more resource freindly compared to XP. (so we'll be able to get more out of the hardware)
Pilotasso Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I agree, but... The topic was Vista using too much memory. If it's anything like what we've been promised, it will be much more resource freindly compared to XP. (so we'll be able to get more out of the hardware) That would be an historic turn around. I will wait and see. .
SwingKid Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 (so we'll be able to get more out of the hardware) More bunnies? :) -SK
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 When XP came out, I was on Jane’s F/A-18 and had some problems with it so I switched to it after one of the packs made it more compatible with it, and dumped 98SE when it could not run on 2GIG RAM. VISTA will use NTFS which means the bulk of games won’t run on it. How can it run a game faster when it uses twice the RAM than XP remains to be seen, but having been using computers since 2k RAM was enough to run an app I doubt it will run faster than XP, probably what they mean is that, if you have the PC that it needs, it will run a game faster than an XP would. That will be what? 4 GIG RAM, an ATI X2000 with 1024MB memory on a P4 5 GHz. Vista will then no doubts then shine. Until then, for me it will be Hasta la vista Vista.
Prophet_169th Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 VISTA will use NTFS which means the bulk of games won’t run on it. Doesnt XP use NTFS also? My drives are partitioned NTFS.
WhiskeyRomeo Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 It's probably too early to panic. Did anyone notice that the screenshot posted in the article shamandgg linked showed only 400K used by 47 processes? Look at the Handles/Threads/Processes summary: 13445+562+47 All that in 400K. Even without knowing what those 47 processes are it seems Vista isn't any more of a RAM hog than XP. And if you do need a little extra RAM now and then you can always plug in a 1GB (or 2 or 4GB) USB Flash drive. Vista can use USB flash drives as EMDs to augment system RAM. And it will be able to make use of Hybrid hard drives when they start showing up. I have no problems getting games to run on my NTFS partioned hard drives. I can even run JetFighter ver 1.0 and other DOS games (using DosBox) on my NTFS PC.
Pilotasso Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 ^^^^probably its stuffing the swap file wich aint grand either. I dont believe in DOS like efficiency on any windows OS. ;) .
dynamocl Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Err, are you guys (and that report) just basing these comments on that single screen shot?? If so I can do a similar task. 1) Boot up an OS (for this example lets say XP Home) 2) Create a quick and easy program that grabs a lot of memory (for example 800 MB) and creates a lot of threads 3) Open task manager... wow Page file usage is massive. Does this mean the OS is grabbing all the memory and creating lots of processes? Not really... I am not a Microsoft zealot, however I do get irritated by everyone jumping on the MS bashing bandwagon. You need to look at this more objectively. Yes, I agree programming lanuages are getting more bulky (as one of you proved earlier). But along with the bulk does come more features. Plus if software wasn't pushing the boundaries and demanding better hardware, we wouldn't be playing the lockon we have grown to like now. As much as you may not like it, the advancement of hardware and software go hand in hand. We could have just stuck with 486 architecture, but I like new things, so hey, if Vista needs 2G memory (which it won't) so be it.
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Doesnt XP use NTFS also? My drives are partitioned NTFS. it does also, I use FAT32. The best solution will be a dual boot, but spending a lot of money on an OS that promises to be faster on tomorrow's hardware means spending a lot of money today for marginal benefits. The only OS that I know that is faster than its predecessors is the one I am using now, OS X 1.4 .
Pilotasso Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Incompatibility of Fat to NFTS hapens but very few aplications suffer from this. .
Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Usually older games - and I bet that oldie you cherish so much is going to be the one Vista is incompatible with :D
yamangman Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 I don't understand the fuss. It's you consumers who buy Windows every time a new version comes out. It may seem like your hand is being forced, but it really is not. There are plenty of alternatives out there. I've had LO 1.02 running on Cedega/Slackware.
Recommended Posts