Vista?

[Traanse]

To supposedly run faster/smoother w/ my AMD Athlon processor.

[Kyrros]

Good review, Miv. I haven't had an opportunity to mess with Vista since around 6 months ago, good to hear it's improved. I'm still not touching it for at least another two or three til they iron out any remaining bugs.

On 64-bit stuff: they're supposed to give a greater flow of information to/from your CPU and let it process it faster. The hardware side's been pretty nailed down but the lack of 64-bit software means you'll be running a lot of 32-bit programs on your 64-bit motherboard/OS. Net result gives little benefit over running the program on a 32-bit system for now, but when more 64-bit software comes out I bet there will be a noticeable difference in speed across the board.

The plus for 64-bit technology is that it's one of two directions that hardware will have to go once we max out the capabilities of silicon-based microchips (we're really close already) and it lets people use technology that they'll need to work with in the future. The other way hardware's advancing is more processors working in clusters like the Dual-Core and dual (and quad) processor boards. Until we get organic technology or some kind of crystal-based one (they're working on both now, just don't hold your breath) we're stuck with the limits of silicone.

Mmm.. silicone. *shakes his comp to see if it jiggles*

[Aakasha]

Mmm.. silicone. *shakes his comp to see if it jiggles*

-cracks up- Oh the images my brain creates lol.

[Jenibell]

so I've had my computer 2 or 3 weeks and now with my new vista and now my windows drivers are not compatable with windows!!!

So my computer turns off every 30 mins or so

[Shigy]

Maybe threaten it with bill gates

[Jassel]

so I've had my computer 2 or 3 weeks and now with my new vista and now my windows drivers are not compatable with windows!!!

So my computer turns off every 30 mins or so

This may or may not be caused by pirated software. There is a new "feature" in Vista that hasn't been in previous windows that helps prevent people from using pirated softwares. I have had to buy everything for my system, that I didn't normally buy

If you don't have any of that, then I don't know what to tell you. sorry

I can only offer hugs! *HUGS*

[Mivat]

This may or may not be caused by pirated software. There is a new "feature" in Vista that hasn't been in previous windows that helps prevent people from using pirated softwares. I have had to buy everything for my system, that I didn't normally buy

I'm pretty sure that it isn't that which is the problem. I can't say HOW I'm pretty sure, but yep, I'm pretty sure

[Jassel]

Oh, I am sure that isn't it to, but I thought I would bring it up

[Jenibell]

no it was a bought solft ware payed over $70 for it but before vista and it wont run with the vista drivers...
so yeah grrrrr

Jeni not happy once more with Vista!!!

[Fishi3]

Like pretty much everything thats new to computing it's a limited functionality due to software not using it optimally at the start. If the technology takes off. If it actually has benefits. If it isn't so hard to program for that programmers ignore it.

It has a much better chance of getting past those hurdles since it's part of what will eventually become the industry standard operating system. Some things take time to be accepted. For example the newest and greatest push for gaming cpu's is duel core. Duel cores have been around over a decade. There is precious few programs that use them to their capacity and so far the new crop of games doesn't really support the supposed need for duel core. Yet it's the new hottest thing in gaming. Why?
We are talking about a machine who's best use so far has been in network management.

Duel core machines are expensive. Duel core machines haven't proven particularly faster for game play because games don't use them to full potential. What has made duel core popular is that programmers have given up on the holy grail of programing the AI opponant. Games now focus on limited solo play and massive multiplayer. Massive multiplayer requires that you limit lag. Duel core are good at one thing. They almost eliminate player side lag for the player using one. Thus as a side effect you can use better graphics in a game before ity slows. More polygons means better resolution means more pretty pretty's to suck in players.

Basically duel cores are a symptom of the fact that game makers are moving away from computer opponants and towards using other humans to challenge you. We used to acclaim the game designer on how well the game challenged the players. Now it seems like the effort to make a game that has a decent AI is to much effort...

Meh... I say Meh...

[Tarryk]

Single core ftw. Dual Core is great in theory, but the theory hasn't really been fully applied just yet, as far as gaming goes. That's all going to change soon enough, but we'll see just how much better it is over single-core when you can actually benchmark a game that utilizes both to their fullest potential.

XP Pro ftw. I'll switch up to Vista when it becomes "preferred" OS on the media circuit (read as: most games being released with Vista in mind, and actually running better on it). It'll inevitably happen, but just as the 98 - 2k - NT - XP clusterf*&# changeover, it's best to just sit back and watch it explode at first.

Then, when the Vista-release popcorn slows to 2 complaints per second, press stop, remove your bag of Vista, and enjoy. (careful! It's very buggy at first, might want to let it sit a while in the bag.)

[Mivat]

Once again, Fishi, I have to ask where you're getting your info from (or what your post has to do in a thread about Vista) because I once again feel the serious need to correct your misconceptions here.

First things first: Dual-core has NOT been around for a decade. Multi-CPU has been around for that long, yes, but don't confuse Dual-core with Multi-CPU, as they're about as much the same as a Flying-fish is a bird. Hyperthreaded CPU's came onto the consumer market only some 3 to 4 years ago, which hardly constitutes a full decade. It's only in the later years that companies has been able to reach the level of technology to stuff two CPU cores into the same chip.

Secondly: My Core2Duo Intel EE6300, which is a full on single-chip, dual-core CPU, cost me little over $200. Here in Norway. Which isn't exactly known to be the cheapest place on the planet. In fact, our prices are quite a bit HIGHER than what you could call an average. $200 might be expensive for you, but I put together a rather nicely specced rig for about $1000 for RAM, CPU, Motherboard, Case, cooling-fans and a videocard. I personally don't think that's more than an average price for a computer.

Thirdly: The statement that Dual-core machines haven't proven particularly faster is, and let me be blunt about this: Cow excrement. Faster CPU-cycles, or having two cores doing calculations constitutes a rather MASSIVE jump in performance just due to the fact that you have one core that will just about handle anything you throw at it, and that it doesn't have to share CPU-cycles with every other process running (Windows, browsers, system-services etc etc etc).

What made Dual-cores so popular is the ever-present hunger for bigger, better and faster computers. Same thing that has driven engine-developement in cars. People want things to go faster and to be able to do more things at once. In a computer, that consitutes coming up with something that processes more date at the same time, faster than before. Games have more CPU-cycles that they can use, which means that game-devs can cram even more things into the code to make things look better, which again makes people want even faster computer and then you have the circle.

Dual-cores won't solve lag-problems, since lag-problems are a complex thing to combat. Lag can be caused by graphics, buggy drivers, bad network-connections, overloaded servers, too little ram and a ton of other things. They don't almost eliminate player-side lag, because player-side lag is VERY often due to graphics-lag (and that isn't, in most cases with newer games, handled by the CPU), or just underspecced computers.

Just the fact that a game, on a dual-core, can (and in the games I've tested: WILL) hog one of the cores, without having to share it with other system processes or whaterver else that's running on the computer makes them better than a multithreaded or single-core CPU. Put more cores to work, sharing the load, and the net effect is that the system gets faster.

[Tarryk]

I think the big difference is in the user. I've watched dual-cores in action, and while I certainly haven't actually tested this theory, I'm willing to bet that the following two examples would hold true:

When I run a full system tweakage on a single-core (that is, my usual OCD style of sweeping through processes & effects in windows and eliminating every single thing that could possibly use the CPU), and then load up a game, then do the exact same thing for a dual-core of the same general speed, the single-core will out-perform the dual.

However, if we're talking no system tweaks at all, let windows run with full effects and every taskbar-munching TSR you could have running, then load up the game, that's when the dual-core would completely obliterate the single-core.

[Dynamiks]

As TK says...

On a nice clean tweaked install where applications are kept to a minimum... Single core is very nice.

For the 80% of the PC users that insist on having: AORC, dual logged into AO,winamp/WMP running GSP stream, Ventrillo/TS/Skype, 5-6 chat programs, a plethora of web sites and a web cam all running at once... Yes Dual Core will be a very substantial improvement to performance!

[Jenibell]

Then, when the Vista-release popcorn slows to 2 complaints per second, press stop, remove your bag of Vista, and enjoy. (careful! It's very buggy at first, might want to let it sit a while in the bag.)

Hahahahahaha

[Sporkleet]

ok so far I can see that MS and apple are aging together. One was a hippie full of color and sound and plenty of moving lights, the other more traditional and work related, it got the job done after pulling an all nighter and suffering a mental breakdown. Today they are old, they know what they are doing... a lifetime of learning from mistakes. They are not so much improving as much as just trying to salvage their lacking youth by smoothing out their harsh edges with smooth streamline appearences. They are both clutching at what they used to be while maintaining the thought "I'm not old, I'm as young as I think I am". Similar to people, they rely on additional products to keep them going, Ipods, cameras, multifunctioning printerscannerfaxes with big letters and buttons. The both of them have become too user friendly to be of any real use by someone who knows how they work. I dont want a computer that operates like my microwave; start, stop, +1min, 0-9 for 'more controlled cooking times'. It is a COMPUTER, it must compute data, it must create data, it must modify data, and it must do it how I tell it to and not as it thinks I want it to. A computer is a tool to work on electronic signals 0's and 1's, a computer is not a childs toy that is there to tell you a bedtime story. I never liked Apple/ Mac at anytime after the original appleII and MS peaked at WinME. Currently I MUST make use of XP, and now switching to Vista simply because everyone is using it. I am upset with MS not for the usual reasons but because they are 'user friendly' so much so that I cannot get my original digi camera or any of my other lil gadgets to work due to the inability to modify the bits of data so that things work again. Since when does a computer not permit you to compute problems? Sure it can play you the latest release of some american idol pirate mp3... but god save you if you want to get a computer learn what the hell a 0 or a 1 is... pretty shiny button with angelic glowing blue light it understands perfectly well. hmmm rant? perhaps. I just cant get vista to do what I tell it to, it 'suggests' too many options of what else I could do instead. I run everything through a system running menuetOS, a nifty lil thing I love so dearly, winxp was a bastard enough to get working with it, now vista is proving to be too much of a *(&%#$*&%^ to work with. Then again perhaps its just that time of month.

[Sporkleet]

can I please just get a 486DX2 overclocked to a staggering ~70MHZ, 64MB RAM, 5.25 and 3.5 drives, 14.4k modem and a 1GB HDD running dos? Back in the good days thats all you needed to duplicate the AOL clients and and shutdown their very few rare servers.