NationStates Jolt Archive

So my old computer system finally gave up the ghost, and I got a new one. It's a gaming system that has no problem running my games. Now this system has Windows Vista and at first I was worried that I would experience all the problems that I've heard about Windows Vista. Well as soon as I hook up the system, and got it running, guess what, nothing happened. I installed some programs, one or two games, I ran those games and everything ran smoothly. Hell I'm able to see one of my games in High detail now, which is awesome! So with the system obviously running great and everything, I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?

So my old computer system finally gave up the ghost, and I got a new one. It's a gaming system that has no problem running my games. Now this system has Windows Vista and at first I was worried that I would experience all the problems that I've heard about Windows Vista. Well as soon as I hook up the system, and got it running, guess what, nothing happened. I installed some programs, one or two games, I ran those games and everything ran smoothly. Hell I'm able to see one of my games in High detail now, which is awesome! So with the system obviously running great and everything, I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?

It kills lo-RAM computers (<1 or 1.5 Gb). And the DRM is bad.

There's nothing wrong with Vista. But it's change, and people don't like change.

Add Linux geeks who see the opportunity to try and convert a few people....

It kills lo-RAM computers (<1 or 1.5 Gb). And the DRM is bad.

Yay for 2 GB of Ram then! :D

Vista is as buggy as claimed. I just got my new laptop for heading off to school and it litterally freezes ever 5 minutes or so. I can't get the stupid anti-virus software to run at all.

Vista is as buggy as claimed. I just got my new laptop for heading off to school and it litterally freezes ever 5 minutes or so. I can't get the stupid anti-virus software to run at all.

Try hitting it with a hammer.

Vista is as buggy as claimed. I just got my new laptop for heading off to school and it litterally freezes ever 5 minutes or so. I can't get the stupid anti-virus software to run at all.

What is the laptop's specs?

On my system I have 363 GB HD
2 GB of RAM
AMD 64 Live! CPU
Nvidia Video Card.

I only have a problem with C&C3. It crashes to desktop shortly after startup.

Click Stand;12996304']Try hitting it with a hammer.

Sledge.

I really don't know. I have Vista installed on my gaming pc (3 gigs of RAM, Wilgrove, HA!) and it runs everything amazingly. Installing and updating drivers has never been easier. It really is the most powerful gaming OS.
People don't like Vista for five reasons. It's new, their pc isn't good enough, they're blaming things on Vista that aren't Vista's fault, their pc needs are better served by Apple, or they're Linux supporters/masochists.

I really don't know. I have Vista installed on my gaming pc (3 gigs of RAM, Wilgrove, HA!) and it runs everything amazingly. Installing and updating drivers has never been easier. It really is the most powerful gaming OS.

*grumbles and buys 2 more GB of ram.*

I'll show him who has the bigger RAM! :p

*grumbles and buys 2 more GB of ram.*

I'll show him who has the bigger RAM! :p

*Has 8GB.*

Hah!

*grumbles and buys 2 more GB of ram.*

I'll show him who has the bigger RAM! :p

Go for it.
I actually would have four, but one of the sticks was corrupted. My fault. It had this cover on it that came off and I'm fairly certain I damaged the stick trying to put it back on.

Nvidia is coming out with the 9800 soon, it seems like just yesterday I got my 8800.

People are afraid of change and generally reject it before they take the time to think about why the change was made in the first place.

The same people generally bitched about XP for mostly the same reasons.

There's nothing wrong with Vista. But it's change, and people don't like change.

Add Linux geeks who see the opportunity to try and convert a few people....Funny that the linux geeks here like Vista more than the Windows geeks.

Other than a couple of minor irritations, I've had no problem with Vista (other than my wife bitching about it that is):p

Nvidia is coming out with the 9800 soon, it seems like just yesterday I got my 8800.Well the 8800 wont support DX10.1

That pissed me off beyond belief. Apparently Nvidia and ATI also got angry, knowing they will have to deal with all the angry customers. I mean seriously, that is crap.That is why I heart OpenGL.

Well the 8800 wont support DX10.1

That pissed me off beyond belief. Apparently Nvidia and ATI also got angry, knowing they will have to deal with all the angry customers. I mean seriously, that is crap.

So my old computer system finally gave up the ghost, and I got a new one. It's a gaming system that has no problem running my games. Now this system has Windows Vista and at first I was worried that I would experience all the problems that I've heard about Windows Vista. Well as soon as I hook up the system, and got it running, guess what, nothing happened. I installed some programs, one or two games, I ran those games and everything ran smoothly. Hell I'm able to see one of my games in High detail now, which is awesome! So with the system obviously running great and everything, I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?

Personally I find it to be a fine OS ... IT is resource heavy and its UAC with some specialized software is more then a little annoying (we had a few people with some architectural software come in it was prompting them a tone every time they started the app but nothing debilitating)

Funny that the linux geeks here like Vista more than the Windows geeks.

I was just going to say that ... you and me always seem to end up on the pro vista side when all the bashers get here lol

*Has 8GB.*

Hah!

That gets to a state of why the hell do you need it on a desktop

I mean I do LARGE scale virtualization on my stations but I bottle neck other places WAY before 8 gigs of ram on my desktop

Even with 10,000 RPM drives I hit a drive bottle neck at about the 4 gig mark

So my old computer system finally gave up the ghost, and I got a new one. It's a gaming system that has no problem running my games. Now this system has Windows Vista and at first I was worried that I would experience all the problems that I've heard about Windows Vista. Well as soon as I hook up the system, and got it running, guess what, nothing happened. I installed some programs, one or two games, I ran those games and everything ran smoothly. Hell I'm able to see one of my games in High detail now, which is awesome! So with the system obviously running great and everything, I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?
Nerds always say the latest Windows OS 'sucks' for no apparent reason.. it's sort of tradition from what I gather.

Nerds always say the latest Windows OS 'sucks' for no apparent reason.. it's sort of tradition from what I gather.There's reasons. Many of them. 3 stand out, however.

Microsoft habitually kill ease of use for the more advanced users. Win98 did it a little. WinXP changed from being merely annoying to feeling like you really weren't supposed to use your OS. Vista, while not upping the user hostility, doesn't improve on it either. As flaws go, this is a really fucking gigantic one. Especially if you measure it in lost productivity for the people it hits.

Post 9x, Microsoft has had this weird idea that it simply doesn't matter how resource heavy an OS is, because people need to use theirs, and thus people will simply have to spend money on a new machine park to do it. And while I suppose it makes perfect sense for a software giant with a monopoly and it's hands buried deep in HW manufacture, it again means increased expenses for the user (though in all fairness, probably only a fraction of what the userhostility ends up costing people in lost revenue).

And lastly there's the anti-piracy crap. This alone hits everything from productivity to hardware requirements, to data security and personal privacy. And it really deserves a couple of handfulls of threads in it's own right.

All this doesn't mean Vista is a horrendously bad OS. It just means a large portion of the users' needs were disregarded, if not outright shat on. Since it's not like Microsoft doesn't know this, it really shouldn't surprise or mystify you that a lot of users are somewhat vocal. People usually are when they feel they've been pissed on.

I'm sure the situation would be very different if people weren't stuck with Microsoft. Not only would we have a real alternative, but chances are Microsoft would actually pay attention to customer needs, instead of giving us the finger.

That gets to a state of why the hell do you need it on a desktop

Because I don't have the physical room for even a mini-server. Much less a render farm.

And because I do graphics render work which eats RAM and processor cycles like no tomorrow. The more CPU cores and RAM I can throw at it, the shorter the cycle time between a test render and the next modification.

Funny that the linux geeks here like Vista more than the Windows geeks.

Exceptions to every rule. In most things I read, people are falling over themselves to offer Linux as an alternative when they think people might not like Vista, forgetting that people who are put off by the anti-Vista trash won't move to another, even more different and tricky, system; they'll just stick with XP.

*grumbles and buys 2 more GB of ram.*

I'll show him who has the bigger RAM! :p

core 2 extreme X6800 2.93GHz Processor, 2x GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB gfx cards (will be replaced probably in a year for the dx 10.1 update), 8gb ram, 2 500gb sata hard drives.

I have the heart of a gamer and the salary of a corporate attorney, my computer is my baby.

Being that a close friend of mine was a Microsoft Beta tester not so long ago, I was disgusted to find that Microsoft's official policy is to release a piece of software as quickly as possible, then release the bug-fixes that are inevitably found on the internet as they appear (or not, as the case may be). If you haven't got the internet, then according to Microsoft, you shouldn't even be using a computer, hell, why not go all the way and neuter yourself to save the human race from ever breeding another one like you?

Equally, Linux, Unix, and all the other free ones do an excellent job for most PC users. And why should I have to pay to upgrade not only my operating system but my hardware every time Microshit excretes another product onto the market?

So with the system obviously running great and everything, I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?
Not everyone has had as pleasant an experience with Vista as you. Where I work the techies who were bought new Vista machines by the boss downgraded them to XP because after a few weeks they were fed up with Vista's instability (note that these were different computer models, so it wasn't down to a single poor manufacturer).

I should think it's not a bad OS, apart from the obvious resource hogging and DRM, and probably is slightly more secure than XP. However, there's no way I'm paying several hundred to upgrade to something I don't really need.

Similization puts it well. And I envy Neo Art :p

Vista is 30% faster than XP (but only on computers which are 100% faster)

As I understand it, there were quite a few problems with Vista.

Some vendors put Vista on their 512M boxes. It really needs 2G!

Also, there was quite a bit of hardware that wasn't supported on Vista, and quite a bit of software. New versions of Windows always break a few things and Vista was no exception.

One of my gripes is that they took 6 years to make it, and it had only a few advantages over XP.

Last, but not least, it's from Microsoft, which everyone knows is teh suxor.

I wish Microsoft would put some of those nice network tools they have in Vista into Windows XP SP3. I played with those tools and it makes network connections easier to diagnose than under XP.

core 2 extreme X6800 2.93GHz Processor, 2x GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB gfx cards (will be replaced probably in a year for the dx 10.1 update), 8gb ram, 2 500gb sata hard drives.

I have the heart of a gamer and the salary of a corporate attorney, my computer is my baby.Get fastest, smallest disks you possibly can and RAID the fuckers. For gaming on such a completely insane system as yours, it's a shame to put up with lag and long loading times. I mean, if you're truely prepared to blow that kind of money on playing games, you might as well do it right.

Get fastest, smallest disks you possibly can and RAID the fuckers. For gaming on such a completely insane system as yours, it's a shame to put up with lag and long loading times. I mean, if you're truely prepared to blow that kind of money on playing games, you might as well do it right.

You mean two WD 10K RPM Raptors in Raid 0?

So my old computer system finally gave up the ghost, and I got a new one. It's a gaming system that has no problem running my games. Now this system has Windows Vista and at first I was worried that I would experience all the problems that I've heard about Windows Vista. Well as soon as I hook up the system, and got it running, guess what, nothing happened. I installed some programs, one or two games, I ran those games and everything ran smoothly. Hell I'm able to see one of my games in High detail now, which is awesome! So with the system obviously running great and everything, I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?
Most of the complaints I've heard revolve around XP print servers and trying to get Vista to install the drivers. Several knowledgeable folks at work have had the existing drivers wiped out, while Vista tries to download and install some driver that wasn't provided in the original install.

Sounds like there will be more compatibility problems as more experience is gained...Makes you want to reach for the Linux box, doesn't it?

You mean two WD 10K RPM Raptors in Raid 0?Something like that, yeah. I've been out of the HW world for a while now, so I'd have to look to say what the best solution is.

I upgraded my laptop to Vista from XP a few days ago. It was the smoothest update I've ever performed. I literally put the CD in, and came back two hours later to the machine working perfectly, with all drivers installed perfectly. I was completely taken aback. Normally, if upgrading between Windows, things break all over the place - permissions, shared directories, programs, drivers. None of that happened. It worked perfectly, first time, for everything.

Of course, I then had to google to find out how to remove the UAC and the Vista ipv6 ipstack, since it was causing network instabilities. I also had to google for a new driver for a tv tuner I bought yesterday.

But other than that I'm fairly satisfied. I detect no major slowdowns compared to XP. It does use more memory, but that's because Vista allocates it differently from XP. If you want to see its memory allocation in XP terms, open up task manager and add the column "memory (private working set)". Vista treats RAM as a paging file. It allocates RAM that's not actually in use.

Of course, I then had to google to find out how to remove the UAC and the Vista ipv6 ipstack, since it was causing network instabilities.

When the world finally gets around to doing ipv6, we'll find out how hard it is to get Vista back on ipv6.

Well, i use my dad's work laptop. it has 3 gig of ram, vista works fine on that sucker

My comp has 4 gig of ram, a reasonably up-to-date mainboardand I just bought a Ge-Force 8800 graphics card today (my old radeon 600 just won't do BIOSHOCK. Can't complain; it's done sterling service, and done a lot of stuff it really shoudn't have been able to handle at all).

I have no doubt I could run Vista. But why should I? My XP build is super-stable, does everything I could possibly want, serves all my needs. I neither need nor want Vista.

And Microsoft's blackmail with Halo 2 and some other games just pisses me off.

Because I don't have the physical room for even a mini-server. Much less a render farm.

And because I do graphics render work which eats RAM and processor cycles like no tomorrow. The more CPU cores and RAM I can throw at it, the shorter the cycle time between a test render and the next modification.

I have done my share of rendering too and I still was able to cap out CPU before I hit 4 GB but either way a much more reasonable answer then a lot of people :)

Not everyone has had as pleasant an experience with Vista as you. Where I work the techies who were bought new Vista machines by the boss downgraded them to XP because after a few weeks they were fed up with Vista's instability (note that these were different computer models, so it wasn't down to a single poor manufacturer).
As a techie who supports a massive number of both right now I have to say that the problem was probably their techies incompetence

Of all the things I dislike about vista what they were complaining of is something I have not encountered in our thousands of vista machines

You mean two WD 10K RPM Raptors in Raid 0?

Thoes be my babies :) I have loved them sense the day I purchased them

core 2 extreme X6800 2.93GHz Processor, 2x GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB gfx cards (will be replaced probably in a year for the dx 10.1 update), 8gb ram, 2 500gb sata hard drives.

Yeah, I'm pretty much crying over my single 8800 GTX I broke the bank for. I don't know what to do.

I have the heart of a gamer and the salary of a corporate attorney, my computer is my baby.

Thankfully, I got my AMD X2 4000+, 2GB RAM, 20" widescreen, 200GB HD for a crisp clean ~$2000. SLI capable, which is useless now that my card is useless.

I'm going to hate college.

Get fastest, smallest disks you possibly can and RAID the fuckers. For gaming on such a completely insane system as yours, it's a shame to put up with lag and long loading times. I mean, if you're truely prepared to blow that kind of money on playing games, you might as well do it right.

oh no, they already are. My computer was built to order, cost me about $6,000. Hell, I am not married, have no kids, don't own a car, don't own a house, don't pay for insurance, have a kick ass 401k and my girlfriend makes almost as much as I do.

What ELSE am I going to spend it on?

Yeah, I'm pretty much crying over my single 8800 GTX I broke the bank for. I don't know what to do.

Right now, nothing.

No software coming out until I imagine 2009 is going to use dx 10.1 as a requirement.

I think the real gripes will happen in a few years. Vista limits the number of times you can re-install it. So - when the registry becomes over-cluttered and the only fix to the system is to nuke it - users will be unplesantly surprized when they go to reinstall their OS and it comes back - "installation failed - Please purchase a new copy of this expired OS for $400"

What ELSE am I going to spend it on?I could think of quite a few things. Amnisty, WWF, SOS and ABC springs to mind, just to mention a few.

Don't get me wrong though. I've just build 2 'budget' (read: non-SLI) versions of the beast you have. Worse, it started out as one, because the wife was hogging my gaming machine. But.. You know.. It was so cool. Had to have one myself too :p

I could think of quite a few things. Amnisty, WWF, SOS and ABC springs to mind, just to mention a few.

Well, fair enough. Though I should add to that that I am a member of amnesty and do about 100 hours of work pro bono for the ACLU a year, so I'm not totally without charity :p

core 2 extreme X6800 2.93GHz Processor, 2x GeForce 8800 Ultra 768MB gfx cards (will be replaced probably in a year for the dx 10.1 update), 8gb ram, 2 500gb sata hard drives.


Jesus christ! :eek:

Alienware computer?

Depends also: clean install, or upgrade?

Jesus christ! :eek:

Alienware computer?

cheaper to build then to buy in that case ... though they do have what appear to be some pretty sweet laptops ...

Depends also: clean install, or upgrade?

Clean install. It came with the new system.

Jesus christ! :eek:

Alienware computer?
Quick, some one tell Neo Art 32bit architecture doesn't support more than 4GB of RAM and nothing even uses up to that much.

And he's welcome to send me the 880 Ultras.

I'm a Linux masochist. So long as my apps are sprinkled with the holy water of Open Source, I don't care if they work.

I think the real gripes will happen in a few years. Vista limits the number of times you can re-install it. So - when the registry becomes over-cluttered and the only fix to the system is to nuke it - users will be unplesantly surprized when they go to reinstall their OS and it comes back - "installation failed - Please purchase a new copy of this expired OS for $400"

That was the plan two years ago. The license has since changed.

I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?


The box.
http://ubersoft.net/files/comics/hd/hd20070823.png

That was the plan two years ago. The license has since changed.

The false negatives experienced by legitimate purchasers? They've loosened it up?

I tried the thing of having only three identifiable devices at first install (HD, onboard graphics & chipset, CPU) and going back to that for reinstall. I was into swapping and trading hardware at the time, though, and the third time I was asked to validate, I wrapped the XP install disk around the edge of my desk.

Yeah, XP. And it didn't buy it, it was a gift. Kinda feel bad about that.

The false negatives experienced by legitimate purchasers? They've loosened it up?

I tried the thing of having only three identifiable devices at first install (HD, onboard graphics & chipset, CPU) and going back to that for reinstall. I was into swapping and trading hardware at the time, though, and the third time I was asked to validate, I wrapped the XP install disk around the edge of my desk.

Yeah, XP. And it didn't buy it, it was a gift. Kinda feel bad about that.

On my current XP install, I've changed the CPU and added an extra stick of RAM and my XP license didn't ask for revalidation. Next test, is when I get a DirectX 10.1 video card to replace the current nVidia 7600GT.

Good news for Vista users and people with DirectX 10 cards
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070815123340.html

No need to replace your video card

That was the plan two years ago. The license has since changed.

Really? If so then that is a relief.

The false negatives experienced by legitimate purchasers? They've loosened it up?

I tried the thing of having only three identifiable devices at first install (HD, onboard graphics & chipset, CPU) and going back to that for reinstall. I was into swapping and trading hardware at the time, though, and the third time I was asked to validate, I wrapped the XP install disk around the edge of my desk.

Yeah, XP. And it didn't buy it, it was a gift. Kinda feel bad about that.
Not sure what doing a minimal install does for reinstalls. Can you expand on that?

I've had to reinstall XP when I swapped out the MOBO and when I swapped out the hard drives - no trouble either time (though I would NEVER recommend CIS chipsets!) That's the trouble w' limited licenses - MOBOs and HDs fail. As I recall ther is about a 1% fail rate on each. So if you extrapolate 1 in 50 of all Vista installs will be on faulty hardware - then you can figure that will be MILLIONS of pissed off Vista owners - and that does not even include the folks who go to upgrade...

To answer what was wrong with vista........ Everything ! :D

Seriously

The problem is, as always, software bloat.

Not everyone want 6 tons of eye candy, they just want a machine thats fast,
So why is it a machine with twice the computing power of a machine made 5 years ago only seems to run about 20% faster?
Because the OS maker does it that way in order to ramp up sales of new hardware thus increasing its own sales under the illegal 'OS lock in' deals it does with major PC makers.:sniper:

Its not about making the best OS it can, its about making money by selling the OS wether it works or not (Windows ME anyone?):headbang:

Plus the FUD marketing techniques used on corperate customers "Dont use a Linux OS, as we hold 248 patents linux infringes............... but we're not telling anyone what these patents are':p

In short, by all means stay using a m$ product, just once you've braved the outer darkness and installed a decent Linux OS you may never want to go back

el-presidente Boris

PS Open office beats m$ office wether you run the windows or linux version :D

Not sure what doing a minimal install does for reinstalls. Can you expand on that?

As I remember it (2003), XP validation collects some information about the system (not unique to the components, that would only apply to network devices onboard or in cards, and to P3 processors whose unique ID hasn't been disabled in the M/B BIOS), then in the validation process makes a unique hash which won't work any more if more than one of those are changed.

(I used to give a fuck about thsi stuff. Just now, my monitor is utterly lacking in green. It is as lilac as all get out. It's as purple as check the fucking boot. I really should get one of the old dead monitors off the shelf, and fix the plug of my current monitor. No-one, take this as gospel. Any minute now I'll start raving about the Amiga.)

If there's more hardware (identifiable by windows, not Unknown Devices I don't believe) at validation-time, there's a wider spread. But still heavily biased towards motherboard and CPU. And HD, which is the bit which most offends me, since its the second-most upgradable part of a system after the RAM.

I think my problem was that I swapped out the MOBO (it wasn't broken, I just swapped with a friend who wanted NVIDIA chipset for his gaming, I wanted the dual network O/B and more slots) and that got me so close to the line that just about anything I changed demanded revalidation.

It really wouldn't be a problem if the validation process looked like this:

M/B: 40 points. Not satisfied. Previous M/B: NVidia nForce2, blah blah
CPU: 20 points. Satisfied. Athlon XP blah blah
HD: 20 points. Partially satisfied, 10 points. Seagate Hornbag, 80 GB, present in system with reinstall to Western Digital OystersNViolin 120 GB.
Graphics: 20 points. ATI Radeon 1200, OS watching as it caught on fire and died. Give ya 10 for that.
Network: 30 points. Partially satisfied, 15 points. I'm seeing the NCom thing but the NVidia thing seems to be missing. Perhaps you have it disabled. Is there a smell of smoke in the room?
TV card: 10 points. Satisfied. Still hogging the PCI bus and doing nothing.

Your system has 65 points of the 80 required for validation. To continue without revalidation, you must replace, enable or disable one of the items in the list above.

Honestly, they should never have called an interactive menu a "wizard." If it was me, I'd have dubbed it "automated moron."

I've had to reinstall XP when I swapped out the MOBO and when I swapped out the hard drives - no trouble either time (though I would NEVER recommend CIS chipsets!) That's the trouble w' limited licenses - MOBOs and HDs fail. As I recall ther is about a 1% fail rate on each. So if you extrapolate 1 in 50 of all Vista installs will be on faulty hardware - then you can figure that will be MILLIONS of pissed off Vista owners - and that does not even include the folks who go to upgrade...

The CPU of the computer I'm using right now is on its fifth motherboard. They've all been Asus or Gigabyte boards, can't remember exactly, but this ol' XP 2400 (2 GHz) has seen off two NForce2 boards, a VIA KT333 and KT400. The crapulously slow Asus SIS A7S8X I'm using now (wif da onboard grapics & no AGP slot) has outlasted all the others. About two years now.

Yeah, I've got a good PSU. SIS have tried some tricky combinations (first chipset to marry P4 with DDR, IIRC) but this cheapy is serving me well. After this, my poor old 2400 gets a safety-pin epoxied to it and I'll wear it as a badge.

Talking about Vista. Anyone else realized how buggy the WGA is? First a Wine running on Linux was declared to be a genuine Vista, then, this weekend, activation was removed for several 'better' (or rather: more expensive) Windows Versions. For a day or two, Windows Vistas were cut off from updates and from using Aero as GUI. Something is rotten in the state of Redmond.

Talking about Vista. *snip*

Nice. Vista is indeed the topic.

My problems with Windows are a thing of the past. Good fortune to you all.

Honestly, they should never have called an interactive menu a "wizard." If it was me, I'd have dubbed it "automated moron."

Even when I was about 4 or 5, and just learning to use a computer, I never did like wizards.

I have one gigabyte of crummy ram, and an old AMD Socket 939 motherboard. Vista would rape my computer with its memory usage. The main advantage Vista has over XP is DX10. Which doesn't really matter to me now since I don't even have a powerful enough PSU to supply the latest DX10 cards that'll be out.

One day I'll upgrade to Vista. But I don't have 100+ bucks to blow on it when I need to upgrade my motherboard, processor, RAM, video card, PSU already when XP suffices for 99% of games (Hell, there's even an unofficial XP patch for Halo 2).

This topic is proving quite useful, as I am considering buying a new laptop with Vista on :)

I had originally only planned on getting 1GB of RAM, with Vista Home Premium. Now I would want to use this for school, but also for occasional game playing (WoW probably), so would 1GB suffice? Or should I pay the extra money to increase the lifetime of the machine?

This topic is proving quite useful, as I am considering buying a new laptop with Vista on :)

I had originally only planned on getting 1GB of RAM, with Vista Home Premium. Now I would want to use this for school, but also for occasional game playing (WoW probably), so would 1GB suffice? Or should I pay the extra money to increase the lifetime of the machine?

Get two gigs. Also, you should see what grafix cards they offer for your laptop.

Ach, I don't know whether I can really stretch for another £110..

The card is a "ATI Radeon® Xpress 1270 HyperMemory (integrated)"

(snip)

OIC. Thanks for sharing.

The CPU of the computer I'm using right now is on its fifth motherboard. They've all been Asus or Gigabyte boards, can't remember exactly, but this ol' XP 2400 (2 GHz) has seen off two NForce2 boards, a VIA KT333 and KT400. The crapulously slow Asus SIS A7S8X I'm using now (wif da onboard grapics & no AGP slot) has outlasted all the others. About two years now.

Yeah, I've got a good PSU. SIS have tried some tricky combinations (first chipset to marry P4 with DDR, IIRC) but this cheapy is serving me well. After this, my poor old 2400 gets a safety-pin epoxied to it and I'll wear it as a badge.

Yes, it was SIS - not CIS - duh. I had an ASUS P4P800 (intel chipset) - worked like a charm until a power surge blew it out. So I bot the P4S800 - what the hell - looked the same. It had the CIS chipset - OMFG! What a nightmare! The SATA drive was buried deep in the driver disk. I also had to reinstall not only every driver but most software also. I may as well have don a clean reinstall.

The buried driver was the most annoying thing. The dumbshit who made the driver disk made it an auto-play disk - DUH! If I had windows running I wouldn't NEED AUTOPLAY!!! AAARGH! It was buried about six folders deep! The only way I found it was putting the disk in another PC and driving down in windows. Grrrrr. SIS blows chunks. I'll never use a non-intel mobo again.

I wish I was rich....

:(

Quick, some one tell Neo Art 32bit architecture doesn't support more than 4GB of RAM and nothing even uses up to that much.

And he's welcome to send me the 880 Ultras.
You are right 32 bit setups do not support more then 4 gb of ram
What makes you think he has a 32 bit setup? I must have missed something

Quick, some one tell Neo Art 32bit architecture doesn't support more than 4GB of RAM and nothing even uses up to that much.

And he's welcome to send me the 880 Ultras.a) He may not be using an 32bit OS.
b) 32bit Linux can support more than 4GB of ram. It takes a performance hit to do so, but if you must, you can do it.

a) He may not be using an 32bit OS.
b) 32bit Linux can support more than 4GB of ram. It takes a performance hit to do so, but if you must, you can do it.

I have had terrible luck with that. but I only seriously tried it once so not exactly a large sample to go from

I have had terrible luck with that. but I only seriously tried it once so not exactly a large sample to go fromI've never tried it(3GiB ram here), but heard it can work. But then, why wouldn't you just use an x64 version?

I've never tried it(3GiB ram here), but heard it can work. But then, why wouldn't you just use an x64 version?Yes, if chipset and CPU both support it. The 4GB RAM limit, by the way, is all-inclusive, so 1.5GB VRAM isn't necessarily the greatest idea on a 32bit system.

Yes, if chipset and CPU both support it. The 4GB RAM limit, by the way, is all-inclusive, so 1.5GB VRAM isn't necessarily the greatest idea on a 32bit system.I don't use VRAM or a swap.

People are afraid of change and generally reject it before they take the time to think about why the change was made in the first place.

The same people generally bitched about XP for mostly the same reasons.

meh, most people are just afraid of Microsoft in general. It's pulled a lot of bullshit in the past and people are just afraid its gonna do it again.

b) 32bit Linux can support more than 4GB of ram. It takes a performance hit to do so, but if you must, you can do it.
Why would you need to :rolleyes:

Why would you need to :rolleyes:Read the thread.

I don't use VRAM or a swap.VRAM is video memory. Whether you know it or not, you do use it if there's an image on your computer screen.

Swap file size isn't affected by the 4GB RAM limit as it isn't actual RAM. If you're really not using a swap file, you should consider doing so. Operating systems assume there's virtual memory for it to use, and they will attempt to do so, whether or not they actually can. Basically that means your system's stability will suffer if you prevent it.

If I had 8GB or 16GB, why would need a swap file? :p
Good excuse for getting Windows 2003 Server 64-bit.

My XP desktop has 2GB, and that's fine for most things anyway.

Read the thread.
Let's try again
Why would you need more than 4GB of RAM?
And more, why would you need more than 4GB of RAM on a system that is designed only to support 4GB.

I have done my share of rendering too and I still was able to cap out CPU before I hit 4 GB but either way a much more reasonable answer then a lot of people :)

Did you have one core or more? I'm using a duo E6600. Waiting for the second generation of Intel Quads before upgrading. Stupid two front BUSes for four cores design. I kind of dislike the fact that they're not allowing hyperthreading on their medium level models and are only reserving it for their super expensive stuff.

Which is a pity, since their quad E6700s just went from around USD800 to USD300 around these parts. And it hasn't even been a year yet.

Did you have one core or more? I'm using a duo E6600. Waiting for the second generation of Intel Quads before upgrading. Stupid two front BUSes for four cores design. I kind of dislike the fact that they're not allowing hyperthreading on their medium level models and are only reserving it for their super expensive stuff.

Which is a pity, since their quad E6700s just went from around USD800 to USD300 around these parts. And it hasn't even been a year yet.

I think the introduction of the uber QX6850 had something to with that.
The QX6850 is clocked at 3.0Ghz standard - and can OC to 4.6Ghz usin dry ice.

Did you have one core or more? I'm using a duo E6600. Waiting for the second generation of Intel Quads before upgrading. Stupid two front BUSes for four cores design. I kind of dislike the fact that they're not allowing hyperthreading on their medium level models and are only reserving it for their super expensive stuff.

Which is a pity, since their quad E6700s just went from around USD800 to USD300 around these parts. And it hasn't even been a year yet.

No had actual separate procs (two Opteron 246's at the time)

No had actual separate procs (two Opteron 246's at the time)

I've just got a crumby Opteron 165, I wanted a 185 but those are way too expensive for their actual performance.

I've just got a crumby Opteron 165, I wanted a 185 but those are way too expensive for their actual performance.I got a 165 too! High five! *waits with hand in the air*

I got a 165 too! High five! *waits with hand in the air*

** High fives Posi **

Not OCed yet :p
It wasn't cheap ...

** High fives Posi **

Not OCed yet :p
It wasn't cheap ...I bought mine right before the jacked up the price (the were lowering Athlon sales due to their great OCing potential).

I had mine at 2.6, but it is back at 1.8 due to summer heat, and not generally needing that much CPU.

I think the introduction of the uber QX6850 had something to with that.
The QX6850 is clocked at 3.0Ghz standard - and can OC to 4.6Ghz usin dry ice.

Really? That explains it. We haven't even had a whiff of the QX6850s here though. The highest models available commercially are QX6800s.

No had actual separate procs (two Opteron 246's at the time)

Ooh. Workstation cores. I have to make do with standard desktop class cores though. The tradeoff for price/performance isn't too bad for me, and it's done pretty fine for endurance rendering so far.

Although it's been a bit of a dream of mine to convert a spare room into a CPU bank, load in liquid nitrogen cooling and run a mini-render farm.

Course I'll probably have to rob a bank or something to fund it all. Or hijack a shipment of computer parts.

Or I could wait a few years for 8 core systems to come around, their prices to drop, and load them into bare basic systems heavy on RAM and use my central system to distribute the rendering process.

64 cores. I dream of having that many cores one day. And probably 64GB-128GB of RAM. I sometimes drool at the expected render speeds and turnaround. :p

Really? That explains it. We haven't even had a whiff of the QX6850s here though. The highest models available commercially are QX6800s.



Ooh. Workstation cores. I have to make do with standard desktop class cores though. The tradeoff for price/performance isn't too bad for me, and it's done pretty fine for endurance rendering so far.

Although it's been a bit of a dream of mine to convert a spare room into a CPU bank, load in liquid nitrogen cooling and run a mini-render farm.

Course I'll probably have to rob a bank or something to fund it all. Or hijack a shipment of computer parts.

Or I could wait a few years for 8 core systems to come around, their prices to drop, and load them into bare basic systems heavy on RAM and use my central system to distribute the rendering process.

64 cores. I dream of having that many cores one day. And probably 64GB-128GB of RAM. I sometimes drool at the expected render speeds and turnaround. :pI Dream of Jeannie.

But Sun Microsystems is going to be releasing its UltraSPARC T2 sometime soon, which will be able to execute 64 simultaneous threads (8 cores X 8 threads/core), and their new ROCK processor will have 32 cores. I'd begin saving your $10,000 now. *nods*

Really? That explains it. We haven't even had a whiff of the QX6850s here though. The highest models available commercially are QX6800s.



Ooh. Workstation cores. I have to make do with standard desktop class cores though. The tradeoff for price/performance isn't too bad for me, and it's done pretty fine for endurance rendering so far.

Although it's been a bit of a dream of mine to convert a spare room into a CPU bank, load in liquid nitrogen cooling and run a mini-render farm.

Course I'll probably have to rob a bank or something to fund it all. Or hijack a shipment of computer parts.

Or I could wait a few years for 8 core systems to come around, their prices to drop, and load them into bare basic systems heavy on RAM and use my central system to distribute the rendering process.

64 cores. I dream of having that many cores one day. And probably 64GB-128GB of RAM. I sometimes drool at the expected render speeds and turnaround. :p
I run a 8 proc (16 core) machine at work ... bout half a mill will get you that

I run a 8 proc (16 core) machine at work ... bout half a mill will get you that

:eek::eek::eek:

Wanna trade?

But Sun Microsystems is going to be releasing its UltraSPARC T2 sometime soon, which will be able to execute 64 simultaneous threads (8 cores X 8 threads/core), and their new ROCK processor will have 32 cores. I'd begin saving your $10,000 now. *nods*

Hmmm, maybe. But then I did the math. Lets say one unit for the farm would be a processor, motherboard, RAM and the usual odds and sods for a bare bones system with capability. All in all, I could fit it in under $800 for the hardware.

That's a quad core E6600 with 4GB of RAM, maybe a 40GB HDD for the software and OS. A basic graphics card since the thing won't even have a monitor. The usual casing, PSU and cooling system. So yeah, about $800 or so. I'll have to dig up a switch, but that's only one unit.

If I want 32 cores, that's 8 systems so about $6400, about $6800 if I include all the extra stuff I'm probably forgetting just to be on the safe side. I can probably set that up that as a start.

The biggest problem is physical space though. I'm not sure where I'm going to find the room with the power sources to house and run 8 to 16 machines. Cooling, not so much of a problem. Liquid nitrogen is cheap, and I can purchase it in industrial levels.

Hmmm, maybe. But then I did the math. Lets say one unit for the farm would be a processor, motherboard, RAM and the usual odds and sods for a bare bones system with capability. All in all, I could fit it in under $800 for the hardware.

That's a quad core E6600 with 4GB of RAM, maybe a 40GB HDD for the software and OS. A basic graphics card since the thing won't even have a monitor. The usual casing, PSU and cooling system. So yeah, about $800 or so. I'll have to dig up a switch, but that's only one unit.

If I want 32 cores, that's 8 systems so about $6400, about $6800 if I include all the extra stuff I'm probably forgetting just to be on the safe side. I can probably set that up that as a start.

The biggest problem is physical space though. I'm not sure where I'm going to find the room with the power sources to house and run 8 to 16 machines. Cooling, not so much of a problem. Liquid nitrogen is cheap, and I can purchase it in industrial levels.

You'd need a gigabit LAN card on each and gigabit switch so communications isn't crippled to the lousy 100Mbits of normal LAN connections. And you'd probably need a laptop or some basic PC to act as a remote desktop controller.

You'd need a gigabit LAN card on each and gigabit switch so communications isn't crippled to the lousy 100Mbits of normal LAN connections. And you'd probably need a laptop or some basic PC to act as a remote desktop controller.

I was hoping to use my central PC as the desktop controller. Baring that, I have a laptop that will suffice. But I'm not so sure about a gigabit LAN card. I'm not certain that distributed rendering needs that fast a transfer rate.

I was hoping to use my central PC as the desktop controller. Baring that, I have a laptop that will suffice. But I'm not so sure about a gigabit LAN card. I'm not certain that distributed rendering needs that fast a transfer rate.

100Mbit/s is a theoretical 12.5MB/s but in reality it never gets that fast, more like 11MB/s in the real world. I think most new PCs with decent motherboards have gigabit built-in anyway.

Hmmm, maybe. But then I did the math. Lets say one unit for the farm would be a processor, motherboard, RAM and the usual odds and sods for a bare bones system with capability. All in all, I could fit it in under $800 for the hardware.

That's a quad core E6600 with 4GB of RAM, maybe a 40GB HDD for the software and OS. A basic graphics card since the thing won't even have a monitor. The usual casing, PSU and cooling system. So yeah, about $800 or so. I'll have to dig up a switch, but that's only one unit.

If I want 32 cores, that's 8 systems so about $6400, about $6800 if I include all the extra stuff I'm probably forgetting just to be on the safe side. I can probably set that up that as a start.

The biggest problem is physical space though. I'm not sure where I'm going to find the room with the power sources to house and run 8 to 16 machines. Cooling, not so much of a problem. Liquid nitrogen is cheap, and I can purchase it in industrial levels.You could go with integrated graphics to cut costs even further, then get a discrete card for the one running a GUI.

Also consider moving to the Xeon, as you could potentially cut costs there. Even with an expensive Tyan mobo, it worked out to $1350CAD (Tyan i5000PX, 2x Xeon 5030[the site I use doesn't have a 2.4GHz Xeon], 40GiB Westgate Caviar, 8GiB PC2-6400 OCZ RAM), while the E6600 system I priced was $681 (Intel DG965RYCK mobo, Core 2 Duo E6600, 40GiB Westgate Caviar, and 4GiB PC2-6400 OCZ RAM). At 32 cores, that would save you $96 for the same slightly more power. But I neglected to add in case and PSU, which would add 8 times the cost of one PSU and case to the savings. Plus, if you look around a bit, you could probably find a motherboard cheaper than the Tyan i5000PX.

nothing wrong with vista, mostly just the users.

anyway

its mostly a fear of some that the evil corporation known as Microsoft is trying to take over the world.

nothing wrong with vista, mostly just the users.

anyway

its mostly a fear of some that the evil corporation known as Microsoft is trying to take over the world.Pure bs. MS is just trying to make as much money as possible; Linus Torvalds is the one trying to take over the world...

You could go with integrated graphics to cut costs even further, then get a discrete card for the one running a GUI.

I'm not too sure. If I remember correctly, you'd need three components to run a farm. A coordinator unit, the actual command unit to start the whole process and the farm (workhorse) units. Is that correct?


Also consider moving to the Xeon, as you could potentially cut costs there. Even with an expensive Tyan mobo, it worked out to $1350CAD (Tyan i5000PX, 2x Xeon 5030[the site I use doesn't have a 2.4GHz Xeon], 40GiB Westgate Caviar, 8GiB PC2-6400 OCZ RAM), while the E6600 system I priced was $681 (Intel DG965RYCK mobo, Core 2 Duo E6600, 40GiB Westgate Caviar, and 4GiB PC2-6400 OCZ RAM). At 32 cores, that would save you $96 for the same slightly more power. But I neglected to add in case and PSU, which would add 8 times the cost of one PSU and case to the savings. Plus, if you look around a bit, you could probably find a motherboard cheaper than the Tyan i5000PX.

Hmmm, I'd have to check on that. Not sure if the store I usually go to has Xeons with that configuration. Also, I checked with the pricing you use. I can get a Quad E6600 for about $300 or less now from my regular store. Along with the rest of the stuff you mentioned, I might come out of it a bit better off using that rather than the Xeon. I'll have to do some more precise calculations when I have the time.

Another big question is, how many PCs can you safely run on a single 240v socket? I don't have too many spare power points available in the rooms with sufficient space.

I'm not too sure. If I remember correctly, you'd need three components to run a farm. A coordinator unit, the actual command unit to start the whole process and the farm (workhorse) units. Is that correct?D have no idea; UpwardThrust is the distributed computing wiz, not me.
Hmmm, I'd have to check on that. Not sure if the store I usually go to has Xeons with that configuration. Also, I checked with the pricing you use. I can get a Quad E6600 for about $300 or less now from my regular store. Along with the rest of the stuff you mentioned, I might come out of it a bit better off using that rather than the Xeon. I'll have to do some more precise calculations when I have the time.Well, my configuration was tossed together quickly, but Quad E6600s would be the way to go (I managed to miss the fact you said quad core E6600 the first time, so my estimates for ram are now way off, which is good -- getting more than 4GiB of ram onto your standard desktop mobo gets expensive).
Another big question is, how many PCs can you safely run on a single 240v socket? I don't have too many spare power points available in the rooms with sufficient space.I'd say one, but then my single PC uses all the sockets in my powerbar, leaving the only other wall socket for my alarm clock. You could probably do two since they won't have printers/scanners/monitors/etc, but the would be going flat out for extended periods of time...

So my old computer system finally gave up the ghost, and I got a new one. It's a gaming system that has no problem running my games. Now this system has Windows Vista and at first I was worried that I would experience all the problems that I've heard about Windows Vista. Well as soon as I hook up the system, and got it running, guess what, nothing happened. I installed some programs, one or two games, I ran those games and everything ran smoothly. Hell I'm able to see one of my games in High detail now, which is awesome! So with the system obviously running great and everything, I have to wonder, what was wrong with Vista?

My experience is this... When you do your first OS update, it will become incompatible with the drivers to some hardware... Hopefully that has been fixed since I worked with Vista

My experience is this... When you do your first OS update, it will become incompatible with the drivers to some hardware... Hopefully that has been fixed since I worked with Vista

Vista SP1 is undergoing testing now.

My friends and I (half)jokingly refer to Vista as "Windows iVista OS 10 Millenium Edition powered by Steam.", because it seems to combine Microsofts horrible lack of concern for RAM and processor power, with a rip off of iMac OS 10 features, packaged together almost as badly and with the same compatability problems of Windows ME, and generally runs as slow as the god awful game + server software that seems to be literally powered by a rusty old steam engine. Needless to say, we are nerds.

:eek::eek::eek:

Wanna trade?

No but I can show you a picture

http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/cpu2.jpg

I'm not too sure. If I remember correctly, you'd need three components to run a farm. A coordinator unit, the actual command unit to start the whole process and the farm (workhorse) units. Is that correct?


Not necessarily you can usually do it with one controller and then the workhorse ... now there needs to be a forest level controller if you are doing a cluster of clusters

But there are TONES of different theroys on server clusters and really it depends on the work you are doing with them and how it lends itself to be split up

But my main experience is in database clusters which may or may not reflect what you would use for rendering


Hmmm, I'd have to check on that. Not sure if the store I usually go to has Xeons with that configuration. Also, I checked with the pricing you use. I can get a Quad E6600 for about $300 or less now from my regular store. Along with the rest of the stuff you mentioned, I might come out of it a bit better off using that rather than the Xeon. I'll have to do some more precise calculations when I have the time.

Another big question is, how many PCs can you safely run on a single 240v socket? I don't have too many spare power points available in the rooms with sufficient space.

Depends on amperage ... now I am ASSUMING a 240 would have a 10 amp service (I am just doing the conversion from the american 110 at about 20 amps for standard residential)

If so you would have to assume about 350 watts per machine (the reason for this is that each node would have a low end GPU and small if any HDD) as such you get

240 * 10 watts (2400)
2400/350 = 6.8

SO you could probably run about six off of one standard outlet

Not necessarily you can usually do it with one controller and then the workhorse ... now there needs to be a forest level controller if you are doing a cluster of clusters

But there are TONES of different theroys on server clusters and really it depends on the work you are doing with them and how it lends itself to be split up

But my main experience is in database clusters which may or may not reflect what you would use for rendering

It's closer to grid computing than server based database clusters, so I think it might be different.


Depends on amperage ... now I am ASSUMING a 240 would have a 10 amp service (I am just doing the conversion from the american 110 at about 20 amps for standard residential)

If so you would have to assume about 350 watts per machine (the reason for this is that each node would have a low end GPU and small if any HDD) as such you get

240 * 10 watts (2400)
2400/350 = 6.8

SO you could probably run about six off of one standard outlet

A 240 volt has 15 amps. As for watt requirement, won't it be higher due to the quad cores?

It's closer to grid computing than server based database clusters, so I think it might be different.



A 240 volt has 15 amps. As for watt requirement, won't it be higher due to the quad cores?

ITs in that neighborhood yes they will take more but most nodes are light on a lot of other stuff to bring their power usage down (things like rare CD rom drive usage, small and single hard drives ... usually you keep the ram down on a work node and high on a controll node)

So even if I add some more pad to 400 watts at 15 amps it would be about nine computers (as at first I was figuring for 10 amps)

I would probably put no more then 7


Edit and SGE uses a single control node as well so ...

Hmmm, if that's the case, better start out with 6 to start with. Should put me in a safe range of watt usage. Assuming quad cores, 24 cores shouldn't be too bad.

But RAM, that will have to be fairly hefty on the work units. Good processors matter yes, but RAM does as well. So probably at least 4GB per work system.

Hmmm, if that's the case, better start out with 6 to start with. Should put me in a safe range of watt usage. Assuming quad cores, 24 cores shouldn't be too bad.

But RAM, that will have to be fairly hefty on the work units. Good processors matter yes, but RAM does as well. So probably at least 4GB per work system.

That is VERY system dependent I have worked on some compu intensive grids that were actually light on ram and some Database clusters that ate ram for breakfast (like my 16 proc box has 65 gig in it for just that machine)

That is VERY system dependent I have worked on some compu intensive grids that were actually light on ram and some Database clusters that ate ram for breakfast (like my 16 proc box has 65 gig in it for just that machine)

Hmmm, using my own single machine render runs as a benchmark, I'd say at least 2-4 GB. Can't drop below that since I need a 64 bit OS to run the programs to begin with. 2GB is the minimum.

As for your 16 proc box, is that a Boxx?

Hmmm, using my own single machine render runs as a benchmark, I'd say at least 2-4 GB. Can't drop below that since I need a 64 bit OS to run the programs to begin with. 2GB is the minimum.

As for your 16 proc box, is that a Boxx?

Like as in the brand? no IBM ... replacing an HP one (they did not have a competitive one over 8 cores) and this is just one of 2 database servers we have and 3 front ends

Like as in the brand? no IBM ... replacing an HP one (they did not have a competitive one over 8 cores) and this is just one of 2 database servers we have and 3 front ends

A lot of computing power under the hood. But from everything you've said, it must be one damned big database.

I think I'll stick with my mini farm. Cheaper on the pocket. :p

A lot of computing power under the hood. But from everything you've said, it must be one damned big database.

I think I'll stick with my mini farm. Cheaper on the pocket. :p

Me? I'll wait for laptop Intel quad-core Penyns in 2008. :p
I think those might be hyperthreading too.

A lot of computing power under the hood. But from everything you've said, it must be one damned big database.

I think I'll stick with my mini farm. Cheaper on the pocket. :p

In the hundreds of millions of records we forced an update to the database that had to touch each record ... it took over 3 days to run even on that hardware