Hey Johan, have you tried not allowing the computer to use the other processor (or so as windows sees it) for the game process, because I have seen that this prevents the crashing while skipping, only draw back is you have to do it every single time you load the game. If you know how to do it great, if you don’t I will post how to do it later. later everyone.
Sorry, I couldn’t let this just stay here.
I’m currently running Vista Ultimate RTM (legal copy) on a 1.5GHz Pentium M laptop with 1GB of RAM and a Radeon 9000. It has a 4200RPM HDD with 2MB cache.
While consuming only slightly more RAM, this computer runs far faster under Vista, than it does under Windows 2000, a 7 year old operating system. On top of this, not only is it faster than Windows 2000 when it was running on the 4200RPM drive, it’s also faster than Windows 2000 on a 5400RPM drive with an 8MB cache. It boots faster, apps launch faster, network transfers are faster (this has been documented by other people as well, and there is a reason behind it). Sure, I get no Aero, but the interface looks better than XP’s even without it.
I had it installed on my 1.7GHz Dell Dimension 8200, bought in 2001. It has 768MB of RAM, GeForce 4 Ti4600, and a single 40GB Maxtor HDD that shipped with the PC. It still ran Vista faster than it runs XP. And consider this: XP is installed on a fairly new (few months old) 300GB Seagate with 16MB of cache (the Maxtor has a 2MB cache), along with its page file on a seperate 120GB drive with an 8MB cache.
I’ve also run SuSE 10.0 on the machine, and not only did Vista run faster than SuSE, but it used fewer resources.
This has been the case since RC1.
Considering these, it’s likely that a PC that meets Vista’s minimum requirements (512MB RAM, 800MHz CPU) would run Vista well.
Therefore, I ask you, good sir, to stop spreading FUD. The world needs less misinformation in general, and you certainly aren’t helping matters.
Going to point out that much of the information at that link is FUD.
Makes sense when you consider the group behind it.
Like I said…running the final right now and…I just don’t see how it’s a hog…
Correct, however, it has the features of x86 XP Pro, thus…
If it had the features of Starter Edition, I’m sure it’d be called XP Starter Edition x64 
Hey MS!
No i haven’t tried to use only one processor. I don’t think that i have the knowledge to do this.
I will be glad if you tell me how.
[ 12-19-2006, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Johan ]
open up task manager (XP is Crtl + Shift + ESC) with (for example, xchange 3 running) find the process (click on the processes tab) xc3.exe and right click on it. at the bottom of the list that shows up click on set affinity and unclick everything except CPU0. (normally you will only have an additional one saying CPU1 but some extreemests have dual coar plus hyper threading that give them an appearance of 4 processors)
hope you can understand this, if you can’t I will try again later.
Tanks MS.
I understand your explanition.
I will try it with Little My Maid, and I’m gonna nurse you 1 later this evening. Or maybe tomorrow, got a lot to do before christmas, have been putting up all the lights outside today.
[ 12-19-2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Johan ]
Neither are you. When Vista’s installation is less than 5 GB and you have tested on 512 MB RAM (which is HALF what you have now, a big difference), call me back.
My Windows 95 system still runs faster than any XP system I have used, including my powerful laptop. Vista only being a little better in your eyes, means that it’s still slow enough.
[ 12-19-2006, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Benoit ]
How am I not helping matters? I’m merely pointing out some errors that you seem to have mistakenly made. I encourage you to actually try the thing out before claiming to be an expert on it
As I stated, I tested on 768MB. I’ll yank out a stick and try it with 512MB tonight before bed.
I have tried Vista one of the beta versions, i was not impressed. I prefer my XP pro. But Win 95 was one of the fastes operatives i have had, it was also less crashprone than XP and Me and XP is less crashprone than Me. The earliest bishjou games i played, them i played on Win 95 it never crashed.
Infact i still use it on an old laptop to do engine diagnostic’s. Home i use XP pro because i have to use the same op as in my work when i work from home. Our IT manager say’s that we should wait very long before we change to vista.
I also still use Me on my old comp as an xtra websurfing computer at my home.
Mal
I would very much like to hear about your test with vista and 512GB.
But don’t see that link i put up as FUD, these newer operatives gives us less control over our computers and M$ more control.
But i shall not blame it all on M$ software piracy help them along quite well.
MS308680
I tested LMM with one core disabled and it did not crashed when i was skipping, it ran very smooth.
Then my girlfriend come home and got angry because i hadn’t tested the lights before i put them up, half of then did not work.
So no more gametesting before christmas.
[ 12-20-2006, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: Johan ]
glad to hear 
hope it works for anyone else that can understand my babbeling 
No problem MS, your explanation was easy to understand.
Thanks again
Well, you come in here claiming Vista runs great, but you run it on a high-powered (except for CPU) laptop.
No thanks, I fear it’s going to break my motherboard when hibernating. This already happened to someone, and yes, M$ knew about it.
I don’t have the space on my hard drive for it anyway.
I don’t think you can test an operating system in just a couple minutes, let alone hours.
[ 12-20-2006, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Benoit ]
quote:
Originally posted by Johan:
But don’t see that link i put up as FUD, these newer operatives gives us less control over our computers and M$ more control.
Here is another link
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2171373/microsoft-blames-vista
It proves what i wrote earlier.
Ehrm…my laptop may have been considered high-ish powered back in 2003, but it’s getting fairly dated now. 1.5GHz Pentium M Banias (that’s the original Pentium M, Dothan is the better one), 40GB 4200 HDD (it’s slooooow with large transfers, I can never do network transfers higher than 4MB/s, on 2000, XP, or Vista, it’s a hard disk bottleneck), 1GB of RAM, yes, but it’s PC2100, it’s kind of slow when you consider modern PC’s. Mobility Radeon 9000. It can play the best of 2004!
As you can (hopefully) see, this is not a high powered machine by any extent of the imagination. I cannot run Movie Maker on Vista, and I cannot run DVD Maker. The graphics card needs to support DX9 for that.
Hm…I’ve heard about other hibernation/sleep issues, but I haven’t encountered any of them since some of the later Beta 2 builds. They were fixed around RC1. For me at least.
I certainly haven’t heard of any hardware damage. Can I have a link?
I’m not looking for bugs or checking stability. I’m measuring performance with a reduced amount of memory. This doesn’t require days of general use. Just an hour or so of general use should suffice. Any more is somewhat overkill.
Well, I ran it for about an hour with 512MB. Basically, until I had to leave for work.
It runs very similarly to how 2000 runs with a gig of memory. This is because Vista manages the memory much better. There is very little lag when not using large apps (basically, browsing the web, watching videos, etc). There’s no lag in games (well, Counter Strike, which is the only working game I have installed (I also installed Second Life to test OpenGL support, but ATI hasn’t gotten around to it yet, apparently)). Gameplay is almost as smooth as with 1GB of RAM (There were a couple of instances where something had to load from the disk, but it was only a couple of seconds, and it only happened a few times during my 10 games). After quitting Counter Strike, apps did have to reload into memory, which is how 2000 is.
Now, something I found interesting…when running with 1GB of memory, and doing normal-ish things (file system browsing, listening to music, and browsing the web), I’ll be using 40-60% of RAM. With 512MB of RAM, I used between 50 and 65% of RAM. So Vista does cut back on its RAM usage when there’s less available, or so it seems.
Not that I expect you to accept my findings, Benoit. I know a few people like you, and as long as its Microsoft…well…you know the rest. But other people will see this as well, and will be able to draw their own conclusions.
But basically - No lag. Boot took slightly longer, maybe another 10 or 15 seconds, with the boot time being about a minute to a desktop (mind you, slow disk drive, though). Gaming didn’t see much of a hit, but if you’re into playing more games than Counter Strike (I don’t play it myself, I just have it to play with my friend), then your hardware is likely beefier than mine is, and you’ll likely have more than 512MB of memory.
Exactly what does it prove?
It proves that M$ vant to cut out third part programs, like alterantive webbrowsers, security, mail and chat clients.
Thanks for your input how vista worked for you. my experience with it wasn’t so good. I tested one of the beta’s on my new and powerful comp, it seemed like it slowed it down.
[ 12-22-2006, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Johan ]
I don’t have a link, it’s something I overheard at the System Administration of my school. Probably about his own laptop.
About your findings. It sounds good. I guess it’s as good/bad as XP in a way. I’m going to be a bit picky here for a second:
So, with 1 GB of RAM, for regular operation, you use 400 to 600 MB of RAM? And with 512 MB of RAM, 256 to 334 MB of RAM? Holy cow! That’s a lot for that kind of tasks.
As much as I dislike M$, I still choose to use one of their OSs on my personal PC. I didn’t switch to Linux, though I’ll be trying it out soon. There are more people like me out there.