Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Eben

Idle ram is wasted ram.  I think you are the one that is clueless as to the workings of superfetch. 

 

So instead of idle RAM you cache it with things you don't need? You claimed that superfetch only used 20-30 megs of RAM, that is the reason I called you clueless ( and because you essentially called me clueless ).

I don't need things to be cached if I only run a game on my computer. Besides that I really did not see my performance improve with superfetch, rather the opposite, and that is all what matters to me, real life performance.

 

 

Sorry, wasn't aware you'd turned your PC into a glorified game console.  I retract my statement.  If all you're doing is gaming, and never do anything else, then by all means, strip the hell out of it.

Sure I do other things with it, but the other things go fast as hell anyway and really don't need "improvement".

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Eben

Because in a world where people have desktop PCs with 8 gigs of ram (like the one I'm posting this on), people still cling to the idea that 20-30 megs of ram in use by the OS for some service they don't fully understand is 'wasted resources'.

IE, they're clueless. 

 

Superfetch in Vista took away all your RAM for caching purposes. Often there was more than 2GB of RAM that was used as cache from a total of 4GB RAM. Superfetch seems to be improved in Windows 7, but still I don't see a good reason to use it when playing games.

I think you are clueless about the workings of superfetch.

 

 

Idle ram is wasted ram.  I think you are the one that is clueless as to the workings of superfetch. 

 

So instead of idle RAM you cache it with things you don't need? You claimed that superfetch only used 20-30 megs of RAM, that is the reason I called you clueless ( and because you essentially called me clueless ).

I don't need things to be cached if I only run a game on my computer. Besides that I really did not see my performance improve with superfetch, rather the opposite, and that is all what matters to me, real life performance.

 

Cached Ram for Superfetch =! Used Ram.

Vista quickly deletes any cache files over RAM if an application tries to tries to write into the memory. Essentially, it only uses some 20-30 MB for the service itself, then uses the idle RAM to cache the most used files into the memory. Remember, the key here is "CACHED RAM doesn't mean USED RAM". Repeat that few dozen times.

Does it improve performance? Perhaps, it depends on how you use your system. You'll only see start up hic ups if you have slow Hard-Disk, thats all. On a gaming system it wouldn't really matter.

Originally posted by dhayes68

Vista used the same amount of ram for apps whether they were in the foreground, background or minimized.

Win7 reduces the ram usage of apps that are background or minimized.

Thats a big deal.

Okay, that is a big deal, and cool to know.

There are other improvements in Win7 that I Iike, but saying Vista was the worst OS ever is just not true, and most complains are related to imcompatible hard and software, that is only partly to blame on Vista.

Originally posted by Nickless_man

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Eben

Because in a world where people have desktop PCs with 8 gigs of ram (like the one I'm posting this on), people still cling to the idea that 20-30 megs of ram in use by the OS for some service they don't fully understand is 'wasted resources'.

IE, they're clueless. 

 

Superfetch in Vista took away all your RAM for caching purposes. Often there was more than 2GB of RAM that was used as cache from a total of 4GB RAM. Superfetch seems to be improved in Windows 7, but still I don't see a good reason to use it when playing games.

I think you are clueless about the workings of superfetch.

 

 

Idle ram is wasted ram.  I think you are the one that is clueless as to the workings of superfetch. 

 

So instead of idle RAM you cache it with things you don't need? You claimed that superfetch only used 20-30 megs of RAM, that is the reason I called you clueless ( and because you essentially called me clueless ).

I don't need things to be cached if I only run a game on my computer. Besides that I really did not see my performance improve with superfetch, rather the opposite, and that is all what matters to me, real life performance.

 

 

Cached Ram for Superfetch =! Used Ram.

Vista quickly deletes any cache files over RAM if an application tries to tries to write into the memory. Essentially, it only uses some 20-30 MB for the service itself, then uses the idle RAM to cache the most used files into the memory. Remember, the key here is "CACHED RAM doesn't mean USED RAM". Repeat that few dozen times.

Does it improve performance? Perhaps, it depends on how you use your system. You'll only see start up hic ups if you have slow Hard-Disk, thats all. On a gaming system it wouldn't really matter.

Cached RAM = Used RAM, but windows frees it when you start a program that needs it.

I guess I am a minimalist, and get rid of the things that I don't use or that do not benefit me.

 http://www.pcgamer.com/pdfs/Nov09_Windows7.pdf

PC Gamer had a pretty good review of Windows 7 as far as gamers are concerned.  Looks like the biggest impact is for you lucky folks that are using solid state drives:

"Windows 7 absolutely loves solid state drives, and performance increases over Windows Vista are sailing beyond 25 percent in many cases."

Looks like MS has done a good job listening to all the complaints and taking care of most of them.  It's funny how lame the new Apple commercials are now...... "uhhhh we can't think of anything bad to say about 7 we'll keep bringing up problems that happened with Windows 95, ME and etc."

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Nickless_man

*Snip*

 

Cached Ram for Superfetch =! Used Ram.

Vista quickly deletes any cache files over RAM if an application tries to tries to write into the memory. Essentially, it only uses some 20-30 MB for the service itself, then uses the idle RAM to cache the most used files into the memory. Remember, the key here is "CACHED RAM doesn't mean USED RAM". Repeat that few dozen times.

Does it improve performance? Perhaps, it depends on how you use your system. You'll only see start up hic ups if you have slow Hard-Disk, thats all. On a gaming system it wouldn't really matter.

 

Cached RAM = Used RAM, but windows frees it when you start a program that needs it.

I guess I am a minimalist, and get rid of the things that I don't use or that do not benefit me.

 

It obviously depends on the matter of preference, but, to be quite honest, Idle RAM really means wasted RAM. I see no reason to disable superfetch other than for the sake of disabling it. RAM is cheap, almost everyone have over 2GB RAM these days.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Toms hardware and Anandtech seem to be unanimous in this.  Windows 7 offers a negligible performance advantage over Vista.  The only real disparity is with in-network transfers.  I think this shows once again once you have a fast enough computer, the OS makes very little difference in performance.  With an OS its always about what it can support, not if it can be supported.

I would say you are close to accurate,the facts are that W7 is not much more than normal Vista.

I think you need to go one step further in game design.It is not all about if it can be supported there  is no question it CAN be supported,it is more about cost and IF developers want to support it.another factor is if they NEED to support it,right now we see the lowest tech game on the planet in WOW and it is making the most money,so there is no sense of panic amongst developers to step it up.Just look at the hundreds of games coming out and they are extremely linear and have boring designs.They are basically all the exact same with different skins,really not worth the price of admission.

There is really only a few things we do in games,craft,explore, chat,kill things,quest,build things.Has anyone actually seen much creativity in any of these areas?I have not seen any game go into extreme depth in any one area,they always scratch the surface giving us the bare bones.

So what OS we play on really has zero bearing ,other than frustrating us with compatibility issues.If Microsoft wants to earn some respect in creating windows,design a game only platform,the industry is definitely big enough to warrant it.The biggest move i have seen in gaming is as of late,the introduction of the AGEIA phys x engine.This will create a very noticeable difference in our games,much more so than the high cost of a Microsoft windows system.

I have to agree with Vista being very stable. After installing SP2, I have had zero crashes and zero blue screens.

Originally posted by talismen351

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Vista was always a good OS, very stable.

 

 

 

 

You are joking right? Seriously, I never have had so many issues with my PC since Windows ME. Vista was far from stable. Random crashes, many programs didn't work properly, compatibility issues with printers, cameras not working properly with it.

I put in Windows 7 and did not have to download a single compatable driver. Win7 was able to detect and update everything for me. With Vista I had to install everything, sound card, graphics driver, motherboard, and printer took days to finally get the dam thing working with vista.

I have had absolutely zero problems with vista.  It's been the most stable platform I've ever operated on.  But then again I have a beast of a machine that is more than capable of handling it.

Every time I hear someone bitching about Vista, I ask them what specs they are running and its always bare minimum or below specs.

I've got a free upgrade coupon that came with my version of Vista, and I'm loathe to upgrade simply because I've never had a single problem with Vista...  no sense fixing whats not broken.

Originally posted by comerb

I have had absolutely zero problems with vista.  It's been the most stable platform I've ever operated on.  But then again I have a beast of a machine that is more than capable of handling it.

Every time I hear someone bitching about Vista, I ask them what specs they are running and its always bare minimum or below specs.

I've got a free upgrade coupon that came with my version of Vista, and I'm loathe to upgrade simply because I've never had a single problem with Vista...  no sense fixing whats not broken.

I agree with you about Vista, however, the changes they've made to the UI and just the way the operating system works in general are worth it (to me, at least).  Homegroup is friggin' *awesome*, and works beautifully. 

Originally posted by comerb

I have had absolutely zero problems with vista.  It's been the most stable platform I've ever operated on.  But then again I have a beast of a machine that is more than capable of handling it.

Every time I hear someone bitching about Vista, I ask them what specs they are running and its always bare minimum or below specs.

I agree with you at 100%. I have never had any problems with Vista, whatsoever. I also must say that it has been the most stable platform for me aswell.

I noticed often that it was either lack of power on your machine or lack of faith/experience. Many times i helped friends and colleagues by just showing them the solutions for everything, explaining how Vista works and tell them that there actually is abit difference between XP and Vista. Not nessecarily bad ones, but differences non the less.

As soon as you can overcome these small, "problems" if you will, and learn as you go, most people agree afterawhile that Vista is actually a very good OS. No doubt.

Also, hearing good things about W7 makes me abit excited. Im having a x64 copy waiting for me, ready to be used whenever i feel like it. But i couldnt really care less, Vista is working so fine for me at the moment - But dont worry, ill try it when the time comes. There is just isnt any reason for me right now since im neither playing or working very much with my computer right now.
 

I say Microsoft should release a GAMERS XP call it "XPG" if you will, this will be a trimmed XP install with DX10 and all the crap gamers wont use taken out. I would duel boot Win7 and XPG quite happily.

I never had any trouble with Vista and I like Win7. And just for record, I do not put 3rd party no name drivers on my operating system, I do not install every free crap software and toolbar on the net, I do not place cheap hardware in my comp, maybe these are reasons I had no trouble at all with any Windows so far, who knows life moves in mysterious ways.

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Originally posted by Eben

Originally posted by dfan

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Pretty logical since windows 7 is only a slight adjustment of Vista.

Vista was always a good OS, very stable.

Windows 7 is a bit better out of the box than Vista, but for tweakers, the difference is negligeble as we tend to disable things like superfetch anyway. Basically they made Windows 7 more newbie friendly.

 

 

Little off-topic but why would anyone want to disable superfetch? One of the best new things in windows.
 

 

Because in a world where people have desktop PCs with 8 gigs of ram (like the one I'm posting this on), people still cling to the idea that 20-30 megs of ram in use by the OS for some service they don't fully understand is 'wasted resources'.

IE, they're clueless. 

 

Superfetch in Vista took away all your RAM for caching purposes. Often there was more than 2GB of RAM that was used as cache from a total of 4GB RAM. Superfetch seems to be improved in Windows 7, but still I don't see a good reason to use it when playing games.

I think you are clueless about the workings of superfetch.

 

He might be but there is at least one game that utilizes the chache function, Fallen Earth, apperantly the chacheing of files speeds up and makes lag from loading files less apperant.

I'm pretty shure though that there is alot of other games that could work well with this function.

 I would like links and I would also like comparisons. Cause so far I've heard many MANY people say it's a lot faster. I also read in PC Mag that it is almost twice as fast in both computing and application.

"Twice" is very harsh exaggeration. Only little faster with certain softwares. 

 Well, it's not twice as fast, but nearly, according to PC Mag. Just quoting the magazine.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Toms hardware and Anandtech seem to be unanimous in this.  Windows 7 offers a negligible performance advantage over Vista.  The only real disparity is with in-network transfers.  I think this shows once again once you have a fast enough computer, the OS makes very little difference in performance.  With an OS its always about what it can support, not if it can be supported.

The articles also said that many important things are faster, like loading time. It feels a lot faster but the performance increase when playing isn't much.
 

Still, I upgraded to it last week and are glad I did. Only negative is that HP havnt made drivers for my color laser yet, otherwise it works perfect. I like the new fast menus they made. I never liked Vista but this was worth my time, I upgraded from XP because XP only could use 1 gig of my 2 gigabyte gfx memory, and because I wanted Dx 10.

Originally posted by Loke666

  because XP only could use 1 gig of my 2 gigabyte gfx memory

What?
 

Originally posted by dfan

"Twice" is very harsh exaggeration. Only little faster with certain softwares. 

I think the stories snowball as it goes from one to the next.

The early reports were quite consistent,W7 offered little to no improvement at all and in some cases was slower because it u yet again is the same resource hog as Vista.

IMO W7 is nothing more than a Vista update,it solves a few issues they had with Vista,and offers better backward capability with the XP function,but over all,it does very little,not worth the time of day.By the time games and hardware are matched there will be another windows out.Geesh we saw almost zero gaming designed strictly for Vista,so you can bet the same thing again,developers are still using DX9c.

Until Microsoft wakes up and designs a gamers only type platform,their windows products will always be behind hardware and ahead of developers,never beneficial to gamers.

Originally posted by Wizardry

Geesh we saw almost zero gaming designed strictly for Vista,so you can bet the same thing again,developers are still using DX9c.

Until Microsoft wakes up and designs a gamers only type platform,their windows products will always be behind hardware and ahead of developers,never beneficial to gamers.

 

Thank consoles for that.
 

EDIT: Oh lord how much this forum software sucks.

Microsoft shouldn't have adoption problems with developers this time.  There is simply no reason not to exclusively support DX12 since its backwards compatible with DX9+.

I think the better approach for Microsoft in regards to gamers is to design shells, apps, and priority options when installing an OS.  This way there would be less tweaking required to get a system up for gaming primarily.  AMD has their Fusion program which is a good start, but is a bit broken.  Microsoft can pull off a much more polished version.

Originally posted by Jimmy562

Originally posted by talismen351

Originally posted by CyberWiz

Vista was always a good OS, very stable.

 

 

 

 

You are joking right? Seriously, I never have had so many issues with my PC since Windows ME. Vista was far from stable. Random crashes, many programs didn't work properly, compatibility issues with printers, cameras not working properly with it.

I put in Windows 7 and did not have to download a single compatable driver. Win7 was able to detect and update everything for me. With Vista I had to install everything, sound card, graphics driver, motherboard, and printer took days to finally get the dam thing working with vista.

i no people that had a fair few problems with Windows 7 and drivers. Vista for me was fine, had it for about 2 years and didn't have a single problem except the printer i had didn't release a new vista 64bit driver. Apart from that vista was fine. 

I do prefer Windows 7 though but vista wasn't that bad for me.

I to agree with this. I've used Vista for more than two years and have played a multitude of games with zero issues with performance from the client side. If any performance issues occurred at all it was from the network, if anything. I have pretty good hardware and I think it comes back to that. If you are running an operating system with hardware that barely meets the system requirements of a game then that's a problem. Windows 7 is nice as well and I haven't noticed any degradation between Vista and 7, in either direction. They both worked just fine. For Real.