Windows 7 |
Post Reply | Page 123 6> |
Author | |||||||
737Chris
Chief Pilot Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: The Abyss Points: 2247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 04 Jun 2009 at 11:40pm |
||||||
When Vista came out. . .well I was dissapointed, then I heard they were already whipping out another OS despite vista being flawed.
However apparently Windows 7 is actually very good, is this true ? Chris |
|||||||
Generic forum signature
|
|||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
It is Vista but with some major flaws fixed (like using twice as much memory for video as necessary, etc).
It's still a complete memory hog though. I can't run the RC because of a flaw in the video drivers. SLI causes the system crash, because the drivers can't handle it!!! Not like they haven't had time to get that working... Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||
Matt N
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Hertfordshire Points: 2287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I like it, nice and fast. Very stable during its BETA and now in its RC. Also not a great leap from Vista. If your PC and run Vista then it will also run Windows 7.
I remember the problems I had upgrading to Vista a couple of Months after the release, talk about having to wait a good 5 minutes for it to fully load.
Why not try Windows 7 your self on a spare HDD? See what you think.
Matt.
|
|||||||
Originally Posted by MartinW
I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
|||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Does FSX run any quicker on it?
Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||
Matt N
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Hertfordshire Points: 2287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I haven't tried FSX on Windows 7 yet. I've got Windows 7 on a old 5400RPM HDD with its 4MB cache. Compared to the norm 7200RPM and 32MB cache it wouldn't be fair results.
Matt.
|
|||||||
Originally Posted by MartinW
I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
|||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Load times will not affect how it runs. I really do not understand why people keep equating hard disk speed to processing performance.
I can only put it down to the same people having previously run Windows 98 with 1 Mb of RAM and thinking the swap file was the greatest invention ever. If you have 4 Gb or more of main system memory, and kill all process and services you don't require, the system will have no reason to use that damn invention they call a swap file. There is much uninformed rubbish spoken about disabling it etc.. in Windows. It isn't disabled on my XP install as it goes nuts if it isn't there (1 Mb will keep it happy for a while but it starts to complain quite quickly), but it is certainly disabled and deleted on my Vista install, and I run FSX all day without issues. The HD is accessed so infrequently it regularly powers down!!! History of the swap file: it was for the days when 1Mb of RAM cost you £500. Today I can buy 8Gb of RAM for £100. So... what spec is the system, and what performance do you get? Please try it - you might persuade me to reconfigure my HD again. Linux is currently occupying the space Win 7 did. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||
737Chris
Chief Pilot Joined: 04 Apr 2009 Location: The Abyss Points: 2247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Load times will not affect how it runs. I really do not understand why people keep equating hard disk speed to processing performance.
Yup , I know how you feel !
|
|||||||
Generic forum signature
|
|||||||
Matt N
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Hertfordshire Points: 2287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I'll give it an install today. Although I can't see how the seek times are going to be any quicker on a HDD which is 7 years old.
Matt.
|
|||||||
Originally Posted by MartinW
I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
|||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Huh??
Slow seek/read times simply mean it will take 10 minutes to load FS instead of 5! Your oriignal post on the matter suggested that because the HD was slow, FSX will run slow. I don't care how long it takes to load - I care about frames per second which is entirely CPU dependent. I presume the system is of a reasonable spec (e.g. Q6700, 4Gb RAM, etc.?). Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Except, in the case of FSX, drive speed could very well affect how it runs since it spends most of it's time loading in scenery - load times will not affect how it runs but the underlying speed of the drive could do so.
In the context of FSX his post was perfectly valid. Frames per second are not entirely CPU dependent, certainly not if there is a requirement to be almost constantly seeking and loading files from disk to produce those frames - if you had a suitably large floppy disk, do you think FSX would run okay...?
Except it's not a 'damn invention' and even if you have 4GB or more and kill the processes that you are fond of doing and which, as explained before, do a blind bit of difference and risk more problems than it's worth, the system will still use a swap file.
If you HD is accessed so infrequently when running FSX then you must be flying over an ocean - FSX more than any game lives by the hard drive, that's why the install is so huge because of the amount of stuff and frequency it brings in from it.
...and you'd still need a swap file.
There is much uninformed rubbish spoken about how Vista and Windows 7 are memory hogs. As explained numerous times in the past, memory is there to be used not to sit around empty. I can only put it down to the same people having previously run Windows 98 and thinking that having loads of empty RAM was the greatest thing ever... Windows 98 with 1Mb RAM...? 4Gb or more of main system memory? - need to get those units correct... |
|||||||
Matt N
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Hertfordshire Points: 2287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Thanks for that Magic Man. I thought I was loosing the plot this morning when I saw what Vulcan had posted.
I've had a look at the HDD (the one with Windows 7), and its not quite as old as I thought. It got 7200RPM and an 8MB Cache, so near enough the same as my current ones with FSX.
Vulcan, how do you want FSX? FSX with the two SP's? What do you want the settings put to?
The specs are:
C2D E6850 OC'ed to 3.6GHz
4GB PC2-8500 RAM
2 X ATI HD4870 (512MB)
160GB HDD - Windows 7 x64 RC
Matt.
EDIT: Forgot to say, the resolution will be 1920x1080.
|
|||||||
Originally Posted by MartinW
I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
|||||||
ConcordeGuy
Chief Pilot Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: Peterborough UK Points: 3734 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I have it now, it's great! So much better than Vista!
|
|||||||
Rides a 1999 Kawasaki ZZR600
|
|||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I was waiting for Techno’s input during his lunch hour. |
|||||||
TomA320
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Perth Scotland Points: 10235 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Is it free to Vista users?
|
|||||||
Matt N
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Hertfordshire Points: 2287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Its free to anyone, while its in RC.
Matt.
|
|||||||
Originally Posted by MartinW
I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
|||||||
Dambuster
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 3428 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Somehow I'm more looking forward to OSX Snow Leopard than to Windows 7, will transfer to Windows 7 if it's real smooth though. Especially if my hardware will have compatible drivers...
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
As for Windows 7, I like what I've seen so far. I downloaded the beta to try out Black Shark under a 64bit environment and it was better.
|
|||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Better in what way Techno?
|
|||||||
Magic Man
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Black Shark ran better - probably because my 4GB was able to be fully used under the 64bit OS but it was also faster - think that is because even though single threaded, the DX9 graphics system is able to better take advantage of the dual core processor under Vista and Windows 7 - or so I've read in the forums...
But, on it's own, Windows 7 seems a lot snappier than Vista and XP anyway, hard to put a finger on it really. Just opening file explorer and other windows and normal run-of-the-mill operations like that seem smoother. You get the prettiness of Vista gui stuff without the small niggles and snags - and the Vista issue with file copying is gone.
Running Armed Assault under it at full settings was no issue (not that it is on my XP install) but this is on the 7 beta so it seems very polished.
|
|||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
?????????? Are you lot still using HD controllers that require CPU time? How does the very slight disk access that occurs when you fly affect the sim to such an extent it slows it down? I did mean 1 Mb, not 1 Gb. It was not a typo, but certainly an exaggeration to make a point. The only times I have ever seen the HD directly impact the performance of an application is when the system is living off the swap file, or there are so many processes running in the background that the main app doesn't get much CPU time at all and is interrupted by disk I/O. If no-one disables anti-virus when running processor-intensive apps, this will have a huge impact too as the processor has to divert its attention from running the sim to scanning every disk access.
It's a far better coded sim. Bring up the debug info in-sim - it's using a mere 400 Mb of RAM. It can utilize dual-core under XP, but for some reason it only sees one core and starts in single core mode. If you task switch and set the affinity to all processors, it will use them.
Have you tried SP2 on Vista yet? It seems to have addressed this issue. File copy seems as quick as XP now, no delay (I certainly didn't see it when I copied 400 Mb of data last night - seemed almost instantaneous to the file transfer - far quicker!).
I'd love to get it working. I certainly like the 64-bit side of things (even on Vista). Vista is nice and stable, I just hate the UI layout. Explorer has taken a step backwards IMHO - it is always getting in my way. Wish there was a classic mode or something (if there is, please enlighten me). The bug in explorer is still there. Right-click still doesn't work for me in the main start menu. It does in my other user account - very strange. I'm missing the XP way of search, too. That search bar is extremely annoying. It seems to take longer to boot up now too. I'm not sure why that is. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||
Post Reply | Page 123 6> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |