DShiznit wrote:
I've used Vista, and it might not be bad per say, but I just don't like the way it uses ram. It keeps it in constant use with it's Super <font color=red>censored</font>, or whatever it's called, when it's not even using it, which sounds to me like a great way to wear out RAM. Also, every computer I've used that has it has run slow


Vista states it's requirements and recommended specs. You wouldn't blame the autobahn for your crappy honda going slow. Vista runs fine on my rig, and it's well over a year old.
KermMartian wrote:
some18kanal0n3 wrote:
Mac FTW.

Windows Seven is still basically going to be Vista, but it won't require a good chunk of the RAM and stuff. I've rarely used Vista, so I'm not one to slam it for anything =/
It's supposed to be the Vista frontend with a cleaner backend, basically.


That's exactly what I thought.


EDIT:
Oh, and since this is a BL thread, what langauage does Blockland run? C++?

I'm taking a C++ class during the next term in College (Spring), and figured BL can greatly help me learn if it is, in fact C++; I found that there is a Mac version and I'll be up to buying it.
you mean the torque game engine? its based on C++, and is scripted in "torquescript" which is vaguely related to C++ syntax
elfprince13 wrote:
you mean the torque game engine? its based on C++, and is scripted in "torquescript" which is vaguely related to C++ syntax
Closer to C# actually, imho.
DShiznit wrote:
I've used Vista, and it might not be bad per say, but I just don't like the way it uses ram. It keeps it in constant use with it's Super <font color=red>censored</font>, or whatever it's called, when it's not even using it, which sounds to me like a great way to wear out RAM. Also, every computer I've used that has it has run slow, slower than my <font color=red>censored</font> XP computer (I have 384mb of RAM, with only enough room to expand to 512 on this 10-year old ASUS motherboard, so what's the point of upgrading my RAM?), runs applications with incredible instability(frequent crashing, particularly when I alt+tab) and from what I've read, still uses 400mb of RAM when other applications demand more. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the 350+ extra megs I save with XP than a bunch of features I've never needed in my life and will probably never use. If I could I'd even downgrade to 2000, as I almost never had problems with it when I used it. As it is, I'm running XP in the classic mode, and have had little trouble and exceptional performance(I can run current-gen games on this piece of <font color=red>censored</font>, with only an early GeForce 6 series video card).

EDIT- we should seriously get back on topic though, have you made any more progress/money since your last post Elf?


You can't "wear out" RAM any more than you can "wear out" your CPU. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, pure and simple. And if you only have 512mb of RAM - get with the times. 2GB of RAM is only $25. As for why you would need more, hell, Firefox (which uses the least amount of RAM of any of the major browsers) can easily gobble up 100 to 400mb of RAM

I suggest you read this: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html
Well, RAM that's overused can overheat, and repeated heating/cooling cycles increase the chance of semiconductor failure, but that would be limited to a block or two, and not for a long while, and requires extremes of temperatures. If your machine has decent cooling there's nothing to worry about.
KermMartian wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
you mean the torque game engine? its based on C++, and is scripted in "torquescript" which is vaguely related to C++ syntax
Closer to C# actually, imho.


Alright. I'll check into both Torquescript & C#. Smile
Thanks.
KermMartian wrote:
Well, RAM that's overused can overheat, and repeated heating/cooling cycles increase the chance of semiconductor failure, but that would be limited to a block or two, and not for a long while, and requires extremes of temperatures. If your machine has decent cooling there's nothing to worry about.


Not really. RAM doesn't generate much heat, and it certainly doesn't create more heat the more data its holding. The heat spreaders on RAM modules are purely cosmetic Wink Still, for that sort of stress to actually damage it you would need temperatures exceeding 90C at least - RAM is rarely more than a few C hotter than the ambient temp i the case (which, for even poorly vented cases, is going to top out around 55-60C)
Kllrnohj wrote:
And if you only have 512mb of RAM - get with the times. 2GB of RAM is only $25. As for why you would need more, hell, Firefox (which uses the least amount of RAM of any of the major browsers) can easily gobble up 100 to 400mb of RAM
/blog/archives/000688.html


You're missing my point entirely. I haven't needed to "get with the times" in ten years, save for a video card update, which has saved me money and time. Right now, I can do just as much on my piece of shit as I could on a newer Vista machine. And I've used newer computers running Vista before. They're slow as shit, and as I've stated earlier, suck at running my programs. Maybe on Vista Firefox can take up 400 megs, I don't really know, but on all my XP machines I've never seen it go higher than 100. Mine's at 85 right now. I could upgrade my ram, but the max on my motherboard is 512, and my current is 384, so theres really no point unless I upgrade the motherboard and everything else, and to be honest I'd rather spend that money and time on legos...

speaking of legos, will there any new or unreleased/unused bricks in TBG?
DShiznit wrote:
You're missing my point entirely. I haven't needed to "get with the times" in ten years, save for a video card update, which has saved me money and time. Right now, I can do just as much on my piece of <font color=red>censored</font> as I could on a newer Vista machine. And I've used newer computers running Vista before. They're slow as <font color=red>censored</font>, and as I've stated earlier, suck at running my programs. Maybe on Vista Firefox can take up 400 megs, I don't really know, but on all my XP machines I've never seen it go higher than 100. Mine's at 85 right now. I could upgrade my ram, but the max on my motherboard is 512, and my current is 384, so theres really no point unless I upgrade the motherboard and everything else, and to be honest I'd rather spend that money and time on legos...


No, YOU are missing the point. You don't run an OS expecting modern hardware on an old system. Its stupid. Firefox uses the same amount of RAM regardless of the platform - be it XP, Vista, or even Linux, it'll use the same amount of RAM. If you've never seen it go over 100MB of RAM, then you don't have many tabs open.

If you don't want the very real, and very noticeable advantages that Vista brings - great. But don't spread FUD about it like a fucktard. Vista is most definitely FASTER THAN XP on hardware that meets the recommended specs in day to day usage.
Let me just start out by saying that I use vista as my primary OS, although I do use other OSs as well, and I realize that vista gets bashed a lot more than it deserves.

Now, my computer (laptop, actually) was a very nice gaming rig a year ago, when I bought it, and it has always ran speedily with vista. For most _modern_ machines, I think the same is true.
Now, even though any given program uses the same amount of resources on any machine and OS, I think there is a benefit to using a different OS on older, weaker computers: Less overhead. I run a very recent Ubuntu install with firefox 2 on an ancient pentium 2 that couldn't even run windows 98 well. Vista, of course, would have been an impossibility on that machine, having only 90 MBs of RAM.
However,if I installed ubuntu on my laptop, I think the speedup would be virtually unnoticeable in any normal operation, due to the much deeper well of resources available.
as of now, the only thing really bothering me about Vista is the crappy boot time, and the fact that the start menu doesn't do "Run"


[edit]

also, needing to do "Run As Administrator" on the cmd prompt instead of just being able to sudo. the UAC isn't too bad, although I might turn it off anyway.
Really? I couldn't handle UAC at all. I turned it off as soon as I found out I could. I love that it asks me if I want to run the autorun when I put a cd in, but if I say yes, it's dumb to ask me if I allow it to run setup.exe.
foamy3 wrote:
Really? I couldn't handle UAC at all. I turned it off as soon as I found out I could. I love that it asks me if I want to run the autorun when I put a cd in, but if I say yes, it's dumb to ask me if I allow it to run setup.exe.


the autorun is definitely improvement (I turned it off completely under XP). actually, I probably will turn off the UAC, since the only thing i'm worried about is files the try and auto-start themselves through a browser exploit, and windows asks about downloaded files before you run them anyway.
I've also completely disabled AutoRun on my XP machines (ie, all my Windows machines) because of some malware going around the lab that installs itself via autorun from flash drives.
elfprince13 wrote:
as of now, the only thing really bothering me about Vista is the crappy boot time, and the fact that the start menu doesn't do "Run"


O RLY?

Look, if you're gonna edit your registry and whatnot, you might as well go all out. I know a guy who has his XP machine configured to look and feel just like the beautiful child of Mac OS X and KDE. It's really quite unsettling to see, because you can't quite tell exactly what operating system he's running just by looking at it.

Very useful addition there, though. I would personally prefer it to be in the little text box that pops up with the start menu, which is what the elfprince meant originally, I think.

Mind sharing what you did to get that?
jbr, that sounds very cool, can you get us some screenshots of that setup for fawning and criticism?
Kllrnohj wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
as of now, the only thing really bothering me about Vista is the crappy boot time, and the fact that the start menu doesn't do "Run"


O RLY?


Oh and the search at the bottom can be used just like a run box FYI. but yeah I have turn on my start menu also.
jbr wrote:
Look, if you're gonna edit your registry and whatnot, you might as well go all out. I know a guy who has his XP machine configured to look and feel just like the beautiful child of Mac OS X and KDE. It's really quite unsettling to see, because you can't quite tell exactly what operating system he's running just by looking at it.

Very useful addition there, though. I would personally prefer it to be in the little text box that pops up with the start menu, which is what the elfprince meant originally, I think.

Mind sharing what you did to get that?


Who said anything about editing the registry? Just right click on the start menu->Properties->Customize. Then check the box labeled "Run command". Yeesh, n00bs don't even know how to check a box Razz
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 2 of 3
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement